But so your view is that small banks are prone to instability in virtue of being small. I get that with many banks, the probability that at least one has proble

But so your view is that small banks are prone to instability in virtue of being small. I get that with many banks, the probability that at least one has problems increases to 1. My hypothesis was that large banks are risky in virtue of being concentrated; though in most years they may all be fine, occasionally big bets made by a single institution can impact a large minority of depositors. I suppose in a context where the state is prepared to prop up banks in times of crisis, perhaps propping up a few big ones is less complex than trying to support many small ones?