[pranshum]

I wrote a couple of visual essays on the topic.

It's not entirely fair to compare bank failure sizes across times, even inflation adjusted [1]. The rate of asset price growth since 2008 far outstrips inflation.

IMO the frequency of bank failures is more worrying. They tend to come in waves [2].

1: On the size of bank failures: https://yarn.pranshum.com/banks 2. On the frequency of bank failrres: https://yarn.pranshum.com/banks2

[everybodyknows]

From https://yarn.pranshum.com/banks

> Most banks hold more assets than deposits. So in theory, depositors should always be made whole.

No such theory is established; it's the central bank's money printing ability that can always make depositors whole. In the US, the Federal Reserve implicitly backs the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

[wrvajklj4]

I get that the money goes brrrr attitude, but it's kind of silly.

The FDIC holds an adequate deposit insurance fund, financed by banks who must buy FDIC insurance. It's over $100 billion dollars, which is enough to weather some major failures. With large failures, the FDIC may issue special assessments to maintain the fund at a safe level (they did this with SVB).

[ufo_yo]

Love it! Thanks for making this.