Way easier to diagnose & save 3 banks than the multitudes in 2008 from a time spent analysis perspective (wether or not we should is a different matter). The question is the ripple effect here - it seems to have stemmed 3 large breaches where as in 2009 it was death by a thousand cuts (with some large breaches).
Bank Failures Visualized
271–280 of 424 posts
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#272So we're supposed to just go about our day, anxiety free, after seeing this?
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#273Earlier 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…
You ploted the size on a log scale and claim "the recent failures dont look quite so crazy anymore?" Is this a joke?
When I posted this the only change I'd made was to sqrt the assets (which I now see was wrong). The lollipop chart came later.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're just the tip of the iceberg. Pretty much all medium size banks have lots of underperforming assets, and they're just one minor mistake from going under, like these 3 banks. Also notice that there are still many shoes to drop: comercial real estate (a disaster waiting to happen), car loan defaults, etc.
Keep in mind that car loans get paid down pretty fast. For example, Capital One's <620 FICO customer segment has already paid off about half the auto loan principal from 2021. Their delinquency rate has flattened, quarter over quarter, as well.
New car loans are not only longer (> 6 years) and also more expensive than previous loans. Also, people stop paying when they lose their job, so the trigger may be the start of a recession.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#275Mike Bostock knows far more about data visualization than I do so I assume there are good reasons for choosing this presentation. But it strikes me as hard to think about, so I must ask: when is stacked+packed circles a good choice?
The drawbacks to me seem to be:
- At any given point on the x-axis, the associated height of the pile is partly taken up by circles but is partly space lost to circle packing. This proportion is hard to estimate visually.
- Because circles extend in the x-direction, they contribute to height over a _variable_ time range. E.g. WaMu is still the tallest circle at the 2010 line. It's a bit like a kernel density plot where the _kernel_ is data dependent.
Because of these effects taken together, though it's tempting to think of the profile of the pile as a smoothed average of the rate of bank-failures, but this is pretty misleading, which I suppose is why there's no labeled y-axis.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#276Now plot it relative to the money supply :D
Can someone explain why this is being downvoted?
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
You only have to look at what you’re ignoring in order to hold that view
> actually provide services… need
You’re valuing entertainment at zero (nobody needs that), vice at zero (nobody needs that), financial services at zero, and a perpetual bug bounty at zero, those are the major components of the crypto space
and you simultaneously hold every participant in any of those sectors as both representative of the whole thing, and equally as relevant as the next participant
persuasion is not the word I would go for, the disingenuous nature of that perception is the main observation
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doral Bank failed in 2015, so 8 years? Not quite 10. The GFC was 2008 which was 15 years ago though but people still remember that one. Even though the FDIC chose to make depositors whole for SVB, Signature, and FRC, there's no written legal guarantee that they'll keep doing this, so in the face of that, I don't think people are forgetting the $250k FDIC limit. Anyway, my point is no one's walking up and down Main St…
oh, I don't know. Lots of people walk up and down main street. No one I know keeps more than $250k in any given bank under the same name. Obviously having LLCs, wives and children etc let you spread things out in the same bank. I had to wait 10 months in 2008 for FDIC to make me whole when a local bank I had most of my savings in at the time went under. Most people have a living memory of that. Also, I have 8 account…
Figure what out? I'm saying people with that kind of money have private bankers*, and don't need to spend the time making 40 different accounts and managing that because their money is already protected through a sleight of financial trickery called cash sweeping.
If you like seeing the inside of bank branches, and having unnecessary zoom meetings where the background is a picture of the inside of a bank branch, that's entirely up to you.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also leaving out non-FDIC bank failures like Lehman, Bear Stearns et. al. which would make the '08 crisis much (MUCH) larger. Basically post-2008 the class of "investment banks" basically disappeared. But none of that is shown in this chart.
They didn't hold deposits. So it's kind of reasonable. They are called "bank" but they aren't the same kind of institution.
Only where "deposits" are defined as FDIC-insured consumer accounts. Clearly they held other people's money for them, which is pretty close to the economic definition of a bank.
Re: Bank Failures Visualized
#280[dead]