As a direct result of the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, many large financial institutions were bailed-out by national governments. Meaning that they receive large sums of capital to allow them to be solvent through times when their investments meant that they would otherwise fold. Understandably, the societal and political implications of the largest financial institutions collapsing would be untenable. What the authors are proposing for the future of financial institutions is that instead of relying on national governments to bail them out, that the burden of a bank failure be placed instead on the bank shareholders and creditors, hence the term bail-in. The ideas presented are to divest the public interest in private financial institutions, since the majority of observers and regulators have been quick to diagnose that the sovereign debt is not necessarily the best avenue to place the insurance of financial institutions upon. It is certainly a simple solution to a large, systemic problem. Yet, there would have to be significant change in policy and practices of the world’s largest financial institutions. What is being proposed is essentially a pre-bankruptcy plan. This idea has received significant pushback from those in the institutions, stating that it would hamstring a lot of the investment practices that allow banks to operate at the level that they currently do. It is important to remember that there are many ways to consider changing how governments and banks operate with each other, and that this is one of many different innovative ways that observers and researchers have prescribed changes.