The world is changing. And that's good news.
Bank Failures Visualized
231–240 of 424 posts
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
oil exploration, energy, banking, construction... its really a choice to consider mismanaged companies as the sector itself, at least the construction industry started putting X days since incident as an effort to differentiate each site since nobody was hearing about sites that were operating fine. confidence isn't shaken for everyone in the crypto space, and there might be a need for services to point out how many…
I dunno, you're asking crypto to be compared with sectors that actually provide services people need who between them have had a few high-profile flameouts over the course of history. Whereas crypto has had a fairly quick boom-and-bust and the biggest players frequently either go bust or are heavily exposed to those who already have (and are desperate to convince everyone they're not and are actually fine).
I'm not sold on crypto and you'd have a hard time persuading me to change my mind, I'm afraid.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going by Wikipedia, in 2021 dollars I count: 1980s S&L crisis: $654 Billion (summed 1984-1992 failures) across 23 banks 2008 crisis: $733 Billion (summed 2008-2011 failures) across 61 banks 2023 so far (it's only May): $556 Billion (Signature + SVB + FRC) across 3 banks. It looks like 2008-2011 is the "winner", although other commenters have mentioned forced mergers etc. may not be counted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w…
At the very least that’s missing Fannie, Freddie, Bear, Merrill, Lehman, TARP and arguably AIG for another 1.2T+, granted a lot of this was eventually repaid as the FDIC will be as well.
None of those are consumer banks. Every dataset has to make scope decisions.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or else replaced with a fixed-width rectangle and scale the height by assets. Would fit more easily on a timeline and humans are much better at comparing heights than we are areas.
your wish is my command: https://observablehq.com/@mjbo/bank-failures-as-a-stacked-ba...
Nice!
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#235And now that the fed said they will only "fully" back depositors in large banks that go under, there will be even more consolidation, so the next crash can consist of just one huge circle that acted gregariously and irresponsibly before its collapse, but no one could do anything because of its size. What makes this even worse, is that Yellen would have lost nothing had she said they would back every bank and not just…
> Even worse, well over half of the SVB bailout went to Do you have a source for this?
I don't have time to research now, but there were some well detailed breakdowns of the large payments when the bailout happened.
The first relevant link in DDG is a statement by the Chairman of the FDIC. He claims that the top ten accounts held more than 13.3B between them, which is more than 10% of the total of all deposits in the bank, and more than half of the $20B that the government is expected to payout in total. [1][2]
The FDIC would otherwise have had to pay a scant 3M of that, so there's 2/3 of the bailout just in those 10 accounts. If we include the next ten accounts, it will be much, much more. (One of the articles at the time claimed more than 85% went to 15 accounts, but I didn't want to be extreme without time to research sources.)
[1]: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gruenberg%20Tes... [2]: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23023.html
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#236Earlier 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…
The circles' areas are showing the failed assets. Observable Plot defaults to using a square root scale when encoding a quantity with the radius of a circle. https://observablehq.com/plot/marks/dot#dot-options
So weird, should it not be the area of the circle being the value? The radius should be √(Area/π) not the square root of the value or am I misunderstanding?
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#237Community-scale banks (aka credit unions) are a better idea for local-regional communities (aka cities and towns and agricultural regions) because their managers have to live with their clients. Take a community of 100,000 families, in an economic system where they're all collecting income and paying bills and so on. The idea behind a bank is that they hold the community's money securely while making their own money…
This would make the bank extremely vulnerable if the community is hit by a recession.
You need to diversify the risks not bet it all on a single hand.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#238Would be slightly more insightful if it was inflation adjusted. The circles on the right should be ~30% smaller.
And how about relative to M1 money supply?
The definition of M1 and M2 money was changed in May 2020, conveniently right as the government started printing money for their pandemic response.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
The circles' areas are showing the failed assets. Observable Plot defaults to using a square root scale when encoding a quantity with the radius of a circle. https://observablehq.com/plot/marks/dot#dot-options
So weird, should it not be the area of the circle being the value? The radius should be √(Area/π) not the square root of the value or am I misunderstanding?
Circles don't have volumes?
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
08 was artificially low because many banks got merged at a fire sale. Wachovia, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and National City stick out. Other financial institutions got essentially nationalized and stock became mostly worthless like Citi and AIG, although the government sold most of their stock in 2011 Credit Suisse is about the same size as SVB, Signature Bank, and First Republic combined but it got “acquired” by…
Credit Suisse is not included because it is a Swiss bank, not an FDIC insured US bank. Lehman Brothers is also not included because, even though it was a US bank, it was an investment bank with no FDIC insured deposits. It was around the size of all of this year's failures, combined. As you note, bank bailouts that were not FDIC bankruptcies are also not included.
And Bear Sterns?