SVB’s Supervisory Lesson: Focus on the Risks That Matter

More than three years after Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, the Federal Reserve has released the initial findings of an independent review examining not only what went wrong at SVB, but why supervisors failed to act on vulnerabilities they had identified.

Those findings are also reflected in the Fed's finalized changes to stress tests, announced this week. The two final rules are intended to make its stress tests more transparent, granular, and risk-sensitive while reducing volatility in stress-test-related capital requirements.

The findings of the SVB report are striking: Fed supervisors knew, or should have known, about SVB’s vulnerabilities as early as March 2022, but did not act promptly to address them. The review points in part to a culture of risk aversion in which supervisors felt it was safer to take no action than risk taking the wrong one.

The broader lesson is simple: effective bank supervision is not about "more regulation" or "less regulation." It is about identifying the risks that matter and acting on them before they become larger problems.

When supervision loses sight of material risk

Outside experts have been raising a similar point for years: supervision can become less effective when examiners are stretched across too many priorities or overly focused on process rather than material risks.

Raj Date, former CFPB deputy director and managing partner of Fenway Summer, noted in a 2024 analysis that sprawling examinations can obscure the issues that matter most:

• "If they focus on too many things, they absolutely will miss the forest for the trees."

Karen Petrou, managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics, similarlywarnedthat supervisory systems can become so encumbered by internal requirements that they struggle to "distinguish material weaknesses from minor failings."

That principle extends beyond traditional safety-and-soundness supervision. In a 2026 public comment on financial-crime compliance, Foundation for Defense of Democracies researchers, Elaine Dezenski and Daniel Swift, endorsed an "effectiveness-based, risk-calibrated" approach focused on genuine threats rather than "procedural box-checking."

The lesson matters beyond SVB

The SVB findings come as the Federal Reserve is rethinking other parts of its supervisory framework as well. On September 18, Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman said the Board is moving toward final revisions intended to make the stress-testing process more transparent, reliable, and responsive to real risk.

The bottom line: Good supervision is not about doing more for the sake of doing more. It is about identifying material vulnerabilities early, focusing supervisory attention where it matters most, and acting before those vulnerabilities threaten a bank or the broader financial system.

For more updates like this, sign up for The Ledger Project’s emails here.