How Bank Failures in 2008 Compare to Tough Times in 1980's

Article Submitted by: Sol Nasisi
The Economy


We've now had five bank failures in 2008 and I wanted to see how we are doing compared to the real estate downturn in the 1980s and savings and loan crisis it precipitated. The results are interesting.

 

Submitted: Jul 14, 2008    Views: 1498    Comments: 1    Likes: 2   


I read an interesting post in the Blog Calculated Risk today (thanks Ktexas for pointing it out).  The article showed that the five banks that have failed in 2008 so far (including Indymac) were a blip compared to the 574 that failed at the height of the Savings and Loan crisis in 1989.  At that time, the government was forced to bail out the banking industry to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

Some of the comments on Calculated Risk pose an interesting question. Maybe there were more smaller banks in 1989 so that while there might have been more bank failures, they were relatively tiny from an asset perspective.  And maybe one bank failure today is larger than hundreds of smaller bank failures back then.  Determined to see if that was the case, I went to the FDIC website, downloaded the data on bank failures and their respective asset sizes, loaded it into Access, did a query or two, and..presto:

alt

The bars show the combined assets of the failed banks for each year while the line shows the number of failed banks.  As you can see, the number of failed banks is tiny today compred to ten years ago and so were their respective assets - until Indymac.  $32 billion of this year's $34 billion in failed assets were attributable to Indymac.

Let's look at this another way.  The chart below shows the average assets for bank failures by year.

alt

The largest bank failure was in 1984 when Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company, a $40 billion dollar bank collapsed.  As the chart shows, other bank failures during that time kept the average relatively flat.  Another intersting, fact, the failure of Continential Illinois was considered to be a forerunner of the S&L mess.

To all of this, add the fact that there are 50% fewer banks today than there were 10 years ago.

So, here's the real question.  Is the average so high because small banks have done a better job managing their balance sheets and asset risks and remained solvent?  Or is Indymac just an aberration and no more bank failures will be coming?  Or, is Indymac, like Continental Illinois a leading indicator of what will be fewer but much larger future bank failures?




Related Articles:



2

Email this story Email to someone | Print Story Print Content | Add to reading list

Comments Received:

With WaMu gone the fewer but larger bank failures seems to be the winner. But of course, we will see a wave of more banks failing so we'll see what happens.

Posted: Sep 26, 2008



Add Your Comments:

Your Name:

Spam protection control:


© Copyright 2008 Sol Nasisi All rights reserved. Sol Nasisi has granted BestCashCow.com, LLC non-exclusive rights to display this work on Bestcashcow.com.

Financial products of all nature bear inherent risks and this website is not a financial advisory service; it is a forum for users to share and to compare notes and observations on financial publications. The website provides, free of charge, the technical and logistical apparatus and the medium for users to share and to publish financial information and to comment on publications. As such, the website’s operator can not and does not take responsibility for information, observations or opinions of any sort or nature provided by third parties with whom it is not affiliated who use the website to publish, to comment or as a means of solicitation. Users are specifically warned against following any advice related to specific instruments, including, but not limited to, equity securities, that may be provided by other users directly on this site or on web pages to which other users have provided links on this site. BestCashCow.com can not and does not check or verify the qualifications and credentials of users who publish or comment on this site or on linked pages. Users should seek personalized advice from qualified professionals regarding all personal financial issues and evaluate the risks and applicability to their own circumstances of each financial product discussed regardless of who the publisher is or purports to be. Should you, through your use of this site, identify an individual or organization purporting to offer personalized advice, you bear all responsibility to ensure that the individual or organization has the qualifications that they may represent on the website, and that their advice is appropriate for your circumstances. On certain webpages, BestCashCow.com provides information related to rates on US-based savings accounts, CDs, short-term government bonds, and other US cash equivalent securities, also free of charge to internet users for their independent use. The accuracy of this information is not guaranteed, and the information, like all other information on this website, should not be construed to provide investment advice, nor to endorse a financial product of any sort.

© 2007 BestCashCow.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.