Where are Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns? And where are all the non US banks, such as e.g. Credit Suisse? They would make the other numbers in this graph dwindle ..
Bank Failures Visualized
191–200 of 424 posts
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#192I’m not familar with all the recent banks that are failing but is it a result of consolidation during the 2007 crisis?
Seems really strange visually at least
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#193Would be slightly more insightful if it was inflation adjusted. The circles on the right should be ~30% smaller.
And if the circles’ areas, not their radii, were the failed assets. As it is, a circle’s apparent size (we judge 2D shapes by their area, not any one linear dimension — although this is difficult to do in practice, and linear marks are generally superior) is the failure size squared , which distorts the data a boatload. Here is a, er, more faithful representation of the data. The recent failures don't look quite so c…
You ploted the size on a log scale and claim "the recent failures dont look quite so crazy anymore?" Is this a joke?
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#194[dead]
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a qualitative discussion of what might be happening inflation is a just a nuisance factor. There are other similar factors (e.g the size of the economy is not constant either) that we can ignore for this purpose. The bank size distribution is more relevant but 50% of a large number is still a large number. You'd expect this to somehow show up in the statistics. Timing is indeed a key aspect. The actors involved h…
> a strange new thing. Indeed. ZIRP was a new thing [1]. My laymen understanding is these big banks got caught out making really stupid (in hindsight anyway) bets interest rate would stay near zero and ran into liquidity issues. Is there a reason small banks wouldn't also make stupid bets like this? Maybe they have less money slushing around that isn't in loans or something. [1]: https://time.com/4180698/nouriel-roub…
Its still too early to connect the dots. That all sorts of low-quality bets would be unwound with rising interest rates was indeed a given. But in such an opaque financial system, the surprises can come from any corner.
A vanilla bank business model actually benefits from rising rates as this generally widens the spread between their lending and borrowing. So then you have to look at second order effects. According to reports one causal factor is traced to their "low-credit risk" investment portfolios and various combinations of real hedging vs creative accounting for their interest rate sensitive positions. It may be that the really small banks do less of that.
In any case the long period or low rates is really not an excuse. Bankers are not extracting rents from society to play being idiots. Managing risks is what they are supposed to be paid for. You don't manage risks by assuming tomorrow will the same as yesterday.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about the money, it's about the message. It's about running a global financial institution on Quickbooks. It's about not having a bank account. It's about not having stop losses. It's about wiping out losses by making your own money. It's about TOM BRADY. It's about the Larry David ad that ends, "Ehhhhh, I don't think so. And I'm never wrong about this stuff. Never." FTX really elevated fraud to an art. I'm…
for me its more about how much this mismanaged business shook confidence in "crypto", instead of just this mismanaged business - the way we would judge any other sector. while the crypto aspect is helping resolve this far faster than other insolvent schemes of similar size and magnitude. and Sam Bankman Fried is not involved in that. yes, Sam did that elaborate thing, the people recovering and the bankruptcy court ar…
I'm not sure we can treat crypto like any other sector - there are no others which are afflicted by a rapid succession of high profile scams, scandals and collapses. Confidence is shaken because there's no other rational response to this situation.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if the circles’ areas, not their radii, were the failed assets. As it is, a circle’s apparent size (we judge 2D shapes by their area, not any one linear dimension — although this is difficult to do in practice, and linear marks are generally superior) is the failure size squared , which distorts the data a boatload. Here is a, er, more faithful representation of the data. The recent failures don't look quite so c…
They still look pretty crazy to me! https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/index.html Total assets of banks failed in 2008 + 2009 => 373 + 171 = 544 Billion Total assets of banks failed in 2023 (so far, still 2/3 to go) 548 Billion
The total bank assets doubled in the meantime (from 11-12TN to 23TN)[1] so proportionally it's half than 2008 + 2009, but that's still gigantic.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TLAACBW027SBOG via https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/2Steady4U/status/165337475754...
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#198Makes me think of firebreaks. What are the equivalents of firebreaks in the sector?
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#199That needs to go back to the 80s to capture the SnL crisis. It dwarfs 08 in bank failures. It better indicates the conglomeration of the many banks into the few we have today.
saturday night life crisis?
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#200Looking at this, it seems even more odd that no tiny banks have failed along with these larger ones.
It's just a matter of visibility. The failed banks so far were all family of the tech industry. Since the tech industry is so far one of the most impacted by contracting conditions, its banks are being poked at first. Now that it's done, the other banks are going to get some love.