For 15 years, former Texas schoolteacher Kayla Morris put every dollar she could save into a home for her growing family.
When she and her husband sold the house last year, they stowed away the proceeds, $282,153.87, in what they thought of as a safe place — an account at the savings startup Yotta held at a real bank.
Morris, like thousands of other customers, was snared in the collapse of a behind-the-scenes fintech firm called Synapse and has been locked out of her account for six months as of November. She held out hope that her money was still secure. Then she learned how much Evolve Bank & Trust, the lender where her funds were supposed to be held, was prepared to return to her.
“We were informed last Monday that Evolve was only going to pay us $500 out of that $280,000,” Morris said during a court hearing last week, her voice wavering. “It’s just devastating.”
The crisis started in May when a dispute between Synapse and Evolve Bank over customer balances boiled over and the fintech middleman turned off access to a key system used to process transactions. Synapse helped fintech startups like Yotta and Juno, which are not banks, offer checking accounts and debit cards by hooking them up with small lenders like Evolve.
In the immediate aftermath of Synapse’s bankruptcy, which happened after an exodus of its fintech clients, a court-appointed trustee found that up to $96 million of customer funds was missing.
The mystery of where those funds are hasn’t been solved, despite six months of court-mediated efforts between the four banks involved. That’s mostly because the estate of Andreessen Horowitz-backed Synapse doesn’t have the money to hire an outside firm to perform a full reconciliation of its ledgers, according to Jelena McWilliams, the bankruptcy trustee.
But what is now clear is that regular Americans like Morris are bearing the brunt of that shortfall and will receive little or nothing from savings accountsthat they believed were backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
The losses demonstrate the risks of a system where customers didn’t have direct relationships with banks, instead relying on startups to keep track of their funds, who offloaded that responsibility onto middlemen like Synapse.
Zach Jacobs, 37, of Tampa, Florida helped form a group called Fight For Our Funds after losing more than $94,000 that he had in a fintech savings account called Yotta.
Courtesy: Zach Jacobs
‘Reverse bank robbery’
There are thousands of others like Morris. While there’s not yet a full tally of those left shortchanged, at Yotta alone, 13,725 customers say they are being offered a combined $11.8 million despite putting in $64.9 million in deposits, according to figures shared by Yotta co-founder and CEO Adam Moelis.
CNBC spoke to a dozen customers caught in this predicament, people who are owed sums ranging from $7,000 to well over $200,000.
From FedEx drivers to small business owners, teachers to dentists, they described the loss of years of savings after turning to fintechs like Yotta for the higher interest rates on offer, for innovative features or because they were turned away from traditional banks.
One Yotta customer, Zach Jacobs, logged onto Evolve’s website on Nov. 4 to find he was getting back just $128.68 of the $94,468.92 he had deposited — and he decided to act.
Zach Jacobs decided to act after logging onto Evolve’s website on Nov. 4 to find he was getting just $128.68 of his $94,468.92 in deposits.
Courtesy: Zach Jacobs
The 37-year-old Tampa, Florida-based business owner began organizing with other victims online, creating a board of volunteers for a group called Fight For Our Funds. It’s his hope that they gain attention from press and politicians.
So far, 3,454 people have signed on, saying they’ve lost a combined $30.4 million.
“When you tell people about this, it’s like, ‘There’s no way this can happen,'” Jacobs said. “A bank just robbed us. This is the first reverse bank robbery in the history of America.”
Andrew Meloan, a chemical engineer from Chicago, said he had hoped to see the return of $200,000 he’d deposited with Yotta. Early this month, he received an unexpected PayPal remittance from Evolve for $5.
“When I signed up, they gave me an Evolve routing and account number,” Meloan said. “Now they’re saying they only have $5 of my money, and the rest is someplace else. I feel like I’ve been conned.”
A bank just robbed us. This is the first reverse bank robbery in the history of America.”
Zach Jacobs
Yotta customer
Cracks in the system
Unlike meme stocks or crypto bets, in which the user naturally assumes some risk, most customers viewed funds held in Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-backed accounts as the safest place to keep their money. People relied on accounts powered by Synapse for everyday expenses like buying groceries and paying rent, or for saving for major life events like home purchases or surgeries.
Several people CNBC interviewed said signing up seemed like a good bet since Yotta and other fintechs advertised that deposits were FDIC-insured through Evolve.
“We were assured that this was just a savings account,” Morris said during last week’s hearing. “We are not risk-takers, we’re not gamblers.”
Abandoned by U.S. regulators who have so far declined to act, they are left with few clear options to recoup their money.
In June, the FDIC made it clear that its insurance fund doesn’t cover the failure of nonbanks like Synapse, and that in the event of such a firm’s failure, recovering funds through the courts wasn’t guaranteed.
Three months later, the FDIC proposed a new rule that would force banks to keep detailed records for customers of fintech apps, improving the chances that they qualify for coverage in a future calamity and cutting the risk that funds would go missing.
McWilliams, herself a former FDIC chair during the first Trump presidency, told the California judge handling the Synapse bankruptcy case last week she was “disheartened” that every financial regulator has decided not to help.
The FDIC and Federal Reserve declined to comment, and McWilliams didn’t respond to emails.
Jelena McWilliams, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, testifies during a House Financial Services Committee hearing in Rayburn Building titled “Oversight of Prudential Regulators: Ensuring the Safety, Soundness and Accountability of Megabanks and Other Depository Institutions,” on Thursday, May 16, 2019.
Tom Williams | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images
Winners and losers
Things hadn’t always seemed so dire. Early in the proceedings, McWilliams suggested to Judge Martin Barash that customers be given a partial payment, essentially spreading the pain among everyone.
But that would’ve required more coordination between Evolve and the other lenders that held customer funds than what ultimately happened.
As the hearings dragged on, the three other institutions, AMG National Trust, Lineage Bank and American Bank, began disbursing the funds they had, while Evolve took months to perform what it initially said would be a comprehensive reconciliation.
Around the time Evolve completed its efforts in October, it said it could only figure out the user funds it held, not the location of the missing funds. That’s at least partly because of “very large bulk transfers” of funds without identification of who owned the money, a lawyer for Evolve testified last week.
As a result, the bankruptcy process has minted relative winners and losers.
Some end users recently received all their funds back, while others, like Indiana FedEx driver Natasha Craft, received none, she told CNBC.
Natasha Craft, a 25-year-old FedEx driver from Mishawaka, Indiana. She has been locked out of her Yotta banking account since May 11.
Courtesy: Natasha Craft
As of Nov. 12, the four banks released $193 million to customers, or more than 85% of what they held earlier in the year.
The Nov. 13 hearing has provided the only public venue for victims to register their distress; dozens of victims queued up in the hopes they could testify about receiving a tiny fraction of what they’re owed. The event went longer than three hours.
“You can’t imagine the panic when it said I was getting 81 cents,” said Andreatte Caliguire, who said she is owed $22,000. “I have no money, I have no path forward, I have nothing.”
‘Nothing optimistic’
Evolve says that “the vast majority” of funds held for Yotta and other customers were moved to other banks in October and November of 2023 on directions from Synapse, according to an Evolve spokesman.
“Where those end user funds went after that is an important question, but unfortunately not one Evolve can answer with the data it currently has,” the spokesman said.
Yotta says that Evolve has given fintech firms and the trustee no information about how it determined payouts, “despite acknowledging in court that a shortfall existed at Evolve prior to October 2023,” according to a spokesman for the startup, who noted that several executives have recently left the bank. “We hope regulators take notice and act.”
In statements released ahead of this month’s hearing, Evolve said that other banks refused to participate in its efforts to create a master ledger, while AMG and Lineage said that Evolve’s implication that they had the missing funds was “irresponsible and disingenuous.”
As the banks and other parties hurl accusations at each other and lawsuits pile up, including pending class-action efforts, the window for cooperation is rapidly closing, Barash said last week.
“As time goes by, my impression is that unless the banks that are involved can sort this out voluntarily, it may not get sorted out,” Barash said. “There’s nothing optimistic about what I’m telling you.”
Tensions between the world’s two largest economies have escalated over the last several years.
Florence Lo | Reuters
BEIJING — China is trying yet again to boost foreign investment, amid geopolitical tensions and businesses’ calls for more concrete actions.
On Feb. 19, authorities published a “2025 action plan for stabilizing foreign investment” to make it easier for foreign capital to invest in domestic telecommunication and biotechnology industries, according to a CNBC translation of the Chinese.
The document called for clearer standards in government procurement — a major issue for foreign businesses in China — and for the development of a plan to gradually allow foreign investment in the education and culture sectors.
“We are looking forward to see this implemented in a manner that delivers tangible benefits for our members,” Jens Eskelund, president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, said in a statement Thursday.
The chamber pointed out that China has already mentioned plans to open up telecommunications, health care, education and culture to foreign investment. Greater clarity on public procurement requirements is a “notable positive,” the chamber said, noting that “if fully implemented,” it could benefit foreign companies that have invested heavily to localize their production in China.
China’s latest action plan was released around the same time the Commerce Ministry disclosed that foreign direct investment in January fell by 13.4% to 97.59 billion yuan ($13.46 billion). That was after FDI plunged by 27.1% in 2024 and dropped by 8% in 2023, after at least eight straight years of annual growth, according to official data available through Wind Information.
All regions should “ensure that all the measures are implemented in 2025, and effectively boost foreign investment confidence,” the plan said. The Ministry of Commerce and National Development and Reform Commission — the economic planning agency — jointly released the action plan through the government’s executive body, the State Council.
Officials from the Commerce Ministry emphasized in a press conference Thursday that the action plan would be implemented by the end of 2025, and that details on subsequent supportive measures would come soon.
“We appreciate the Chinese government’s recognition of the vital role foreign companies play in the economy,” Michael Hart, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, said in a statement. “We look forward to further discussions on the key challenges our members face and the steps needed to ensure a more level playing field for market access.”
AmCham China’s latest survey of members, released last month, found that a record share are considering or have started diversifying manufacturing or sourcing away from China. The prior year’s survey had found members were finding it harder to make money in China than before the Covid-19 pandemic.
Consumer spending in China has remained lackluster since the pandemic, with retail sales only growing by the low single digits in recent months. Tensions with the U.S. have meanwhile escalated as the White House has restricted Chinese access to advanced technology and levied tariffs on Chinese goods.
‘A very strong signal’
While many aspects of the action plan were publicly mentioned last year, some points — such as allowing foreign companies to buy local equity stakes using domestic loans — are relatively new, said Xiaojia Sun, Beijing-based partner at JunHe Law.
She also highlighted the plan’s call to support foreign investors’ ability to participate in mergers and acquisitions in China, and noted it potentially benefits overseas listings. Sun’s practice covers corporates, mergers and acquisitions and capital markets.
The bigger question remains China’s resolve to act on the plan.
“This action plan is a very strong signal,” Sun said in Mandarin, translated by CNBC. She said she expects Beijing to follow through with implementation, and noted that its release was similar to a rare, high-profile meeting earlier in the week of Chinese President Xi Jinping and entrepreneurs.
That gathering on Feb. 17 included Alibaba founder Jack Ma and DeepSeek’s Liang Wenfeng. In recent years, regulatory crackdowns and uncertainty about future growth had dampened business confidence and foreign investor sentiment.
China needs to strike a balance between tariff retaliation and stabilizing FDI, Citi analysts pointed out earlier this month.
“We believe China policymakers are likely cautious about targeting U.S. [multinationals] as a form of retaliation against U.S. tariffs,” the analysts said. “FDI comes into China, bringing technology and know-how, creating jobs, revenue and profit, and contributing to tax revenue.”
In a relatively rare acknowledgement, Chinese Commerce Ministry officials on Thursday noted the impact of geopolitical tensions on foreign investment, including some companies’ decision to diversify away from China. They also pointed out that foreign-invested firms contribute to nearly 7% of employment and around 14% of taxes in the country.
Previously, official commentary from the Commerce Ministry about any drop in FDI tended to focus only on how most foreign businesses remained optimistic about long-term prospects in China.
U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifies before a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on “The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress,” at Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., Feb. 11, 2025.
Craig Hudson | Reuters
The popular narrative among Federal Reserve policymakers these days is that policy is “well-positioned” to adjust to any upside or downside risks ahead. However, it might be more accurate to say that policy is stuck in position.
With an abundance of unknowns swirling through the economy and the halls of Washington, the only gear the central bank really can be in these days is neutral as it begins what could be a long wait for certainty on what’s actually ahead.
“In recent weeks, we’ve heard not only enthusiasm — particularly from banks, about possible shifts in tax and regulatory policies — but also widespread apprehension about future trade and immigration policy,” Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said in a blog post. “These crosscurrents inject still more complexity into policymaking.”
Bostic’s comments came during an active week for what is known on Wall Street as “Fedspeak,” or the chatter that happens between policy meetings from Chair Jerome Powell, central bank governors and regional presidents.
Officials who have spoken frequently described policy as “well-positioned” — the language is now a staple of post-meeting statements. But increasingly, they are expressing caution about the volatility coming from President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade and economic agenda, as well as other factors that could influence policy.
“Uncertainty” is an increasingly common theme. In fact, Bostic titled his Thursday blog post “Uncertainty Calls for Caution, Humility in Policymaking.” A day earlier, the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee released minutes from the Jan. 28-29 meeting, with a dozen references to the uncertain climate in the document.
The minutes specifically cited “elevated uncertainty regarding the scope, timing, and potential economic effects of possible changes to trade, immigration, fiscal, and regulatory policies.”
Uncertainty factors into the Fed’s decision making in two ways: the impact that it has on the employment picture, which has been relatively stable, and inflation, which has been easing but could rise again as consumers and business leaders get spooked about the impact tariffs could have on prices.
Missing the target
The Fed targets inflation at 2%, a goal that has remained elusive for going on four years.
“Right now, I see the risks of inflation staying above target as skewed to the upside,” St. Louis Fed President Alberto Musalem told reporters Thursday. “My baseline scenario is one where inflation continues to converge towards 2%, providing monetary policy remains modestly restrictive, and that will take time. I think there is a potential for inflation to remain high and activity to slow. … That’s an alternative scenario, not a baseline scenario, but I’m attentive to it.”
The operative in Musalem’s comment is that policy holds at “modestly restrictive,” which is where he considers the current level of the fed funds rate between 4.25%-4.5%. Bostic was a little less explicit on feeling the need to keep rates on hold, but emphasized that “this is no time for complacency” and noted that “additional threats to price stability may emerge.”
Chicago Federal Reserve President Austan Goolsbee, thought to be among the least hawkish FOMC members when it comes to inflation, was more measured in his assessment of tariffs and did not offer commentary in separate appearances, including one on CNBC, on where he thinks rates should go.
“If you’re just thinking about tariffs, it depends how many countries are they going to apply to, and how big are they going to be, and the more it looks like a Covid-sized shock, the more nervous you should be,” Goolsbee said.
Many risks ahead
More broadly, though, the January minutes indicated a Fed highly attuned to potential shocks and not interested in testing the waters with any further interest rate moves. The meeting summary pointedly noted that committee members want “further progress on inflation before making additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate.”
There’s also more than just tariffs and inflation to worry about.
The minutes characterized the risks to financial stability as “notable,” specifically in the area of leverage and the level of long-duration debt that banks are holding.
Prominent economist Mark Zandi — not normally an alarmist — said in a panel discussion presented by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation that he worries about dangers to the $46.2 trillion U.S. bond market.
“In my view, the biggest risk is that we see a major sell off in the bond market,” said Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “The bond market feels incredibly fragile to me. The plumbing is broken. The primary dealers aren’t keeping up with the amount of debt outstanding.”
“There’s just so many things coming together that I think there’s a very significant threat that at some point over the next 12 months, we see a major sell-off in the bond market,” he added.
In this climate, he said, there’s scant chance for the Fed to cut rates — though markets are pricing in the potential for a half percentage point in reductions by the end of the year.
That’s wishful thinking considering tariffs and other intangibles hanging over the Fed’s head, Zandi said.
“I just don’t see the Fed cutting interest rates here until you get a better feel about inflation coming back to target,” he said. “The economy came into 2025 in a pretty good spot. Feels like it’s performing well. Should be able to weather a lot of storms. But it feels like there’s a lot of storms coming.”
Alibaba is back in the spotlight — with U.S.-traded shares soaring nearly 70% so far in 2025 — as a favored play on Chinese artificial intelligence. The company said Thursday its AI-related product revenue grew by triple digits for a sixth-straight quarter in the period ended December. Its Qwen AI model has proven itself a capable rival to DeepSeek , along with winning a deal for iPhones sold in China . Founder Jack Ma, once politically sidelined, made his latest public reappearance on Feb. 17 — with a front-row seat at a rare meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping held with entrepreneurs , including DeepSeek’s Liang Wenfeng. Several analysts think Alibaba’s gains will continue, with Jefferies setting a $156 price target as of Feb. 20. That’s upside of more than 8% from Friday’s close of $143.75. UBS equity strategists on Thursday said they have switched out PDD for Alibaba in a model portfolio “given its exposure to AI and quant factors.” Remember how just several months ago the Temu parent had a larger market cap , raising concerns that Alibaba was struggling to compete on its core e-commerce business? Taobao and Tmall Group saw sales rise 5% in the latest quarter. As excited as many investors are about AI opportunities in China, crowding into related stocks has only picked up by 0.02 so far this year on UBS’s scoring system. That’s far below the increase of 0.2 in the crowding score for U.S. AI-related names over the last two years, UBS said. Alibaba had the highest crowding score among large Chinese internet technology names, the report said. “Our Quants team’s analysis previously suggested that stocks with reasonable but improving crowding have seen the most near-term outperformance.” Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index hit a three-year high Friday with China Unicom, Lenovo and Alibaba’s locally traded shares leading gains. “Should investors rotate from Alibaba to the AI trade laggers (i.e. Tencent and Baidu)? Not for now,” JPMorgan internet analyst Alex Yao wrote in a Feb. 17 note. “We think both Tencent and Baidu’s share prices could be driven by AI development in different ways with different risks.” U.S.-listed shares of Baidu are up by about 8% for the year so far, despite the company sharing on Feb. 18 that its AI Cloud revenue rose 26% year-on-year to 7.1 billion yuan in the fourth quarter. Hong Kong-traded shares of Tencent , which has yet to report earnings for the period, have risen by about 24% for the year so far. JPMorgan is neutral on Baidu, but overweight on Tencent and Alibaba. The firm has a price target of $125 on Alibaba shares, suggesting a 13% decline from Friday’s close. At least four other major investment firms have a buy rating on Alibaba. But Morgan Stanley is notably more cautious with an equal-weight rating and a price target of $100. That would imply a drop of 30% from Friday’s close. The firm pointed out that Alibaba’s capital expenditures were 11% of revenue in the latest quarter, versus 3% in the prior quarter — a potential weight on future margins that management warned about. Morgan Stanley also highlighted risks such as weaker consumption and a slower pace of enterprise digitalization. — CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed to this report.