Do bank failures result from gradual solvency deterioration rather than runs?
Core argument: Drawing on more than 37,000 U.S. banks from 1865 to 2023, the authors reject bank runs as a plausible cause of failure for at least 80% of pre-FDIC failures, concluding runs on otherwise solvent banks were not a common cause.
This paper studies failing banks using data on more than 37,000 banks from the United States spanning 1865-2023. Our findings suggest that most bank failures are the result of a deterioration of a bank’s solvency - [which] is typically gradual and takes place over several years. The realization of credit risk reduces income and erodes capital buffers. The erosion of a bank’s profitability and capitalization ultimately results either in a bank run or a supervisory decision to close the bank, the former being more common in the historical data. Both depositors and supervisors seem to be slow to react to information about fundamentals, making bank failures highly predictable. [Though] our empirical approach does not allow us to identify the exact cause of failure, our evidence allows us to reject bank runs as a plausible cause of bank failure for a robust majority of at least 80% of pre-FDIC failures. Hence bank runs on otherwise solvent banks are not a plausible common cause of bank failures for most bank failures in the history of the U.S.

