The parent comment just made the point that you need to normalize for the size of the bank, not for the number of banks per year.
Your comment takes the annual frequency and divides it by 12 to get an average monthly frequency, adding nothing to the argument of the grandparent comment.
They suggested you should normalize for the size of the bank but didn’t support it. They even used non inflation adjusted numbers.
Maximum assets under control don’t correlate with actual losses especially when people pulled money out before the collapse. It’s a completely meaningless number on it’s own.
Certainly very valid criticisms. To be fair, I specifically was trying to ballpark it and this graph does not contain the Signature failure yet so I think it is a fair representation of this particular metric.
I also think it's a good point that a dollar is not necessarily equal to another dollar in this context. But the same can be said for individual banks as well.
Your comment takes the annual frequency and divides it by 12 to get an average monthly frequency, adding nothing to the argument of the grandparent comment.