@ChpBstrd - Your premise isn't wrong, I can only give you my opinion on why this existing/pending slowdown will not hurt banks at the same level as 1991 or 2008.
Banks did okay in 2000, it was the 1991 recession that crushed them with commercial real estate exposure plus the investment banks cleaning up the junk bond / LBO era. Then 2008 was so deep in housing it crushed all of those who even did things right. I worked at one of the few banks that remained profitable and didn't participate in the garbage, but our book of business at the time included loaning to homebuilders, residential developers, and suppliers. It was so deep for so long eventually they all shut down.
Our modern "bank" setup has only had three recessions, twice they got crushed and once were fine. From living inside there, my opinion is the regulatory cycle on credit risk is closer to twenty years. It takes a generation of bankers and regulators aging out before mistakes are repeated, then its slightly different mistakes. It may take longer for the credit risk cycle to change this time, given that all of congress was called in by the treasury secretary and said "approve this bailout or else". They don't forget. Heck, there was a perfectly reasonable proposal started in 2013 that said banks with twice the minimum capital required could get reduced oversight and it got watered down in 2017 and ended up at something else.
There was near zero improvement in risk monitoring through 2016. The new administration appointed new regulatory heads, they slowly get in there and chip away, but thats a slow process, there will be other appointees, and it'll take a generation before things are forgotten.
It may be a value trap or a value opportunity. Challenge of being a value investor. I like emerging markets too at a 12x PE in high growth areas of the world, but they haven't done anything in years too