Even if perhaps tighter regulations might have meant that the bank wouldn't have failed, it also might have meant the bank wouldn't have succeeded as a bank. There's a tradeoff between too much regulations stifling competition and risk of bank failure. If there's not enough competition you have monopolies which causes higher costs to people despite no bank failures. It isn't necessarily the best result.

I work for a credit union that has been forced to increase its regulatory burden and this might actually destroy the credit union because the credit union is simply too small to properly meet the standards. A lot of customers are going to the big banks now. Arguably, this is why big banks like high regulations because they can more easily meet them and put smaller banks/CUs out of business.

Even if perhaps tighter regulations might have meant that the bank wouldn't have failed, it also might have meant the bank wouldn't have succeeded as a bank. There's a tradeoff between too much regulations stifling competition and risk of bank failure. If there's no enough competition you have monopolies which causes higher costs to people despite no bank failures. It isn't necessarily the best result.

I work for a credit union that has been forced to increase its regulatory burden and this might actually destroy the credit union because the credit union is simply too small to properly meet the standards. A lot of customers are going to the big banks now. Arguably, this is why big banks like high regulations because they can more easily meet them and put smaller banks/CUs out of business.