Look, I understand the sub prime packages were less then desirable, but so were high yield bonds (junk bonds) in the 80s which caused a bit of trouble too... The problem is with the comments of people after the crash attacking the lenders without examining WHY they changed course.

The fact is, the banks were attacked for years for being so called racists for not giving more loans to minorities. However, the obvious reason they didn't was because they statistically had less money as a community. The banks are like most people and don't like being called racist or have people screaming in their faces in board meetings.

If you follow the rise of the worst lending practices you will see the rise of political activists pushing them. Personally I wouldn't have cared if they bothered me, but corporations are weak and callow. I mean look at how they dance for the twitter mobs insane whims today.

Should the loans have been given? Probably not, but I will never excuse people that sign a contract. Just like the people that purchased high yield bonds, they were looking for a great deal.

Btw, to answer your original post question, there isn't anything out there like the sub prime mortgages to cause that problem. These bank failures have been about the interest rate hikes which affected the bond market, causing the banks to lose money selling the worthless bonds. The market could crash (more) but it's not like 08.