>This seems like a pretty shitty premise given the US mortgage meltdown of 2007. Only if you have a very superficial understanding of the mortgage meltdown. Th

>This seems like a pretty shitty premise given the US mortgage meltdown of 2007. Only if you have a very superficial understanding of the mortgage meltdown. The underwriters of many of the bad mortgages were able to quickly sell the mortgages off to other banks. So there was almost no incentive to actually restrict who they were lending to. Also, you imply a contrapositive that isn't the case. Just because there were banks that were excessively lending in the early 2000s doesn't mean that there are banks that are being excessively conservative and leaving behind good returns.