Banks in Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio and New Jersey fail, at an estimated total cost to the FDIC...

This news story has 7 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

TLassen Comments (200)
 
You can view the history of bank failures since the establishment of the FDIC below:

Year - Number of Bank Failures

2009 - 68
2008 - 30
2007 - 3
2006 - 0
2005 - 0
2004 - 4
2003 - 3
2002 - 11
2001 - 4
2000 - 7
1999 - 8
1998 - 3
1997 - 1
1996 - 6
1995 - 8
1994 - 15
1993 - 50
1992 - 181
1991 - 271
1990 - 382
1989 - 534
1988 - 470
1987 - 262
1986 - 204
1985 - 180
1984 - 106
1983 - 99
1982 - 119
1981 - 40
1980 - 22
1979 - 10
1978 - 7
1977 - 6
1976 - 17
1975 - 13
1974 - 4
1973 - 6
1972 - 2
1971 - 7
1970 - 7
1969 - 9
1968 - 3
1967 - 4
1966 - 7
1965 - 5
1964 - 7
1963 - 2
1962 - 1
1961 - 5
1960 - 1
1959 - 3
1958 - 4
1957 - 1
1956 - 2
1955 - 5
1954 - 2
1953 - 2
1952 - 3
1951 - 2
1950 - 4
1949 - 4
1948 - 3
1947 - 5
1946 - 1
1945 - 1
1944 - 2
1943 - 5
1942 - 20
1941 - 15
1940 - 43
1939 - 60
1938 - 74
1937 - 75
1936 - 69
1935 - 25
1934 - 9
31 Jul 2009, 06:56 PM Reply Like

fed_alchemy Comments (245)
 
Thats perspective , now I think were 1/4 done. Let the chips fall but no more TBTF bank holding fiasco's.
31 Jul 2009, 07:17 PM Reply Like

Niner Comments (791)
 
If I did my math right, that's an average of 50 per year. Even if we prorate this year to say 2x 68 for 130+ it isn't anywhere as bad as the 15 year period of 1980 to 1995. If someone had told me that there were that many failures during that time period. I not have believed them. !988 and 89 had an average of 502 failures in each of those two years.. Truly unbelievable!

On Jul 31 06:56 PM TLassen wrote:

> You can view the history of bank failures since the establishment
> of the FDIC below:
>
> Year - Number of Bank Failures
>
> 2009 - 68
> 2008 - 30
> 2007 - 3
> 2006 - 0
> 2005 - 0
> 2004 - 4
> 2003 - 3
> 2002 - 11
> 2001 - 4
> 2000 - 7
> 1999 - 8
> 1998 - 3
> 1997 - 1
> 1996 - 6
> 1995 - 8
> 1994 - 15
> 1993 - 50
> 1992 - 181
> 1991 - 271
> 1990 - 382
> 1989 - 534
> 1988 - 470
> 1987 - 262
> 1986 - 204
> 1985 - 180
> 1984 - 106
> 1983 - 99
> 1982 - 119
> 1981 - 40
> 1980 - 22
> 1979 - 10
> 1978 - 7
> 1977 - 6
> 1976 - 17
> 1975 - 13
> 1974 - 4
> 1973 - 6
> 1972 - 2
> 1971 - 7
> 1970 - 7
> 1969 - 9
> 1968 - 3
> 1967 - 4
> 1966 - 7
> 1965 - 5
> 1964 - 7
> 1963 - 2
> 1962 - 1
> 1961 - 5
> 1960 - 1
> 1959 - 3
> 1958 - 4
> 1957 - 1
> 1956 - 2
> 1955 - 5
> 1954 - 2
> 1953 - 2
> 1952 - 3
> 1951 - 2
> 1950 - 4
> 1949 - 4
> 1948 - 3
> 1947 - 5
> 1946 - 1
> 1945 - 1
> 1944 - 2
> 1943 - 5
> 1942 - 20
> 1941 - 15
> 1940 - 43
> 1939 - 60
> 1938 - 74
> 1937 - 75
> 1936 - 69
> 1935 - 25
> 1934 - 9
31 Jul 2009, 08:30 PM Reply Like

Illusional Delusion Comments (346)
 
69 for 7 months, roughly 120 per year, but noting that it picked up most of its pace now, it might be 150+ for 2009 by 2010. Either way, 69 by today is still a very bad reflection of the state of affairs.
31 Jul 2009, 09:02 PM Reply Like

Niner Comments (791)
 
True it's bad we have 100 bank failures in the last year and a half: but, it can't hold a candle to that 15 yr period 1980 to 95. A tick better than 75% of all banks that have failed since 1934 failed in that 15 yr period. That's 25% of the time span. Or, 27% of all bank failures in the last 75 yrs occurred in just two years1988 and 89.

Compared to the Eighties, I think the Bank failure rate during this financial crisis is low. We have 98 failures in a year and a half and we averaged double that figure per year for 15 yrs. The failure rate today pales in comparison to that time period.

I'm plenty old enough to remember what was going on. But, I don't.
1 Aug 2009, 07:54 AM Reply Like

cbc Comments (410)
 
A couple of comments.

Why are people giving thumbs down to the guy who simply posts the FDIC bank failure. What could possibly be negative about that?

Second, not very appreciative of the amateur math and analysis above. If one wants to look at the numbers in another amateur and half assed method one could say that we have just begun the same trend that started in 1980 and 1981 and the number of bank failures are going to increase dramatically and continue to be terrible for another 10 years.

I love how numbers can reinforce whatever you want to believe.
1 Aug 2009, 11:00 AM Reply Like

TLassen Comments (200)
 
I just posted the numbers from FDIC to give an overall perspective. As we all understand, we can not prorate numbers or use these numbers to estimate future probability based on any math. But my hope was that some younger investors on SA may benefit from seeing past bank failure numbers .
1 Aug 2009, 02:25 PM Reply Like