The FDIC's recent analysis of the deposit flight that helped take down Silicon Valley, Signature and First Republic banks in 2023 is informative. However, it leaves unanswered some important questions about regulators' assumptions related to brokered deposits.

The agency's approval of the stablecoin-focused Erebor will be the first of many applications to open new banks, many focused on nontraditional elements of the business.

Whether intentionally or not, regulatory incentives and punishments drive banks out of a lending market, to the detriment of the banking industry, consumers, American business and, in the long run, regulators themselves.

The agency's recent proposal to redefine "brokered deposits" requires a debate over the performance of different kinds of bank deposits. The problem is that the necessary data isn't available yet.

What's the point of regulatory capital rules that ignore demonstrated problems, like unrealized losses? We need to rethink what banks' disclose to investors and regulators.

Data from recent bank failures suggests that prevailing assumptions about which deposits are the most volatile could be dangerously flawed.

Consumers and small business could eventually feel the impact of stepped-up regulatory scrutiny of bank-fintech partnerships.