By the time of the May 12, 2023 episode, the U.S. was indeed in acute banking turmoil following the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic—three of the largest bank failures in U.S. history.(en.wikipedia.org) But the normalized prediction you gave treats Sacks as forecasting that this turmoil would continue and develop into a serious, extended banking crisis over the ensuing months.

What actually happened is that the crisis was sharp but short-lived and was largely contained:

• In all of 2023 there were 5 U.S. bank failures; only three were large, with two small additional failures later in the year.(forbes.com) In 2024–2025 there were just a handful of small additional failures, far fewer than during 2009–2011.(archive.fdic.gov) This pattern does not resemble a prolonged, system‑wide fiasco.
• The Federal Reserve’s Bank Term Funding Program and other interventions are widely credited with averting a broader systemic banking crisis; the program expired in March 2024 after doing its job.(federalreserve.gov) The BIS similarly noted that large 2023 failures “did not lead to a systemic crisis.”(bis.org)
• By 2024–2025, the FDIC reported its insurance fund recovering faster than expected, and U.S. banks returned to solid profitability with rising deposits and strong capital and liquidity.(reuters.com)

So while there was a real but brief banking shock in spring 2023, it did not evolve into the extended, escalating fiasco implied by the prediction. Hence the prediction is best judged wrong.