(Headline USA) The Federal Reserve is facing stinging criticism for missing what observers say were clear signs that uber-woke Silicon Valley Bank was at high risk of collapsing into the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

The California-based SVB and another failed financial institution, New York-based Signature Bank, have both come under fire for their questionable priorities, including virtue-signaling their progressive politics, while engaging in risky and reckless practices.

Yet, others are deflecting blame from the banks themselves and pointing fingers, instead, at the Fed, for daring to attempt to address the Biden administration’s skyrocketing inflation through rate hikes.

Critics point to many red flags surrounding the bank, including its rapid growth since the pandemic, its unusually high level of uninsured deposits and its many investments in long-term government bonds and mortgage-backed securities, which tumbled in value as interest rates rose.

“It’s inexplicable how the Federal Reserve supervisors could not see this clear threat to the safety and soundness of banks and to financial stability,” said Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of Better Markets, an advocacy group.

Wall Street traders and industry analysts “have been publicly screaming about these very issues for many, many months going back to last fall,” Kelleher added.

Kelleher served on the transition team for President Joe Biden and may be eager to find a scapegoat who will pre-empt scrutiny of the current administration’s economic policies.

Some have also speculated that the bank failures and resulting bailouts may be a ruse for the Treasury Department to assert more oversight authority, including a new push for government cryptocurrency.

The Fed was the primary federal supervisor of the bank based in Santa Clara, California, that failed last week. The bank was also overseen by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation.

Now the consequences of the bank failures are complicating the Fed’s upcoming decisions about how high to raise its benchmark interest rate.

Many economists say the central bank would likely have raised rates by an aggressive half-point next week at its meeting, which would amount to a step up in its inflation fight, after the Fed implemented a quarter-point hike in February. Its rate currently stands at about 4.6%, the highest level in 15 years.

Last week, economists suggested that Fed policymakers would raise their projection for future rates next week to 5.6%. Now it’s suddenly unclear how many additional rate increases the Fed will forecast.

With the collapse of the two large banks fueling anxiety about other regional banks, the Fed may focus more on boosting confidence in the financial system than on its long-term drive to tame inflation.

The latest government report on inflation, released Tuesday, shows that price increases remain far higher than the Fed prefers, putting Chair Jerome Powell in a tougher spot.

Core prices, which exclude volatile food and energy costs and are seen as a better gauge of longer-run inflation, jumped 0.5% from January to February—the most since September. That is far higher than is consistent with the Fed’s 2% annual target.

“Absent the fallout from the bank failure, it may have been a close call, but I think it would have tipped them towards a half-point [rate hike] at this meeting,” said Kathy Bostjancic, chief economist at Nationwide.

On Monday, Powell announced that the Fed would review its supervision of Silicon Valley to understand how it might have better managed its regulation of the bank. The review will be conducted by Michael Barr, the Fed vice chair who oversees bank oversight, and will be publicly released May 1.

A Federal Reserve spokesperson declined to comment further.

Elizabeth Smith, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, said, “We are actively investigating the situation and conducting a thorough review to ensure the Department is doing everything we can to protect Californians.”

By all accounts, Silicon Valley was an unusual bank. Its management took excessive risks by buying billions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities and Treasury bonds when interest rates were low.

As the Fed continually raised interest rates to fight inflation, leading to higher rates on Treasurys, the value of Silicon Valley Bank’s bonds steadily lost value.

Most banks would have sought to make other investments to offset that risk. The Fed could have also forced the bank to raise additional capital.

The bank had grown rapidly. Its assets quadrupled in five years to $209 billion, making it the 16th-largest bank in the country. And roughly 94% of its deposits were uninsured because they exceeded the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s $250,000 insurance cap.

That percentage was the second highest among banks with more than $50 billion in assets, according to ratings agency S&P. Signature had the fourth-highest percentage of uninsured deposits.

Such an unusually high proportion made Silicon Valley Bank highly susceptible to the risk that depositors would quickly withdraw their money at the first sign of trouble—a classic bank run—which is exactly what happened.

“I’m at a loss for words to understand how this business model was deemed acceptable by their regulators,” said Aaron Klein, a former congressional aide, now at the far-left Brookings Institution, who worked on the Dodd–Frank banking regulation law that was passed after the 2008 financial crisis.

The bank failures will likely color an upcoming Fed review of rules that set out how much money large banks must hold in reserve.

Barr said last year that he wanted to conduct a “holistic” review of those requirements, raising concerns in the banking industry that the review would lead to rules forcing banks to hold more reserves, which would limit their ability to lend.

Leftist critics also point to a bipartisan 2018 law as softening bank regulations in ways that contributed to Silicon Valley’s failure. The law exempted banks with $100 billion to $250 billion in assets—Silicon Valley’s size—from requirements that included regular examinations of how they would fare in tough economic times, known as “stress tests.”

Silicon Valley’s CEO, Greg Becker, had lobbied Congress in support of the rollback in regulations, and he served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco until the day of the collapse.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., asked him him about his lobbying in a letter released Tuesday.

“These rules were designed to safeguard our banking system and economy from the negligence of bank executives like yourself—and their rollback, along with atrocious risk management policies at your bank, have been implicated as chief causes of its failure,” Warren’s letter said.

The 2018 law also provided the Fed with more discretion in its bank oversight. The central bank subsequently voted to further reduce regulation for banks the size of Silicon Valley.

In October 2019, the Fed voted to effectively reduce the capital those banks had to hold in reserve.

Kelleher said the Fed still could have pushed Silicon Valley Bank to take steps to protect itself.

“Nothing in that law prevented in any way the Federal Reserve supervisors from doing their job,” Kelleher said.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press