Given there are at least 3 banks in most years (with a handful of years with none), I would say this is actually expected and not bizarre

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/

It's bizarre a recurring thing recurs?

Particularly when 'venturing' into areas more profitable because of more risk?

Here's their loan risk analysis as of EOY:

https://i.imgur.com/ZWG157R.jpg

Don't miss 14% to "innovation economy influencers"…

What's bizarre is that this is a particularly big bank to be going under. Most of the ones that die are tiny because banks have a real economy of scale here.

Lehman and Washington Mutual were truly exceptional cases in the 2008 crisis, and SVB may be right there with them in a few weeks.

2008 also had IndyMac and Wachovia[1] and a whole lot of regional banks, which were not small either.

[1] which technically didn't fail but had its retail banking operations forcibly absorbed by Citigroup in an overnight shotgun wedding officiated by the FDIC, but hey who's counting

You can also add Bear Stearns to that list. Another "rescue" merger of a large-cap bank.

WaMu failing was so strange.

most banks that fail are tiny because most banks are tiny

Is it bizzarre... or just a core feature of capitalism?

Core tradeoff. The feature you get from this is easier and cheaper long term loans