[flotzam]

Ah. That makes sense. Maybe the polite fiction would clash too obviously with accounting standards once the (de facto) lowered rent payments roll in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48567769

Could the situation be improved then if financial regulators started treating both versions ("temporary" vacancy / "temporarily" lowered rent) equally? Tolerate both or crack down on both.

[grebc]

Banks maintain the capital/liquidity ratio’s they’re told they have too.

People are actually advocating for looser lending requirements, which I’m perfectly fine with but the result might not be what they expect either.

[Nemi]

I agree. I see a lot of comments alluding to the 'regulations' being bad. They are there for a reason. To keep errant bankers from loaning out too much money and creating an even more fragile system.

People have to realize that banking as a business is inherently broken. It is about lending long and borrowing short, which is very risky. Deposits are used to provide funds to lend long, but deposits can be 'called' at any time. The loans cannot.

But banking is also critical for a properly functioning society. It is in the government's (the people's) best interest to have a robust banking system in place. How to reconcile the risk with the benefit? By heavily regulating it.