The five largest banks controlled $6.1 trillion in assets before the collapse. By 2012, they controlled assets worth $8.5 trillion. That is to say, they went from being “too big to fail” to being much, much bigger.

But perhaps that somehow makes them better banks? Economies of scale and all that? Not according to this study (pdf) from the Cleveland Fed:

Our calculations indicate that the cost to the economy as a whole due to increased systemic risk is of an order of magnitude larger than the potential benefits due to any economies of scale when banks are allowed to be large.