The run on Silicon Valley Bank’s deposits this month went far deeper than was initially known.

Since the day regulators seized SVB, it was public knowledge that panicked customers withdrew $42 billion from the bank on March 9 on concerns that uninsured deposits were at risk.

Follow CNBC’s live coverage of the SVB hearing

But that pales in comparison to what would’ve gone out the next day, Michael Barr, vice chair for supervision at the Federal Reserve, testified Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee. Regulators shuttered SVB on March 10 in the biggest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis.  

“That morning, the bank let us know that they expected the outflow to be vastly larger based on client requests,” Barr said. “A total of $100 billion was scheduled to go out the door that day.”

The combined withdrawal figure of $142 billion represents a staggering 81% of SVB’s $175 billion in deposits as of the end of last year. The dizzying pace at which money left SVB shows how quickly bank runs can happen when social media heightens panic and online banking allows for quick transactions.

Lawmakers summoned top U.S. banking regulators to Washington to explain why Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed earlier this month. Barr and others pointed to mismanagement by bank executives, and noted that banks with assets of more than $100 billion may need stricter rules. The former CEOs of the banks did not attend.

In fact, Fed supervisors began warning SVB management about the risk that higher interest rates posed to the bank’s balance sheet in November 2021, Barr testified. The bank “failed to address” Fed concerns in a timely way, exposing the company to its deposit run this month.

SVB’s final days as an independent bank were a roller coaster of emotions. After SVB management “spooked” investors and customers with its “belated” attempt to raise capital late Wednesday, March 8, the situation appeared to have calmed early Thursday, Barr testified.

“But later Thursday afternoon, deposit outflows started and by Thursday evening, we learned that more than $42 billion, as you indicated, had rushed out of the bank,” he said.

Fed staff worked around the clock on March 9 to save the bank, searching for enough collateral to borrow additional billions of dollars from the Fed’s discount window to honor withdrawal requests, Barr said.

The morning SVB was seized, regulators believed they may have solved the bank’s shortfall, only to run into a $100 billion wall of withdrawals.

“They were not able to actually meet their obligations to pay their depositors over the course of that day and they were shut down,” Barr said.

The surge of deposits moving from smaller banks to big institutions including JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo amid fears over the stability of regional lenders has slowed to a trickle in recent days, CNBC has learned.

Uncertainty caused by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank earlier this month triggered outflows and plunging share prices at peers including First Republic and PacWest.

related investing news

The situation, which roiled markets globally and forced U.S. regulators to intervene to protect bank customers, began improving around March 16, according to people with knowledge of inflows at top institutions. That’s when 11 of the biggest American banks banded together to inject $30 billion into First Republic, essentially returning some of the deposits they’d gained recently.

“The people who panicked got out right away,” said the person. “If you haven’t made up your mind by now, you are probably staying where you are.”

The development gives regulators and bankers breathing room to address strains in the U.S. financial system that emerged after the collapse of SVB, the go-to bank for venture capital investors and their companies. Its implosion happened with dizzying speed this month, turbocharged by social media and the ease of online banking, in an event that’s likely to impact the financial world for years to come.

Within days of its March 10 seizure, another specialty lender Signature Bank was shuttered, and regulators tapped emergency powers to backstop all customers of the two banks. Ripples from this event reached around the world, and a week later Swiss regulators forced a long-rumored merger between UBS and Credit Suisse to help shore up confidence in European banks.

The dynamic has put big banks like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs in the awkward position of playing multiple roles simultaneously in this crisis. Big banks are advising smaller ones while participating in steps to renew confidence in the system and prop up ailing lenders like First Republic, all while gaining billions of dollars in deposits and being in the position of potentially bidding on assets as they come up for sale.

The broad sweep of those money flows are apparent in Federal Reserve data released Friday, a delayed snapshot of deposits as of March 15. While large banks appeared to gain deposits at the expense of smaller ones, the filings don’t capture outflows from SVB because it was in the same big-bank category as the companies that gained its dollars.

Although inflows into one top institution have slowed to a “trickle,” the situation is fluid and could change if concerns about other banks arise, said one person, who declined to be identified speaking before the release of financial figures next month. JPMorgan will kick off bank earnings season on April 14.

At another large lender, this one based on the West Coast, inflows only slowed in recent days, according to another person with knowledge of the matter.

JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo representatives declined to comment for this article.

The moves mirror what one newer player has seen as well, according to Brex co-founder Henrique Dubugras. His startup, which caters to other VC-backed growth companies, has seen a surge of new deposits and accounts after the SVB collapse.

“Things have calmed down for sure,” Dubugras told CNBC in a phone interview. “There’s been a lot of ins and outs, but people are still putting money into the big banks.”

The post-SVB playbook, he said, is for startups to keep three to six months of cash at regional banks or new entrants like Brex, while parking the rest at one of the four biggest players. That approach combines the service and features of smaller lenders with the perceived safety of too-big-to-fail banks for the bulk of their money, he said.

“A lot of founders opened an account at a Big Four bank, moved a lot of money there, and now they’re remembering why they didn’t do that in the first place,” he said. The biggest banks haven’t historically catered to risky startups, which was the domain of specialty lenders like SVB.

Dubugras said that JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, was the largest single gainer of deposits among lenders this month, in part because VCs have flocked to the bank. That belief has been supported by anecdotal reports.

For now, attention has turned to First Republic, which has teetered in recent weeks and whose shares have lost 90% this month. The bank is known for its success in catering to wealthy customers on the East and West coasts.

Regulators and banks have already put together a remarkable series of measures to try to save the bank, mostly as a kind of firewall against another round of panic that would swallow more lenders and strain the financial system. Behind the scenes, regulators believe the deposit situation at First Republic has stabilized, Bloomberg reported Saturday.

First Republic has hired JPMorgan and Lazard as advisors to come up with a solution, which could involve finding more capital to remain independent or a sale to a more stable bank, said people with knowledge of the matter.

If those fail, there is the risk that regulators would have to seize the bank, similar to what happened to SVB and Signature, they said. A First Republic spokesman declined comment.

While the deposit flight from smaller banks has slowed, the past few weeks have exposed a glaring weakness in how some have managed their balance sheets. These companies were caught flat-footed as the Fed engaged in its most aggressive rate hiking campaign in decades, leaving them with unrealized losses on bond holdings. Bond prices fall as interest rates rise.

It’s likely other institutions will face upheaval in the coming weeks, Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser said during an interview on Wednesday.

“There could well be some smaller institutions that have similar issues in terms of their being caught without managing balance sheets as ably as others,” Fraser said. “We certainly hope there will be fewer rather than more.”

On Wednesday, Silicon Valley Bank was a well-capitalized institution seeking to raise some capital.

Within 48 hours, a panic induced by the very venture capital community that SVB had served and nurtured ended the bank’s 40-year-run.

Regulators shuttered SVB Friday and seized its deposits in the largest U.S. banking failure since the 2008 financial crisis and the second-largest ever. The company’s downward spiral began late Wednesday, when it surprised investors with news that it needed to raise $2.25 billion to shore up its balance sheet. What followed was the rapid collapse of a highly-respected bank that had grown alongside its technology clients.

Even now, as the dust begins to settle on the second bank wind-down announced this week, members of the VC community are lamenting the role that other investors played in SVB’s demise.

“This was a hysteria-induced bank run caused by VCs,” Ryan Falvey, a fintech investor of Restive Ventures, told CNBC. “This is going to go down as one of the ultimate cases of an industry cutting its nose off to spite its face.”

The episode is the latest fallout from the Federal Reserve’s actions to stem inflation with its most aggressive rate hiking campaign in four decades. The ramifications could be far-reaching, with concerns that startups may be unable to pay employees in coming days, venture investors may struggle to raise funds, and an already-battered sector could face a deeper malaise.

The roots of SVB’s collapse stem from dislocations spurred by higher rates. As startup clients withdrew deposits to keep their companies afloat in a chilly environment for IPOs and private fundraising, SVB found itself short on capital. It had been forced to sell all of its available-for-sale bonds at a $1.8 billion loss, the bank said late Wednesday.

The sudden need for fresh capital, coming on the heels of the collapse of crypto-focused Silvergate bank, sparked another wave of deposit withdrawals Thursday as VCs instructed their portfolio companies to move funds, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The concern: a bank run at SVB could pose an existential threat to startups who couldn’t tap their deposits.

SVB customers said they didn’t gain confidence after CEO Greg Becker urged them to “stay calm” in a call that began Thursday afternoon, and the stock’s collapse continued unabated, reaching 60% by the end of regular trading. Importantly, Becker couldn’t assure listeners that the capital raise would be the bank’s last, said a person on the call.

All told, customers withdrew a staggering $42 billion of deposits by the end of Thursday, according to a California regulatory filing.

By the close of business that day, SVB had a negative cash balance of $958 million, according to the filing, and failed to scrounge enough collateral from other sources, the regulator stated.

By Friday, as shares of SVB continued to sink, the bank ditched efforts to sell shares, CNBC’s David Faber reported. Instead, it was looking for a buyer, he reported. But the flight of deposits made the sale process harder, and that effort failed too, Faber said.

Friday evening, some SVB customers received emails assuring them that it was “business as usual” at the bank.

“I’m sure you’ve been hearing some buzz about SVB in the markets today so wanted to reach out to provide some context,” one SVB banker wrote to a client, according to a copy obtained by CNBC.

“It is business as usual at SVB,” the banker wrote. “Understandably there may be questions and I want to make myself available if you have any concerns.”

Falvey, a former SVB employee who launched his own fund in 2018, pointed to the highly interconnected nature of the tech investing community as a key reason for the bank’s sudden demise. Prominent funds including Union Square Ventures and Coatue Management blasted emails to their entire rosters of startups in recent days, instructing them to pull funds out of SVB on concerns of a bank run. Social media only heightened the panic, he noted.

“When you say, `Hey, get your deposits out, this thing is gonna fail,” that’s like yelling fire in a crowded theater,” Falvey said. “It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Falvey, who started his career at Wells Fargo and consulted for a bank that was seized during the financial crisis, said that his analysis of SVB’s mid-quarter update gave him confidence. The bank was well capitalized and could make all depositors whole, he said. He even counseled his portfolio companies to keep their funds at SVB as rumors swirled.

Now, thanks to the bank run that ended in SVB’s seizure, those who remained with SVB face an uncertain timeline for retrieving their money. While insured deposits are expected to be quickly available, the lion’s share of deposits held by SVB were uninsured, and its unclear when they will free up.

“The precipitous deposit withdrawal has caused the Bank to be incapable of paying its obligations as they come due,” the California financial regulator stated. “the bank is now insolvent.”

JPMorgan Chase has hired a Singapore-based quantum-computing expert to be the bank’s global head for quantum communications and cryptography, according to a memo obtained by CNBC.

Charles Lim, an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore, will be focused on exploring next generation computing technology in secure communications, according to the memo from Marco Pistoia, who runs the bank’s global technology applied research group.

Lim is a “recognized worldwide leader” in the area of quantum-powered communications networks, according to Pistoia.

Hired from IBM in early 2020, Pistoia has built a team at JPMorgan focused on quantum computing and other nascent technologies. Unlike today’s computers, which store information as either zeros or ones, quantum computing hinges on quantum physics. Instead of being binary, qubits can simultaneously be a combination of both zero and one, as well as any value in between.

The futuristic technology, which involves keeping hardware at super-cold temperatures and is years away from commercial use, promises the ability to solve problems far beyond the reach of today’s traditional computers. Technology giants including Alphabet and IBM are racing toward building a reliable quantum computer, and financial firms including JPMorgan and Visa are exploring possible uses for it.

“New horizons are going to become possible, things we didn’t think would be possible before,” Pistoia said in a JPMorgan podcast interview.

In finance, machine-learning algorithms will improve to help fraud detection on transactions and other areas that involve “prohibitive complexity,” including portfolio optimization and options pricing, he said.

Drug development, materials science for batteries and other areas will be transformed by the dramatically advanced computing, he added.

But if and when the advanced computing technology becomes real, the encryption techniques that underpin the world’s communications and financial networks could immediately be rendered useless. That has spurred the study of next generation quantum-resistant communication networks, which is Lim’s area of expertise.

New forms of cryptography and secure messaging are needed ahead of quantum supremacy, or the point when quantum computers are able to perform calculations beyond the scope of traditional computers in any reasonable time frame, Pistoia said during the podcast.

That could happen by the end of the decade, he said.

The quantum advantage precedes that development and could happen as soon as two or three years from now, he said. At that point the new computers are more powerful and accurate than today’s versions but they are competitive.

“Even now that quantum computers are not yet that powerful, we don’t have so much time left,” Pistoia said in the podcast. That’s because bad actors are already preserving private communications to attempt to decrypt it later when the technology allows for it, he said.

Lim will “pursue both foundational and applied research in quantum information, focusing on innovative digital solutions that will enhance the security, efficiency, and robustness of financial and banking services,” Pistoia said in the memo.

Lim is a recipient of the National Research Foundation Fellowship in Singapore and won the National Young Scientist Award in 2019 for his work in quantum cryptography, said Pistoia.

Last year, Lim was asked to lead his country’s effort to create quantum-resistant digital solutions, and he has been involved in international efforts to standardize quantum-security techniques, Pistoia added.

Goldman Sachs on Monday posted profit and revenue that exceeded analysts’ estimates as fixed income traders generated roughly $700 million more revenue than expected.

Here’s what the company reported compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by Refinitiv:

Earnings per share: $7.73 vs. $6.58 expectedRevenue: $11.86 billion vs. $10.86 billion expected

Second-quarter profit fell 48% to $2.79 billion, or $7.73 a share, driven by industrywide declines in investment banking revenue. Still, the per share results were more than a dollar higher than the average analyst estimate reported by Refinitiv.

Revenue fell 23% to $11.86 billion, which was a full $1 billion more than analysts had expected, driven by a 55% surge in fixed income revenue.

The bank’s fixed income operations generated $3.61 billion in revenue, topping the $2.89 billion StreetAccount estimate. Goldman attributed the performance to “significantly higher” trading activity in interest rates, commodities and currencies. Equities revenue rose 11% to $2.86 billion, edging out the $2.68 billion StreetAccount estimate.

Goldman shares were up about 4% in premarket trading.

“We delivered solid results in the second quarter as clients turned to us for our expertise and execution in these challenging markets,” CEO David Solomon said in the release.

“Despite increased volatility and uncertainty, I remain confident in our ability to navigate the environment, dynamically manage our resources and drive long-term, accretive returns for shareholders,” he said.

Goldman tends to outperform other banks during periods of high volatility, as displayed by the firm’s strong fixed income results.

Similar to rivals including JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley who posted steep declines in second-quarter advisory revenue, Goldman said investment banking revenue dropped 41% to $2.14 billion, slightly higher than the $2.07 billion estimate. The firm blamed a sharp slowdown in equity and debt issuance in the quarter, one of the casualties of surging interest rates and declines across financial assets.

The bank said its deals backlog shrank compared with the first quarter, which could indicate that potential mergers and IPOs are being killed instead of being pushed back into future quarters.

Goldman also tends to benefit from rising asset prices through its various investment vehicles, and so broad declines in financial assets stung the firm in the quarter.

Asset management revenue fell 79% from a year earlier to $1.08 billion, edging out the $924.4 million estimate. The decline came from losses in publicly traded stocks and smaller gains in private equity holdings, the bank said.

“Macroeconomic concerns and the prolonged war in Ukraine continued to contribute to the volatility in global equity prices and wider credit spreads,” the bank noted.

Last week, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo also posted write-downs tied to declines in loan books or equity holdings.

Goldman’s consumer and wealth management revenue rose 25% to $2.18 billion, essentially matching analysts’ estimates, on rising management fees, credit card balances and deposits in its digital banking business.

Goldman shares have fallen 23% this year through Friday, worse than the 16% decline of the KBW Bank Index.

Last week, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo posted second-quarter profit declines as the banks set aside more funds for expected loan losses, while Morgan Stanley disappointed after a bigger-than-expected slowdown in investment banking. Citigroup topped expectations for revenue as it benefited from rising rates and strong trading results.