They have more even pattern of urbanization of cities where it follows the “rank-size rule” in which the second-largest city is typically half the size of the largest city, and the third city is half the size of the second city, and so forth. We see that in South Korea and Malaysia, but you do not see that in Thailand. This is not only because of the technology but it has to do with our policies focusing on the centralization around Bangkok. However, technologies such as remote working and work-from-anywhere increase the likelihood of a more decentralized growth. Bangkok today becomes so large, so congested, and so expensive, which makes sense for people to relocate elsewhere if communication is not a constraint. If such relocation occurs and the growth of the second city rises, they will provide sustainable boost to domestic consumption growth from the urban middle class which has been lacking in Thailand. This is accounted for why, despite all of our efforts in trying to boost domestic demand, we still end up relying so much on foreign demand whether in the forms of exports or foreign tourists. Those are some reasons why I think Thailand remains a good place to do business. I understand that some of them are speculative and I do not think that all those things will happen that easily.
In addition, and perhaps most importantly, the capital requirements have now become much more forward-looking. Each year a bank’s capital dividend and share-repurchase plan is assessed against the amount of capital the bank would potentially have under an extremely stressed economic and market environment given its portfolio of assets. The annual Comprehensive Capital and Analysis Review (CCAR) process has pushed U.S. banks to improve their capital planning processes and forced them, when needed, to retain more earnings and to build up their capital. As a result, these banks are much less risky now than they were prior to the financial crisis, when their vulnerability was masked by a high, but unsustainable, level of profitability. 1/3  BIS central bankers' speeches  On the liquidity side, there has also been significant improvement. The Liquidity Coverage Ratio and the Net Stable Funding Ratio requirements have forced banks to hold more high-quality liquid assets and have reduced the scope for maturity transformation. The ability and willingness of banks to finance illiquid, hard-to-value assets with short-term funding was an important element that contributed to the financial crisis. In addition, I believe that supervisory oversight has improved. There is more attention on horizontal evaluations across the systemically important firms and a greater emphasis on bank governance, risk management, cyber security, and bank data and technology capabilities than in the past. But the progress has not just been in terms of enhancing the strength of individual institutions. The system as a whole is also stronger because of a number of important initiatives.