[crazygringo]

> The problem is they aren't wiped out enough.

Corporations (and banks) rest on the bedrock principle of limited liability. To go beyond that is a pretty radical suggestion. That means if grandma buys shares in a bank as part of her retirement portfolio, then the worst case isn't that the shares go to $0, but that she owes money, without any limit she can know beforehand. I don't think that's a good idea.

> Hence my demand to insure the funds are secured only through the bank owners themselves.

I'm not sure there are any insurance companies who will insure an entire bank, and certainly not one of any decent size. That's the entire reason it's pooled insurance provided by the government.

And in any case, if it became that much more expensive to start a bank because you had to pay for all this insurance up-front, banking just becomes that much more expensive for consumers because owners still want to make the same amount of money in the end. At the end of the day, it's still going to cost consumers the same.