If other banks fail, I expect it will not be for the same reason. That's not based on any original thinking or analysis, but others have pointed out that most

If other banks fail, I expect it will not be for the same reason. That's not based on any original thinking or analysis, but others have pointed out that most banks have more diverse depositors who don't have as much money individually and don't all talk to each other, making a bank run much less likely. The other banks also have an easier time putting deposits to work in a way that isn't so sensitive to interest rate increases. Allegedly, a normal well run bank should actually increase profits overall as rates rise. There are a lot of lame attempts at anti-tech snark, but it does make sense that this bank was unusual. Matthew Levine wrote: "You are the Bank of Startups, and startups are a low-interest-rate phenomenon. When interest rates are low everywhere, a dollar in 20 years is about as good as a dollar today, so a startup whose business model is “we will lose money for a decade building artificial intelligence, and then rake in lots of money in the far future” sounds pretty good. When interest rates are higher, a dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow, so investors want cash flows. When interest rates were low for a long time, and suddenly become high, all the money that was rushing to your customers is suddenly cut off. " This does not apply to a random regional bank that, like, lends money to local people to buy houses outside of CA. Regular banks have a certain amount of assets with variable rates, like, say, my HELOC, that cushion rate increases. Also, if you want anti-tech snark, Levine is the best: "... I am sorry to be rude, but there is another reason that it is maybe not great to be the Bank of Startups, which is that nobody on Earth is more of a herd animal than Silicon Valley venture capitalists. What you want, as a bank, is a certain amount of diversity among your depositors. If some depositors get spooked and take their money out, and other depositors evaluate your balance sheet and decide things are fine and keep their money in, and lots more depositors keep their money in because they simply don’t pay attention to banking news, then you have a shot at muddling through your problems. But if all of your depositors are startups with the same handful of venture capitalists on their boards, and all those venture capitalists are competing with each other to Add Value and Be Influencers and Do The Current Thing by calling all their portfolio companies to say “hey, did you hear, everyone’s taking money out of Silicon Valley Bank, you should too,” then all of your depositors will take their money out at the same time." . . . "Nah, man, you don’t get to be a successful venture capitalist by taking a long view or investing in relationships or being contrarian. I’m sorry, I’m sorry, this is unfair. Of course they were right — Silicon Valley Bank did collapse, and if you got your money out early that was good for you — but that is largely self-fulfilling; if all the VCs hadn’t decided all at once to pull their money, SVB probably would not have collapsed."