In both cases current assets < current liabilities. Both require getting a loan to pay out the depositors. Both make no sense to loan money to as they will have no way to afford the payments to be worth loaning to over someone else.

> In both cases current assets < current liabilities.

That there are some things the same does not make them the same. You and I are both humans, but we are not the same person.

In a Ponzi collapse, all assets are typically < even current liabilities, let alone all of them. Unlike a bank run involving temporary liquidity issues, a Ponzi is never going to be able to pay everyone out.

To the customer it's the same. People don't want to be told that they will get their funds in a few years, they want it now. Liquidating all your assets is going to reduce the total value of all of your assets to potentially below your liabilities. If it doesn't good job, that means the bank is safe against bank runs, but if not they aren't.

That’s an absurd assertion. No, to a customer, a bank run is rapidly dealt with via the FDIC; we just had a great example of this with SVB. Madoff’s victims were not so lucky.

>we just had a great example of this with SVB.

They were acquired by another bank. Someone could similarly acquire a Ponzi scheme and pay out the people who wished to withdraw.

The FDIC made that happen. SVB became illiquid which triggered FDIC intervention. The bank was shut down by the FDIC and the assets were sold off to First Citizens bank. Executed without a hitch and no customer assets lost. The only ones who lost money were investors in the bank.

The FDIC would never make someone acquire a Ponzi scheme. Someone could in theory do it, but why would they? It's just throwing away money.