Here's some smaller regional bank stocks over the last few days: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PACW https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PACW - Down 60% https://f

Here's some smaller regional bank stocks over the last few days: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PACW https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PACW - Down 60% https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FRC https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FRC - Down 30% https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SBN https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SBN - Down 40% Meanwhile huge bank stocks are up or unchanged https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/JPM https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/JPM https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/WFC https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/WFC Did these banks all make the same stupid decision as SVB? Unlikely but maybe. More likely though is the risk that people get spooked over SVB customers losing their deposits (even just 20%) and decide to move their money away from smaller banks like SVB to huge banks like Citi, Wells Fargo, etc. Personally if there were a chance I'd lose just 10% of my balance I'd make the switch, it's the only rational thing to do if other depositors are taking a haircut elsewhere. It's not going to collapse the entire banking system, just the local/regional one, which you see is already starting to happen. I fail to see how burning most of grandma's life savings (and other innocent people who probably never experienced a bank run before) and allowing the collapse of regional banks is somehow better than backstopping depositors now and making much tighter banking regulation for smaller banks going forward to prevent this from happening again. Do we want the nation's banking infrastructure to consist only of 3 or 4 enormous banks or do we want the options that a lot of smaller local banks who are able to cater to the specific needs of their communities provides?