You should also include marketcap / assets

If there are some banks out there valued at xxxx with only yyy in assets, thats good to know

That's represented by the price-to-book ratio. Which essentially is marketcap / net assets.

Logically, it should not go bellow 1, if it does, it means that the market thinks something is wrong with the company.

Scrolling it feels like scrolling coinmarketcap

I'd love if this was filterable on country, which looks like the data is available.

i.e. I was looking for the lowest ranked Canadian bank... which seems to be Equitable Bank... which tends to offer some of the higher high-interest-rate saving accounts.

Barclays valued high again, every time there's crash anywhere. Barclays is going down every time.

This is just completely naive and wrong. The last two bank collapses happened because they held too much long duration assets and held them on the books at cost. Where would that show up here? That’s right, nowhere.

At the very least do some domain research and look up things like Texas ratio.

You could have provided a link to an explanation to what the Texas ratio is [0], or simply explained that:

The Texas ratio takes the amount of a bank's non-performing assets and divides this number by the sum of the bank's tangible common equity and its loan loss reserves. A ratio of more than 100 (or 1:1) indicates that non-performing assets are greater than the resources the bank may need to cover potential losses on those assets.

I agree the website looks very naive, but not necessarily naive on purpose.

[0]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/texas-ratio.asp

The ranking is mainly based on stock price action and price-to-book ratio.

The collapses that occurred were a combination of factors. The most important were the massive withdrawals of capital these highly specialised banks faced when their crypto and startup customers ran out of money.

I wanted to check N26 but apparently is not listed... am I missing something?

N26 is not publicly listed on a stock exchange, therefor it is hard to get information about it.

Additionally the raking is mainly based on price action since March 1st and the price-to-book ratio.

The balance sheet of the banks that failed so far was not the bottom of the list, I would say it was slightly bellow average. In fact they even had good ratings by Moody's. What broke their back was their lack of diversification (exposure to crypto and tech startups that massively withdrew in recent time) and the bankrun that ensued.

It's GmbH, not publicly traded

That would explain for a lack of price/valuation, but asset and liability information should still be available, though?

thanks to both of you, I missed that part.

Too small to notice.

I don't know what to think about this if not Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt

I think there is a very easy explanation.

There is a rock and a hard place for banks because low interest rate debt tends to be safe from default. But drops in value when interest rates rise.

After 15 years of zero interest rate policies by the Fed and other central bankers, banks are now sitting on huge amounts of safe from default low interest rate debt. And now that the Fed is raising rates the value of that debt is falling hard.

My opinion is this is all on the Fed. They caused this problem, they need to fix it.

Maybe what we really need is a logic bomb programmed to wipe out huge swathes of banking data and free us all from this parasitic economy. One so powerful that it makes the end scene of Fight Club look quaint with its silly little physical demolition.

Wiping all banks‘ balance sheets might not achieve the redistribution you‘re hoping for, if you think a minute about what that would actually mean (i.e. everybody loses all of their savings, and nobody has to pay back their loans).

Besides that, the status quo emerges from the set of laws and regulations applied to banks. Removing the banks and keeping everything else unchanged is the best way to get an exact copy of the bad outcomes you‘re hoping to prevent.

Or just bake backup tapes with HVAC hack (credit to Mr Robot)

Kinda naive table. Credit Suisse sort of collapsed today and it was barely 9th here. Also no mention of CDS levels which are directly the thing you should be looking at.

> Also no mention of CDS levels which are directly the thing you should be looking at

Assuming they're incorporating all relevant info seems Hopeful (ie when did you see SVBs widen).

I definitely agree they're an obvious datapoint

9/470 isnt bad?

It's not good or bad, per se, unless it's actionable and quantified.

- quantified: What's the difference in default probability between ranks 1-8 and rank 9? what about between rank 10 and rank 200? Without quantifying or at least qualifying what this ranking means, it's impossible to assess the accuracy of prediction in either direction.

- actionable: What do you do with this information, and what is the cost of taking that action?

An absolute ranking based on four statistics without even explaining the relationship between the statistics and the ranking is the statistical version of blogspam.

[https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/866/838/cdc... I format this right?)

HN doesn't support markdown for links, sorry.

This seems like largely a ranking of what banks the market is currently pricing in for failure (via share price and P/B). Still interesting, but maybe not really based on the banks fundamentals, just 'market wisdom'

I am ignorant with regards to banking and finance, so forgive me if this is a silly question, but is there any reason that mutual societies (e.g. UK building societies or US credit unions) do not seem to be included in the list? I am aware of course that the column "Price change since March 1st" would make no sense for these institutions, and maybe the other columns would also be irrelevant (as I say, I am an ignorant).

Still, if the source data includes these institutions and it makes sense to add them, I would be very interested in seeing how for instance Britain's Nationwide or Spain's Caja Rural compare with publicly traded banks in this ranking of numbers that to be honest I don't really understand well enough to evaluate them.

Many mutual and building societies (like German Schwäbisch Hall) have a "closed system": they don't borrow/lend the money from/to central bank and open marked, but only from/to their clients. Those are isolated islands, mostly independent from financial system are are immune to crisis happening outside of their closed system...

The ranking is mainly based on stock price action and the price-to-book ratio. The main "asset" of a bank is trust and the price action is a very good indicator that shows if investors still trust the bank.

My first intention was to mainly base my ranking on their balance sheet, but the balance sheet of SVB, Signature, Silvergate and Credit Suisse was average, it wasn't terrible (Many banks do much worse). In fact Moody's gave SVB an A rating.

What broke SVB,Signature and Silvergate's neck was their lack of diversification, their high exposure to crypto and tech startups and the bankrun that ensued when crypto collapsed and VC cut their funding.

Almost every bank can't sustain a bankrun. In the "cash equivalents % of total assets" column you can see how much of their assets the bank can actually let people quickly withdraw and it isn't that much.

Silvergate had 40% of their assets in cash equivalents, more than almost every bank, and they still failed.

At least in the US:

• credit unions have larger reserves. Often 10+%

• credit unions are less likely to be holding massive bundles of securities for which they'd have to write down losses during a sale.

• credit unions tend to have less exposure to uninsured depositors (i.e businesses or people who are just flush with money)

• credit unions are not-for-profits under 501. It's either 501(c)1 or 501(c)3 depending on the credit union from what I recall, but the consequence is that they're federally tax free. Which of course means more money to support the membership.

• there's not really a share price for a credit union other than maybe whatever it cost to open the account. So there's no way to gauge public sentiment around exposure anyway.

Hope that explains why.

This site is just contributing to misinformation by not fully understanding how to evaluate likelihood of collapse. It should be taken down.

This is not a valid Show HN. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html.

We've taken "Show HN" out of the title now.

I don't mean to pile on, but dear god. Others are characterizing this as naive. To be a bit blunt, "naive" is a charitable interpretation of the author's intent.

TL;DR: if you swipe left on web3-cum-gtp (sic) people when considering investment and collaboration, swipe left here as well. Otherwise, load up on risky bets that these bank fails, comment with your positions below, and please don't gamble with assets your family needs for a comfortable life.

To my critique, in no particularly intentionally order:

1. The weighting of these four statistics is not disclosed. I'm working on figuring out that weighting and will post below if I figure it out.

2. Presentation. The "price to book", "cash eq % of assets", and "Assets / liabilities" columns are presented in absolute terms with no coloring while the "stock price change" is RED RED RED and base-lined from 19 days ago (?).

3. The ranking is already empirically invalid, depending on how you characterize what just happened at CS.

4. Speaking of CS, what does "collapsing" even mean? What risk is being measured here? Risk to depositors? Risk to creditors? Risk to owners?

5. Looking at these rankings, I'm not really sure what role this is supposed to play. I would not use this list to purchase any sort of financial contract or to decide where I should deposit my cash. Even if this list accurately captures the "collapse", for any particular value of "collapse", it's unclear what actual action should be taken...

Uh, stock price is largely an emotional sentiment on short-earnings potential. Whether a stock price of a bank moved or not should be largely immaterial compared to its reserves.

What's important are:

- strong regulations (not half of Dodd-Frank becoming a banking lobbyist for weaker regs)

- results of recent, meaningful stress tests

- diversification of its asset portfolio in inflation- and interest-rate-safe instruments

- P&L exposure to liabilities or downturns in revenue

- diversification of product mix to weather commercial and retail downturns