For a bank, these better investments are available to its depositors if they leave. The bank’s borrowing costs have gone up (or will soon) and that’s the difference between profits and losses. The losses will happen sometime (unless interest rates go down again), but when they get recognized is a matter of accounting.
So the bonds were risky, as is any fixed-income investment when your borrowing costs are variable. (Though it’s clearly not as bad a loss as it would be if the bonds defaulted.)
The mark-to-market decline of long-term loans wiped out an entire category of financial services (the Savings and Loans service). Remember "A Wonderful Life??" George Bailey? That was "Savings and Loans".
Gone, the entirety of the entire sector was wiped out, despite the 30+ year bonds still being "good on their money".
Bailey ran a savings and loan. The run in the film was not a reference to the S&L crisis, seeing as the film predates it by decades.
I assume you meant the right thing, but there's enough ambiguity that I could see a reader being confused.
It's kind of hard for the American Dream to be a rent seeker, and for their not to be a lot of rent seeking...
A] I can't really speak to real-estate, but generally as a consumer I find the market incentives are misaligned to what should be socially desired results. There's too much darn rent seeking.