@BankPres@SenJohnKennedy You gotta remember how many de novos failed in the GFC though! Insane failure rates for banks founded in the 2000s just to participate in spec real estate.
Would be bad for regulators to offer dep ins to any bad business model. Barriers to entry are good for risk in aggregate
@GuyTalksFinance Absolutely not. Fundamentals have recovered extremely well in US compared to others. Unless something big we don't know about now happens, we are fine. Very tired of media and doomer posters here obsessing over a recession that seems to always be 6mo out.
@chutneylife If you value of what you could sell for then it's fine. It's not a one time expense you should recognize at purchase.
But luxury items is nonsense, no market.
@BankPres@BrookingsInst I don't follow. I think this is why lots of sensible Rs and Ds across the country support zoning reform to allow for denser, more efficient land use. Gas price doesn't matter as much if you can walk to a grocery store (or just have a shorter trip).
@VanceGinn@BankPres Lol switched to GDO for some reason... dint want ti recognize the fasted real gdp recovery of all advanced economies (except Australia I think)
@indexnforgetit Delusional. The median income in those places is less than a 5th of that. You've just depopulated some of the most wealthy and productive metros of >90% of their population.
@SmalllIvy@theficouple It's a few big box stores in an ocean of empty parking lots. Dense development is tall multiuse buildings all right next to each other
@SmalllIvy@theficouple Malls are not walkable urbanism. They didn't fail bc of walking.
The avg new Yorker walks like 5x more than the average American. City of millions of people.
The key is allowing dense development, which we don't. Allow it, and they will build it.
@SmalllIvy@theficouple What's necessary is a function of how we build. We build to prioritize cars over people in 99% of the US. NYC is just barely an exception to that.
@josephwang Those deposits flowed back in *after supervisory intervention*. The panic ended because of the intervention.
Maybe it would've ended without intervention and with a lot more bank failures. My guess is it would've lasted much longer.
@josephwang If the failure was one of overall supervisory strategy, then it doesn't make sense to sack examiners. My hunch is that none of the sups were taking uninsured deposit concentrations seriously bc they hadn't been an issue for a very long time. Too much stock on "relationships"