I find this thread very confusing.
No way did shareholders lose 30bn in Anglo no matter what metric is used. And no way did "members" lose 6bn in INBS. The bulk of these losses are taxpayers'.
I think comparing sizes of balance sheets is a futile exercise. A bank could halve its balance sheet whilst at the same time doubling its shareholders funds, if for example it sold off its mortgage book at a profit and paid back depositors. Aggregate balance sheets are swamped by the ebbs and flows of funding and credit creation, can't see how it can help identify shareholder effects.
To me the correct figure in this context is the loss of shareholder equity as reported in the companies' financial statements.
The 55bn has been cited from time to time as the shareholder losses but I have always taken this to mean loss from peak market value. DOM recognises that this is the wrong metric but argues that the correct one, as I outlined above, is coincidentally similar. But the fact that he needs a 30bn loss in Anglo to make up his figures suggests that maybe he is squirming a bit here. The correct figure for Anglo is, I think, 4bn. Similarly "members" only lost about 1bn in INBS. This would mean that aggregate shareholder/member losses are about 23bn, using the table produced by Brendan.
Don't get me wrong, generally I support the DOM line.