[rektide]

That shows money, which is interesting.

I'd also like to see "Years of Banking Institutions Lost"... SVB is supposedly 40 years old... how old were banks that had failed in the past? That'd be an interesting other way to tally/view the magnitude of what happens, a kind of indicator of volatility.

My thought is... if a whole bunch of banks open then shut down 3 years latter, it doesn't seem as notable as a bunch of more established banks going under.

[bumby]

Why does that sort of “infant mortality” matter in finance if they play by the same rules?

I’m not being argumentative, just trying to understand. In physical systems, that view would be used to apply additional stress testing early to reduce the overall risk exposure (e.g., test a pump for a certain run time to be assured it’s made it out of the early failure age and is more likely to last a lot longer). I’m not quite sure how this applies to contrived (non-physical) systems.

[davrosthedalek]

I can imagine two effects why a younger bank might experience higher risk:

1) a young bank is more likely to experience a high-growth phase, which produces operational challenges

2) a young bank might be founded to serve a new business niche, and experience with the challenges of that niche might be less prevalent in the banking sector. Like airplane regulations, rules are written in blood.