Hard to say. A well run bank with no bad debt on its books can absorb ~0.75% losses on its total lending in a year from income, without hitting any of the regul

Hard to say. A well run bank with no bad debt on its books can absorb ~0.75% losses on its total lending in a year from income, without hitting any of the regulatory limits that would start to curtail lending. From the article, the US banking system is already above that, so it is in trouble. From that point on, it's a case of how well the banks can push the can down the road, absorbing small percentages of bad debt every year from profits, versus being forced into insolvency by the FDIC. There is a lot of leeway in this, as long as the bank still has revenue. During much of the eighties the entire US banking system was technically insolvent, but the Fed essentially just papered over it. The Italian and Japanese banking systems managed this for decades - its only an actual loss when the bank recognises it after all, so you get the zombie bank phenomenon. There is a much better understanding since 2008 of how not to crash a banking system, so I suspect this will continue to be managed out. But if any other sector goes down, or Trump gets elected (since his policies would blow up the entire financial system if actually enacted), then all bets would of course be off.