Failing Banks

Correia, Luck, and Verner ask a foundational question in banking: why do banks fail? Specifically, they seek to adjudicate between two theoretical views — the solvency view (failures caused by deteriorating asset quality and insolvency) and the bank runs view (failures caused by depositor coordination failure that can bring down otherwise solvent banks) — using the longest micro-level panel of U.S. commercial bank balance sheets assembled to date.

The authors construct a panel covering approximately 37,000 distinct banks across two samples: a historical sample of all national banks from 1863 to 1941 (sourced from OCC Annual Reports, digitized via OCR) and a modern sample of all commercial banks from 1959 to 2024 (from FFIEC Call Reports merged with the FDIC failure list). More than 5,000 banks fail across the full sample, with 2,887 failures before 1935 and 2,233 after 1959. The sample spans institutional regimes before and after the Federal Reserve (founded 1913) and the FDIC (founded 1933/1934).

Three sets of findings emerge. First, failing banks are characterized by deteriorating fundamentals well before failure: rising non-performing loans and declining solvency (equity-to-assets falls by 8 percentage points in the five years before failure in the modern sample), increasing reliance on expensive noncore funding (rising by 18% of assets in the decade before modern-era failures), and a boom-bust pattern in real assets (expanding by 34% from ten years to three years before failure before contracting). These patterns are consistent across the pre-FDIC and modern eras.

Second, bank failures are highly predictable from publicly available accounting data. Using simple regression models with insolvency risk, noncore funding reliance, and asset growth as predictors, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for predicting failure within one year reaches 86% in the historical sample and 90–95% in the modern sample. Pseudo-out-of-sample performance is nearly as strong as in-sample performance. A bank in the top 5th percentile of both insolvency risk and noncore funding vulnerability faces a three-year failure probability of 27% in both the historical and modern samples, compared to unconditional rates of 2.5% (historical) and 1% (modern) — a 10- to 25-fold increase.

Third, while large deposit outflows consistent with bank runs were common in pre-FDIC failures — deposits declined on average by 14% immediately before failure in 1880–1934, and by 21% in the period before the banking holiday — failures with runs are as predictable as failures without runs, and they occur in banks with similarly weak fundamentals. Recovery rates on failed banks’ assets averaged only 52% of book value in pre-FDIC failures. Using a framework comparing recovery rates to leverage, the majority of pre-FDIC failed banks appear to have been fundamentally insolvent. Even under the extreme assumption of zero value destruction from failure, runs on banks that were not fundamentally insolvent account for fewer than 8% of pre-FDIC failures; under an assumption of 20% value destruction from failure, this share rises to 22%.

OCC bank examiners classified fewer than 2% of pre-FDIC failures as caused by runs or liquidity issues; most were attributed to losses, fraud, or external shocks. The aggregate failure rate is also largely predictable: regressing the actual bank failure rate on predicted aggregate failure risk yields an R-squared of 40%.

Scope conditions: the historical sample covers only national banks (market share ranging from ~80% in the 1870s to ~45% in the 1930s); the modern sample excludes de novo banks (younger than three years); deposit outflow data for the historical period begin in 1880; and FDIC failure transaction data for the modern period begin in 1993.

Q: What are the two main theoretical views the paper evaluates, and how does the paper distinguish between them? A: The solvency view holds that bank failures are caused by deteriorating asset quality and insolvency, with the runnable nature of liabilities playing no essential causal role. The bank runs view holds that the runnable nature of demandable deposits is central, with depositor coordination failure capable of bringing down otherwise solvent banks (Diamond and Dybvig, 1983) or weak-but-solvent banks (Goldstein and Pauzner, 2005). The paper distinguishes between them using three empirical tests: predictability of failures from fundamentals, deposit outflows before failure, and asset recovery rates in failure.

Q: How predictable are bank failures, and what does predictability imply for the bank runs view? A: In the historical pre-FDIC sample (1863–1934), the in-sample AUC for predicting failure within one year is 86%; in the modern sample (1959–2024) it is 90–95%. Pseudo-out-of-sample AUC is nearly as strong as in-sample AUC. High predictability is consistent with the solvency view and fundamental-based panic run models, but is inconsistent with non-fundamental self-fulfilling runs (Diamond and Dybvig, 1983), which should strike randomly. Predictability also cuts against the assumption of rational, forward-looking depositors in fundamental-run models, since attentive depositors would act on observable signals and accelerate failure, reducing predictability.

Q: What is the boom-bust pattern in failing banks’ assets? A: In the decade before failure, failing banks’ real total assets expand by 34% from ten years to three years before failure, then contract over the final two years. The boom-and-bust pattern is present in both the historical and modern samples but is more pronounced in the modern period. The boom is driven primarily by loan growth (particularly real estate lending and C&I lending in the modern sample) rather than by growth in liquid assets, consistent with the view that rapid credit expansion produces future credit losses.

Q: How does noncore funding behave in failing banks, and why does it matter? A: In failing banks in the modern sample, noncore funding (time deposits plus wholesale funding) rises by 18% of assets over the decade before failure, while demand deposits decline as a share of assets. In the historical sample, noncore (wholesale) funding also rises gradually. Noncore funding is a signal of failure for multiple reasons: it is more expensive than core deposits, eroding profitability; it can finance risky asset growth; it reflects realized losses being funded at the margin; and it increases funding fragility, making banks more vulnerable to shocks.

Q: How strong is the joint signal from insolvency and noncore funding? A: A bank in the top 5th percentile of both insolvency risk and noncore funding vulnerability faces a three-year failure probability of 27% in the historical sample and 27% in the modern sample. The unconditional three-year failure probability is 2.5% in the historical sample and 1% in the modern sample. This amounts to a 10- to 20-fold increase in failure probability, illustrating that the combination of solvency and funding weakness is a powerful joint predictor.

Q: Were deposit outflows common before the FDIC, and did they decline after its introduction? A: In the 1880–1934 historical sample, deposits in failing banks declined on average by 14% between the last call report and failure, with 25% of pre-FDIC failures preceded by outflows exceeding 20%; during the period before the banking holiday the average deposit decline was 21%. In contrast, in the modern sample (1993–2024), average pre-failure deposit outflows were only 2.5%, and outflows exceeding 20% occurred in only 3% of failures, consistent with deposit insurance insulating most depositors.

Q: Are failures with large deposit outflows (runs) less connected to weak fundamentals than other failures? A: No. The paper finds that failures with large deposit outflows are as predictable as failures without large deposit outflows. The relationship between insolvency risk or noncore funding and three-year failure probability is similar for failures with and without large deposit outflows. This implies that runs did not disproportionately strike banks with otherwise strong fundamentals.

Q: What do asset recovery rates reveal about the insolvency status of pre-FDIC failed banks? A: Recovery rates on pre-FDIC failed banks averaged 52% of book value of assets. Under the extreme assumption that receivership destroys zero bank value, runs on non-fundamentally-insolvent (weak but solvent) banks account for fewer than 8% of pre-FDIC failures. Under the equally extreme assumption that failure destroys 20% of bank value, this share rises to 22%. The majority of pre-FDIC failed banks therefore appear to have been fundamentally insolvent.

Q: What did contemporary OCC bank examiners attribute as the causes of bank failures? A: OCC bank examiners classified most pre-FDIC failures as caused by losses, fraud, or external economic shocks. Runs and liquidity issues together account for fewer than 2% of OCC-classified failures, notwithstanding the common occurrence of large deposit outflows before many of these failures. This examiner evidence supports the solvency view.

Q: Can bank-level fundamentals predict systemic banking crises and aggregate failure waves? A: Yes. The authors aggregate out-of-sample predicted failure probabilities to construct a predicted aggregate bank failure rate. The R-squared from regressing the actual aggregate bank failure rate on this predicted rate is 40%, indicating that spikes in bank failures during systemic crises are substantially accounted for by the prior deterioration of bank-level fundamentals.

Q: Why is predictability higher in the modern sample than in the historical sample? A: The authors identify several reasons. Accounting data quality is higher in the modern sample. Historical national banks operated as unit branches with less geographic diversification, making idiosyncratic shocks more important and harder to predict. Modern-era failures are preceded by larger lending booms that produce more predictable downstream losses. Additionally, in the modern context bank failures are largely supervisory decisions, and frictions in the supervisory process may delay closure and thereby increase predictability.

Q: What role do the authors assign to depositor inattention? A: The high predictability of failures combined with the finding that many failing banks had high predicted failure probabilities before actually failing suggests that depositors were often slow to react to observable signals of bank weakness. The authors note this points to behavioral frictions such as neglect of downside risk (Gennaioli et al., 2012) and sleepy or inattentive depositors (Hanson et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2023), rather than the rational, forward-looking depositor assumption embedded in standard bank run models.

Q: What is the paper’s overall interpretive conclusion about the relative importance of solvency versus runs? A: The primary cause of bank failures is almost always and everywhere a deterioration of bank solvency. Runs were more common in the historical pre-FDIC data as a mechanism triggering failure, but they typically closed banks that were already fundamentally insolvent. Non-fundamental, self-fulfilling runs on otherwise healthy banks appear to be an uncommon cause of bank failures. Under the solvency view, even when runs occur, they are the trigger and final mechanism rather than the root cause.

Insolvency risk: A bank’s proximity to default, proxied in the historical sample by surplus profits relative to equity (capturing profitability and capitalization) and in the modern sample by net income to assets. High insolvency risk reflects declining profitability and eroding capital buffers.

Noncore funding: Expensive, risk-sensitive funding sources outside core demand deposits, including time deposits, wholesale funding (bills payable, rediscounts), and non-deposit wholesale borrowings. Banks relying heavily on noncore funding face higher funding costs, reduced profitability, and greater fragility to funding shocks.

Fundamental run: A run triggered when bank fundamentals are so weak (theta at or below the lower threshold in the Goldstein-Pauzner framework) that all depositors have an incentive to withdraw regardless of others’ actions — the bank is effectively insolvent and failure is inevitable.

Panic-based run: A run triggered when bank fundamentals are moderately weak (below the threshold equilibrium in Goldstein-Pauzner) but the bank would have been able to pay all creditors absent the run; the run itself destroys value and causes failure.

Non-fundamental (self-fulfilling) run: A run on an otherwise solvent bank driven purely by depositor coordination failure, as in Diamond and Dybvig (1983); failure arises from one of two equilibria and is not predicted by fundamentals.

Recovery rate: Funds ultimately collected by the receiver throughout receivership proceedings divided by the book value of assets at suspension; used as a proxy for the degree of fundamental insolvency at failure. Pre-FDIC recovery rates averaged 52% of book value.

Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC): A measure of binary classification performance used to quantify the predictability of bank failures; an uninformative predictor has AUC of 0.5, while AUC of 1.0 indicates perfect classification. In this paper, AUC ranges from 86% (historical, one-year horizon) to 95% (modern).

Boom-bust pattern: The systematic tendency of failing banks to experience rapid loan-driven asset growth in the years preceding failure followed by asset contraction in the final two years before failure — present in both the historical and modern samples, more pronounced in the latter, with real assets expanding by 34% from ten to three years before failure.