![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think this happened recently in Argentina.
Two possible queries:
First: "...arranged (but did not use)...": I recall reading an article in a British newspaper during w/c 17 September 2007 which claimed that Northern Rock eventually did use the emergency loan facility, to the tune of approx. £2.5bn. I can't find it in a quick Google search, though.
Second: "...liquidity problems (stemming from over-exposure to the failing US sub-prime mortgage market). A run...": The government claimed that NR's liquidity problems were purely due to US sub-prime, but other reports suggest that potential investors were afraid that Northern Rock itself had done a lot of risky lending within the UK mortgage market, and therefore has its own, home-grown sub-prime issue. Suggest change to: "...liquidity problems, which NR's defenders claimed were the result of over-exposure to the failing US sub-prime mortgage market, and its critics argued were the result of NR's own careless lending practices." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LDGE ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems financial institution isn't the only one with withdrawl rush. In 1997, there was a case of run of bakery in Hong Kong, where a rush of customers redeeming their cake cards from Saint Honore Cake Shop. [1] [2] Considering it can and have happened to places outside financial institution, I believe it is time for the article title to be replaced with withdrawl rush to better reflect the nature of the activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Poon ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Jacob Poon 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the section Bank run#In fiction be removed, as per WP:TRIVIA guidelines. Comments? Eubulides ( talk) 07:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The "In Fiction" Section has been re-instated because the majority of people know what a Bank Run is from fiction and thus is relevant to the article title.
This change improved the wording in Bank run #Theory, but it contains several important technical errors; among other things it confuses borrowers with savers. Also, it introduces the notion of bank profit, which is irrelevant to the Diamond-Dybvig model; the model applies equally well to nonprofit banks. I made this further change to try to repair the confusion. Eubulides ( talk) 16:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times claims that "since World War II, there have been 18 banking crises in industrial countries. The worst five were caused by changing lending standards or real estate bubbles (often both) and cost at least 6 to 20 percent of G.D.P., the U.S. equivalent of $850 billion to $2.8 trillion."
They then list the "worst 5:"
Spain, 1977 Spain Cost: >16% of G.D.P. A poor response to the oil shock of 1973 and weak bank supervision meant half of banks had solvency problems; the government took over 20 small banks.
Norway, 1987
Norway
Cost: 8% of G.D.P
Deregulation led to problem real estate loans and banks had too little capital to absorb losses. A drop in oil prices started the crisis.
Finland, 1991
Finland
Cost: 11% of G.D.P.
Big increases in household debt and overly optimistic assessments of asset quality added to problems caused by the loss of exports to Soviet Union.
Sweden, 1991
Sweden
Cost: 6% of G.D.P.
Deregulation meant banks were able to make poorly documented loans without supervision. A real estate bubble collapsed.
Japan, 1992
Japan
Est. Cost: >20% of G.D.P.
A sharp plunge in the real estate market caused bad loans to pile up, starting a stretch of stagnation known as Japan's lost decade.
What were the other 13? I think we should have articles on each of them in the same way we have articles on other banking panics.
128.59.169.46 ( talk) 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
At what percentage of deposits withdrawn does a bank run come into existence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlawbailey ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This big change to Bank run #Theory introduced some nice explanations, but also it had several problems.
I attempted to work around these problems with this big change, but more work is needed. As things stand, the Bank run #Theory section is too long; it should be only about 3 paragraphs, not 6 paragraphs, as it is a brief summary of Diamond-Dybvig model. Eubulides ( talk) 06:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Second, I am getting used to this Wikipedia standard of using texts. I want to cleave as close as possible to authoritative texts so that I'm not accused of putting in "original research". I'm sure I'll get it right eventually.
Third, I'll leave the substance for another time. In my view, the D&D page itself mis-states the theory somewhat, but this page was too much.
Fourth, as for the repetition, yeah I noticed it, too. I tried to use the text from the D&D page. I can only work with what I have at hand.
Fifth, I used exactly the same sourcing as the original pages and changed nothing when it came to D&D. For the other I used the authors' principle, most crucial argument, which has clearly stood academic scrutint (as it was being republished by the Fed) and the historical stuff is multiply sourced in the text of the article itself - so that's a nice, neat way to do it.
In my view, bringing D&D into it may be confusing in the first place. A bank run happens because too many people withdraw their money at once. D&D make an argument that this is an intrinsic danger to demand deposit banking and while this argument is, I think, well-accepted, the larger economics involved may be not be too important. I suggest this text:
"Banks are financial intermediaries. Work on the origins of banking suggests that the mathematics of the bank help create a system that encourages honest trade, provides increased liquidity and diminishes risk for all participants and therefore logically attracts depositors. [1]
The Diamond and Dybvig model of banking suggests that banks themselves have an incentive to offer ultra-liquid demand accounts to depositors because it helps them provide the liquidity the economy demands. [2]However, Diamond and Dybvig also point out a danger:
1. The loans made by the bank can be liquidated far less quickly than the depositors can liquidate their accounts.
2. Mathematically, depositors in demand deposit institutions have a perverse incentive to withdraw their money from the bank - thus possibly causing a bank run - if they suspect others will do the same.
Their model implies that financial intermediation via demand deposit contracts will have a fatal “bank run equilibrium” unless safeguards are put in place. [3]
In theoretical terms, the Diamond-Dybvig model finds depositors in an economic ”game” with more than one Nash equilibrium where it is actually logical for each individual depositor to engage in a bank run once she suspects one might start - even though that run will cause the collapse of the bank. [2] For that reason a bank run can occur when started by a true or a false story. Even depositors who know the story is false will have a logical incentive to withdraw if they suspect other depositors will believe the story. The story becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. [2] Indeed, Robert K. Merton, who coined the term self-fulfilling prophecy, mentioned bank runs as a prime example of the concept in his book Social Theory and Social Structure. [4]"
Eubulides ( talk) 02:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This edit add a {{ Worldview}} tag, I think because the first paragraph delved into the history of banking in Europe that had little to do with bank runs per se. To try to fix the problem I removed the paragraph in question, along with the tag. Eubulides ( talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"As a result, the bank faces bankruptcy, and will 'call in' the loans it has offered. This can cause the bank's debtors to face bankruptcy themselves" - this sounds quite odd, or maybe country-specific but definitely should not be presented as a generalization. Not in the lead. The bank normally cannot change terms of loan contract and call it in just to fill a cash need. Selling loans to a third party is common but very different. NVO ( talk) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
A bank run and a bank failure are not the same. Why does "bank failure" lead to this article? Washington Mutual just collapsed, yet there was no bank run. -- JHP ( talk) 04:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a wikipedia superstar, and don't know all the tricks, but this article should be nominated for HIGH importance, in consideration of a US$17 Billion dollar run on Washington Mutual Bank forcing the hand of federal regulators to move on the largest bank bailout in US history. Critical Chris ( talk) 17:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Good proposal. I saw Eubulides comment at the project talk page, and I think I improved on Critical Chris's suggestion by moving it to WikiProject Finance, and giving it Top importance. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 11:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
How the is a run "coordinated" and not a mass action? Do all the depositors coordinate under a grand conspiracy to stretch a line around the corner? I'm tempted to rv my edits, unless you can educate me as to how this is a coordinated action. Critical Chris ( talk) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I should mention that it's not just the mass-action part of these edits that is unsourced. The edits also make claims about the prisoner's dilemma and the Tragedy of the commons that is unsourced. This article should be focused on bank runs, and what reliable sources say about bank runs; it's not a place for us Wikipedia editors to give our analogies and theories. Eubulides ( talk) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This edit had some problems:
I made this change to try to fix the problems noted above. Eubulides ( talk) 02:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a great page, but sooner or later I think we will need to split the article analyzing how a run occurs at a single bank from the material analyzing how a crisis spreads across the whole banking system. I just added a subsection on systemic banking crises, but I think at some point there should be a whole article called Systemic banking crisis. Suggestions on alternative names (Banking panic? Credit crunch?) would be appreciated.
Alternatively, systemic issues could be discussed in the financial crisis page. But I think that would be a mistake, because 'financial crisis' is a much broader term, including phenomena like stock market crashes and currency crises that are clearly distinguishable from banking panics (which is not to deny that one type of crisis often leads to another). -- Rinconsoleao ( talk) 09:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Recently I made an edit [3] about the fact that the maturities of the assets and liabilities of banks are not matched:
I wonder if there have been any proposals to regulate the mismatch to zero, as this would seem to prevent bank runs, after reading article Asset liability mismatch. Or if the absolute value of the duration gap of the total assets and liabilities of the bank should be set to a maximum allowed time. More notes at Talk:Bank regulation#Asset-liability maturity match requirement?. Najro ( talk) 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This series of edits introduced several problems:
Eubulides ( talk) 00:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of moving all or most of the contents of Bank run #Recent incidents to the new page List of banking crises, which seems like a more-appropriate location. That section is just a list, so it really belongs in a list page. Comments? Eubulides ( talk) 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This edit (which was later reverted) added sources that seem a bit dubious. What seems to have happened here is the claim "designed to match the maturities of deposits and loans" was added to the article and then someone went to look for sources to support the claim. A better practice is to find a reliable mainstream source on bank runs and 100%-reserve banking, and then to summarize what the source says. The cited Allen 1993 source, for example, is reliable, but it doesn't say anything about full-reserve banking being designed to match maturities: instead, it says that full-reserve banking was designed to put the government (rather than banks) in charge of the money supply, indicating that the main motivation during the 1930s heyday of this proposal was not bank runs at all. Perhaps we should substitute that claim, and cite Allen. Or better yet perhaps we should just drop the claim, as this full-reserve stuff is a bit wp:WEIGHTy for Bank run anyway. Eubulides ( talk) 20:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Full-reserve banking is not hypothetical. It is currently not practiced much in the Western world, but there is nothing hypothetical about it. -- Kalbasa ( talk) 22:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
A strike has been announced for the middle of the week and people have started withdrawing cash from ATMs. I was just there and there's a constant line of 4 people withdrawing the maximum amount they can.
Establishing. Comments here.-- Gregalton ( talk) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
69.38.102.250 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) inserted the following text into Bank run #Recent incidents, citing a Youtube video:
After this was removed, similar text was soon added by Gcjblack ( talk · contribs), a new single-purpose account, and then again by 69.129.196.249 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS).
This text is does not have a reliable source. A Youtube video is not reliable. Please don't keep trying to add it with unreliable sources: we need a reliable source for extraordinary claims such as this one. Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source.
Also, please bear in mind the WP:SOCK rules for editing from multiple accounts and IP addresses. Eubulides ( talk) 07:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is a Youtube video not a reliable source if it shows a US representative reporting this incident? (if you're referring to this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMu1mFao3w) Unless you suspect the video is forged. Of course Rep. Kanjorski could be wrong, so it should be stated with some massive disclaimer around it. Either way, I agree that this is dubious, because it is not mentioned in a single reputable news source. I contacted factcheck.org about it. Here's the mail I sent:
Hi there,
This one has got me puzzled for hours, so perhaps you can help:
There's an interview with Rep. Kanjorski from February on Youtube titled '$550 Billion Disappeared in "Electronic Run On the Banks'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMu1mFao3w
In this video Rep. Kanjorski explains that in September there was an electronic bank run where $550 billion was withdrawn in a matter of hours and the FED had to jump to the rescue to prevent the global economy from collapsing.
Not a single reputable news source mentions this bank run, nor does any reputable new source mention the interview. Given that he is describing a near miss Armageddon, this is strange.
I've scanned trough some of the comments on Youtube and other sites, but I can't find anything useful. Some people come up with the usual Jewish conspiracies, and others suggest that some foreign country is behind it. Nobody debunks the story.
This particular bank run is not mentioned on the Wikipedia article on Bank Runs either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run
Furthermore, half a trillion dollar is a lot of money even for the USA so this could hardly be a civilian bank run; who were pulling this money?
What are the facts here?
Did this (electronic) bank run actually take place? Was it indeed $550 billion dollars, or orders of magnitude less?
If it did happen as described, why was it not picked up by any reputable news sources?
Cheers,
Sjors
Perhaps a new page about "Suspected Bank Runs" would be a solution? :-)
Sjors ( talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The article claims "contained a wave of bank runs and bank nationalizations". The source cited speaks of "a wave of bank nationalisations". It does not speak of bank runs. There has been no "wave of bank runs".
217.226.57.86 ( talk) 08:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This phrase and subsequent figures appear twice in the article. Should the first of these be deleted? Colin99 ( talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Chendy ( talk) 02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Where's the argument in favour of encouraging bank runs?
A bank can't become insolvent unless IT IS insolvent. Which is to say it has been mis-managed to such an extent it's capital ought to be forfeited in the name of market integrity and morality.
Where's the argument for laissez-faire and market forces? For good ol' apple pie?
That any bank that can be driven to insolvency ought to be, and that if governments or market forces don't achieve the destruction of an insolvent bank [hello?], the depositor base is not just entitled, but has a duty [and self-interest] to drive the institution from the market place?
49.176.99.74 ( talk) 10:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Laeven has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
Accurate, well written article. It could be usefully mentioned that "temporary suspension of withdrawals" often takes place in the context of what is known as a "bank holiday", a temporary closure of the bank. A recent example is the banks in Greece. Sometimes caps are put in place limiting the amount of daily deposit withdrawals, to allow for continuation of small cash withdrawals.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Laeven has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeas ( talk) 16:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |origdate=
ignored (|orig-date=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think this happened recently in Argentina.
Two possible queries:
First: "...arranged (but did not use)...": I recall reading an article in a British newspaper during w/c 17 September 2007 which claimed that Northern Rock eventually did use the emergency loan facility, to the tune of approx. £2.5bn. I can't find it in a quick Google search, though.
Second: "...liquidity problems (stemming from over-exposure to the failing US sub-prime mortgage market). A run...": The government claimed that NR's liquidity problems were purely due to US sub-prime, but other reports suggest that potential investors were afraid that Northern Rock itself had done a lot of risky lending within the UK mortgage market, and therefore has its own, home-grown sub-prime issue. Suggest change to: "...liquidity problems, which NR's defenders claimed were the result of over-exposure to the failing US sub-prime mortgage market, and its critics argued were the result of NR's own careless lending practices." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LDGE ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems financial institution isn't the only one with withdrawl rush. In 1997, there was a case of run of bakery in Hong Kong, where a rush of customers redeeming their cake cards from Saint Honore Cake Shop. [1] [2] Considering it can and have happened to places outside financial institution, I believe it is time for the article title to be replaced with withdrawl rush to better reflect the nature of the activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Poon ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Jacob Poon 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the section Bank run#In fiction be removed, as per WP:TRIVIA guidelines. Comments? Eubulides ( talk) 07:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The "In Fiction" Section has been re-instated because the majority of people know what a Bank Run is from fiction and thus is relevant to the article title.
This change improved the wording in Bank run #Theory, but it contains several important technical errors; among other things it confuses borrowers with savers. Also, it introduces the notion of bank profit, which is irrelevant to the Diamond-Dybvig model; the model applies equally well to nonprofit banks. I made this further change to try to repair the confusion. Eubulides ( talk) 16:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times claims that "since World War II, there have been 18 banking crises in industrial countries. The worst five were caused by changing lending standards or real estate bubbles (often both) and cost at least 6 to 20 percent of G.D.P., the U.S. equivalent of $850 billion to $2.8 trillion."
They then list the "worst 5:"
Spain, 1977 Spain Cost: >16% of G.D.P. A poor response to the oil shock of 1973 and weak bank supervision meant half of banks had solvency problems; the government took over 20 small banks.
Norway, 1987
Norway
Cost: 8% of G.D.P
Deregulation led to problem real estate loans and banks had too little capital to absorb losses. A drop in oil prices started the crisis.
Finland, 1991
Finland
Cost: 11% of G.D.P.
Big increases in household debt and overly optimistic assessments of asset quality added to problems caused by the loss of exports to Soviet Union.
Sweden, 1991
Sweden
Cost: 6% of G.D.P.
Deregulation meant banks were able to make poorly documented loans without supervision. A real estate bubble collapsed.
Japan, 1992
Japan
Est. Cost: >20% of G.D.P.
A sharp plunge in the real estate market caused bad loans to pile up, starting a stretch of stagnation known as Japan's lost decade.
What were the other 13? I think we should have articles on each of them in the same way we have articles on other banking panics.
128.59.169.46 ( talk) 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
At what percentage of deposits withdrawn does a bank run come into existence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlawbailey ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This big change to Bank run #Theory introduced some nice explanations, but also it had several problems.
I attempted to work around these problems with this big change, but more work is needed. As things stand, the Bank run #Theory section is too long; it should be only about 3 paragraphs, not 6 paragraphs, as it is a brief summary of Diamond-Dybvig model. Eubulides ( talk) 06:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Second, I am getting used to this Wikipedia standard of using texts. I want to cleave as close as possible to authoritative texts so that I'm not accused of putting in "original research". I'm sure I'll get it right eventually.
Third, I'll leave the substance for another time. In my view, the D&D page itself mis-states the theory somewhat, but this page was too much.
Fourth, as for the repetition, yeah I noticed it, too. I tried to use the text from the D&D page. I can only work with what I have at hand.
Fifth, I used exactly the same sourcing as the original pages and changed nothing when it came to D&D. For the other I used the authors' principle, most crucial argument, which has clearly stood academic scrutint (as it was being republished by the Fed) and the historical stuff is multiply sourced in the text of the article itself - so that's a nice, neat way to do it.
In my view, bringing D&D into it may be confusing in the first place. A bank run happens because too many people withdraw their money at once. D&D make an argument that this is an intrinsic danger to demand deposit banking and while this argument is, I think, well-accepted, the larger economics involved may be not be too important. I suggest this text:
"Banks are financial intermediaries. Work on the origins of banking suggests that the mathematics of the bank help create a system that encourages honest trade, provides increased liquidity and diminishes risk for all participants and therefore logically attracts depositors. [1]
The Diamond and Dybvig model of banking suggests that banks themselves have an incentive to offer ultra-liquid demand accounts to depositors because it helps them provide the liquidity the economy demands. [2]However, Diamond and Dybvig also point out a danger:
1. The loans made by the bank can be liquidated far less quickly than the depositors can liquidate their accounts.
2. Mathematically, depositors in demand deposit institutions have a perverse incentive to withdraw their money from the bank - thus possibly causing a bank run - if they suspect others will do the same.
Their model implies that financial intermediation via demand deposit contracts will have a fatal “bank run equilibrium” unless safeguards are put in place. [3]
In theoretical terms, the Diamond-Dybvig model finds depositors in an economic ”game” with more than one Nash equilibrium where it is actually logical for each individual depositor to engage in a bank run once she suspects one might start - even though that run will cause the collapse of the bank. [2] For that reason a bank run can occur when started by a true or a false story. Even depositors who know the story is false will have a logical incentive to withdraw if they suspect other depositors will believe the story. The story becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. [2] Indeed, Robert K. Merton, who coined the term self-fulfilling prophecy, mentioned bank runs as a prime example of the concept in his book Social Theory and Social Structure. [4]"
Eubulides ( talk) 02:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This edit add a {{ Worldview}} tag, I think because the first paragraph delved into the history of banking in Europe that had little to do with bank runs per se. To try to fix the problem I removed the paragraph in question, along with the tag. Eubulides ( talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"As a result, the bank faces bankruptcy, and will 'call in' the loans it has offered. This can cause the bank's debtors to face bankruptcy themselves" - this sounds quite odd, or maybe country-specific but definitely should not be presented as a generalization. Not in the lead. The bank normally cannot change terms of loan contract and call it in just to fill a cash need. Selling loans to a third party is common but very different. NVO ( talk) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
A bank run and a bank failure are not the same. Why does "bank failure" lead to this article? Washington Mutual just collapsed, yet there was no bank run. -- JHP ( talk) 04:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a wikipedia superstar, and don't know all the tricks, but this article should be nominated for HIGH importance, in consideration of a US$17 Billion dollar run on Washington Mutual Bank forcing the hand of federal regulators to move on the largest bank bailout in US history. Critical Chris ( talk) 17:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Good proposal. I saw Eubulides comment at the project talk page, and I think I improved on Critical Chris's suggestion by moving it to WikiProject Finance, and giving it Top importance. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 11:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
How the is a run "coordinated" and not a mass action? Do all the depositors coordinate under a grand conspiracy to stretch a line around the corner? I'm tempted to rv my edits, unless you can educate me as to how this is a coordinated action. Critical Chris ( talk) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I should mention that it's not just the mass-action part of these edits that is unsourced. The edits also make claims about the prisoner's dilemma and the Tragedy of the commons that is unsourced. This article should be focused on bank runs, and what reliable sources say about bank runs; it's not a place for us Wikipedia editors to give our analogies and theories. Eubulides ( talk) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This edit had some problems:
I made this change to try to fix the problems noted above. Eubulides ( talk) 02:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a great page, but sooner or later I think we will need to split the article analyzing how a run occurs at a single bank from the material analyzing how a crisis spreads across the whole banking system. I just added a subsection on systemic banking crises, but I think at some point there should be a whole article called Systemic banking crisis. Suggestions on alternative names (Banking panic? Credit crunch?) would be appreciated.
Alternatively, systemic issues could be discussed in the financial crisis page. But I think that would be a mistake, because 'financial crisis' is a much broader term, including phenomena like stock market crashes and currency crises that are clearly distinguishable from banking panics (which is not to deny that one type of crisis often leads to another). -- Rinconsoleao ( talk) 09:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Recently I made an edit [3] about the fact that the maturities of the assets and liabilities of banks are not matched:
I wonder if there have been any proposals to regulate the mismatch to zero, as this would seem to prevent bank runs, after reading article Asset liability mismatch. Or if the absolute value of the duration gap of the total assets and liabilities of the bank should be set to a maximum allowed time. More notes at Talk:Bank regulation#Asset-liability maturity match requirement?. Najro ( talk) 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This series of edits introduced several problems:
Eubulides ( talk) 00:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of moving all or most of the contents of Bank run #Recent incidents to the new page List of banking crises, which seems like a more-appropriate location. That section is just a list, so it really belongs in a list page. Comments? Eubulides ( talk) 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This edit (which was later reverted) added sources that seem a bit dubious. What seems to have happened here is the claim "designed to match the maturities of deposits and loans" was added to the article and then someone went to look for sources to support the claim. A better practice is to find a reliable mainstream source on bank runs and 100%-reserve banking, and then to summarize what the source says. The cited Allen 1993 source, for example, is reliable, but it doesn't say anything about full-reserve banking being designed to match maturities: instead, it says that full-reserve banking was designed to put the government (rather than banks) in charge of the money supply, indicating that the main motivation during the 1930s heyday of this proposal was not bank runs at all. Perhaps we should substitute that claim, and cite Allen. Or better yet perhaps we should just drop the claim, as this full-reserve stuff is a bit wp:WEIGHTy for Bank run anyway. Eubulides ( talk) 20:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Full-reserve banking is not hypothetical. It is currently not practiced much in the Western world, but there is nothing hypothetical about it. -- Kalbasa ( talk) 22:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
A strike has been announced for the middle of the week and people have started withdrawing cash from ATMs. I was just there and there's a constant line of 4 people withdrawing the maximum amount they can.
Establishing. Comments here.-- Gregalton ( talk) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
69.38.102.250 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) inserted the following text into Bank run #Recent incidents, citing a Youtube video:
After this was removed, similar text was soon added by Gcjblack ( talk · contribs), a new single-purpose account, and then again by 69.129.196.249 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS).
This text is does not have a reliable source. A Youtube video is not reliable. Please don't keep trying to add it with unreliable sources: we need a reliable source for extraordinary claims such as this one. Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source.
Also, please bear in mind the WP:SOCK rules for editing from multiple accounts and IP addresses. Eubulides ( talk) 07:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is a Youtube video not a reliable source if it shows a US representative reporting this incident? (if you're referring to this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMu1mFao3w) Unless you suspect the video is forged. Of course Rep. Kanjorski could be wrong, so it should be stated with some massive disclaimer around it. Either way, I agree that this is dubious, because it is not mentioned in a single reputable news source. I contacted factcheck.org about it. Here's the mail I sent:
Hi there,
This one has got me puzzled for hours, so perhaps you can help:
There's an interview with Rep. Kanjorski from February on Youtube titled '$550 Billion Disappeared in "Electronic Run On the Banks'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMu1mFao3w
In this video Rep. Kanjorski explains that in September there was an electronic bank run where $550 billion was withdrawn in a matter of hours and the FED had to jump to the rescue to prevent the global economy from collapsing.
Not a single reputable news source mentions this bank run, nor does any reputable new source mention the interview. Given that he is describing a near miss Armageddon, this is strange.
I've scanned trough some of the comments on Youtube and other sites, but I can't find anything useful. Some people come up with the usual Jewish conspiracies, and others suggest that some foreign country is behind it. Nobody debunks the story.
This particular bank run is not mentioned on the Wikipedia article on Bank Runs either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run
Furthermore, half a trillion dollar is a lot of money even for the USA so this could hardly be a civilian bank run; who were pulling this money?
What are the facts here?
Did this (electronic) bank run actually take place? Was it indeed $550 billion dollars, or orders of magnitude less?
If it did happen as described, why was it not picked up by any reputable news sources?
Cheers,
Sjors
Perhaps a new page about "Suspected Bank Runs" would be a solution? :-)
Sjors ( talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The article claims "contained a wave of bank runs and bank nationalizations". The source cited speaks of "a wave of bank nationalisations". It does not speak of bank runs. There has been no "wave of bank runs".
217.226.57.86 ( talk) 08:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This phrase and subsequent figures appear twice in the article. Should the first of these be deleted? Colin99 ( talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Chendy ( talk) 02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Where's the argument in favour of encouraging bank runs?
A bank can't become insolvent unless IT IS insolvent. Which is to say it has been mis-managed to such an extent it's capital ought to be forfeited in the name of market integrity and morality.
Where's the argument for laissez-faire and market forces? For good ol' apple pie?
That any bank that can be driven to insolvency ought to be, and that if governments or market forces don't achieve the destruction of an insolvent bank [hello?], the depositor base is not just entitled, but has a duty [and self-interest] to drive the institution from the market place?
49.176.99.74 ( talk) 10:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Laeven has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
Accurate, well written article. It could be usefully mentioned that "temporary suspension of withdrawals" often takes place in the context of what is known as a "bank holiday", a temporary closure of the bank. A recent example is the banks in Greece. Sometimes caps are put in place limiting the amount of daily deposit withdrawals, to allow for continuation of small cash withdrawals.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Laeven has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeas ( talk) 16:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |origdate=
ignored (|orig-date=
suggested) (
help)