ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Movie Review - The Big Short

Tom McAndrew

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
56,692
40,373
1
This is an unusual take on one of the key issues that caused the financial meltdown in 2008.

The film is an adaptation of the best-selling book by Michael Lewis. He’s the same guy that wrote The Blind Side – a best seller which also became a pretty popular film.

This movie doesn’t have the emotional pull of The Blind Side. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is up to the viewer to decide.

The Big Short is a docudrama about greed on Wall Street, lack of oversight by rating agencies and governmental departments, and a handful of people that figured out the sham that was being perpetrated on the nation.

The movie focuses on the guy (Michael Burry) that first figured out that the numbers and details for bundled mortgage securities being sold in the early to mid-2000s were going to fail. He’s an awkward guy who has poor social skills, but is really good with arcane details, especially numbers. Christian Bale plays Michael Burry, and as usually is the case, he really nails the role of his character.

Burry decides to bet against the securities (to go short on them), but there’s no way to do so when he approaches brokerage banks. However, the Wall Street guys are only too happy to create a financial mechanism to accommodate Burry, especially when he’s spending millions on the mechanisms, (plus they are convinced that the mechanisms are guaranteed winners for them).

The movie also focuses on a Wall Street banker, Jared Vennett (played by Ryan Gosling). Vennett learns of the plays that Burry makes, and tries to make money by selling the same mechanisms. He gets rejected by most people that he approaches, but he isn’t dismissed by Mark Baum (played by Steve Carrell), who heads a fund. Baum is suspicious of everything by nature. How his wife (played by Marisa Tomei, who always looks good) puts up with him is hard to figure. However, Baum’s suspicion leads him to do extensive research, and he eventually spends millions buying the financial mechanisms, as he too comes to believe that the bundled mortgage securities are poised to implode.

You’d expect a docudrama about a subject like the international financial crises of 2008 to be pretty serious. To some extent this film is. However, the movie has to educate the audience about a good number of financial things for it to make any sense. The screenwriters came up with a rather interesting way of doing so, where they used comedy to provide this information. It provides some levity to a subject, and a story, that is both serious and sad.

For those into accuracy, I should note that Michael Burry is the only real-life person in the film. The other characters are loosely based on people in Lewis's book, but not real-life people that were a part of the financial crisis.

The movie is a challenge to rate. It’s entertaining, but it also leaves you somewhat angry and somewhat stunned at what took place. This is not a feel-good story, and not even the good guys, so to speak, seem proud of what they accomplished. I found it rather informative, and the performances by Bales and Carrell were excellent. I’m not usually a fan of Ryan Gosling, but he does a very good job in the movie. Brad Pitts has a semi-small roll in the film, and I didn’t even notice he was in the film until I saw the credits.

I’d give it a 3.25 – 3.5 out of 4 stars, and recommend it as such, with the caveats listed in the previous paragraph.
 
This s an unusual take on one of the key issues that caused the financial meltdown in 2008.

The film is an adaptation of the best-selling book by Michael Lewis. He’s the same guy that wrote The Blind Side – a best seller which also became a pretty popular film.

This movie doesn’t have the emotional pull of The Blind Side. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is up to the viewer to decide.

The Big Short is a docudrama about greed on Wall Street, lack of oversight by rating agencies and governmental departments, and a handful of people that figured out the sham that was being perpetrated on the nation.

The movie focuses on the guy (Michael Burry) that first figured out that the numbers and details for bundled mortgage securities being sold in the early to mid-2000s were going to fail. He’s an awkward guy who has poor social skills, but is really good with arcane details, especially numbers. Christian Bale plays Michael Burry, and as usually is the case, he really nails the role of his character.

Burry decides to bet against the securities (to go short on them), but there’s no way to do so when he approaches brokerage banks. However, the Wall Street guys are only too happy to create a financial mechanism to accommodate Burry, especially when he’s spending millions on the mechanisms, especially since they are convinced that the mechanisms are guaranteed winners for them.

The movie also focuses on a Wall Street banker, Jared Vennett (played by Ryan Gosling). Vennett learns of the plays that Burry makes, and tries to make money by selling the same mechanisms. He gets rejected by most people that he approaches, but he isn’t dismissed by Mark Baum (played by Steve Carrell), who heads a fund. Baum is suspicious of everything by nature. How his wife (played by Marisa Tomei, who always looks good) puts up with him is hard to figure. However, Baum’s suspicion leads him to do extensive research, and he eventually spends millions buying the financial mechanisms, as he too comes to believe that the bundled mortgage securities are poised to implode.

You’d expect a docudrama about a subject like the international financial crises of 2008 to be pretty serious. To some extent this film is. However, the movie has to educate the audience about a good number of financial things for it to make any sense. The screenwriters came up with a rather interesting way of doing so, where they used comedy to provide this information. It provides some levity to a subject, and a story, that is both serious and sad.

For those into accuracy, I should note that Michael Burry is the only real-life person in the film. The other characters are loosely based on people in Lewis's book, but not real-life people that were a part of the financial crisis.

The movie is a challenge to rate. It’s entertaining, but it also leaves you somewhat angry and somewhat stunned at what took place. This is not a feel-good story, and not even the good guys, so to speak, seem proud of what they accomplished. I found it rather informative, and the performances by Bales and Carrell were excellent. I’m not usually a fan of Ryan Gosling, but he does a very good job in the movie. Brad Pitts has a semi-small roll in the film, and I didn’t even notice he was in the film until I saw the credits.

I’d give it a 3.25 – 3.5 out of 4 stars, and recommend it as such, with the caveats listed in the previous paragraph.

Probably going to check this out tomorrow. One review I read mentioned a few of the characters in the film are composites of other real life characters necessitated by the time constraints of the film. Really hoping the funny is good because like you said, the whole thing is really depressing and sad and infuriating.
 
You’d expect a docudrama about a subject like the international financial crises of 2008 to be pretty serious. To some extent this film is. However, the movie has to educate the audience about a good number of financial things for it to make any sense. The screenwriters came up with a rather interesting way of doing so, where they used comedy to provide this information. It provides some levity to a subject, and a story, that is both serious and sad.

Apparently this is done in very innovative, offbeat ways.
 
I saw TBS last weekend and I basically agree with Tom's review.

With all of the epic movies out now - Star Wars, H8ful Eight, Revenant, Creed - that would be great to see on a big screen - TBS is a film to be seen, but I'd wait until you can stream or purchase for home viewing.
 
This is an unusual take on one of the key issues that caused the financial meltdown in 2008.

The film is an adaptation of the best-selling book by Michael Lewis. He’s the same guy that wrote The Blind Side – a best seller which also became a pretty popular film.

The shorting didn't cause the meltdown. What caused the meltdown was production of mortgages that had no chance of being repaid. Hedge funds levering up on said loans. Insurance companies guaranteeing said loans.

This story and film are about as realistic as the Tuohy's just happening to adopt a kid who was an NFL lineman prospect because he seemed nice.

LdN
 
This s an unusual take on one of the key issues that caused the financial meltdown in 2008.

The film is an adaptation of the best-selling book by Michael Lewis. He’s the same guy that wrote The Blind Side – a best seller which also became a pretty popular film.

This movie doesn’t have the emotional pull of The Blind Side. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is up to the viewer to decide.

The Big Short is a docudrama about greed on Wall Street, lack of oversight by rating agencies and governmental departments, and a handful of people that figured out the sham that was being perpetrated on the nation.

The movie focuses on the guy (Michael Burry) that first figured out that the numbers and details for bundled mortgage securities being sold in the early to mid-2000s were going to fail. He’s an awkward guy who has poor social skills, but is really good with arcane details, especially numbers. Christian Bale plays Michael Burry, and as usually is the case, he really nails the role of his character.

Burry decides to bet against the securities (to go short on them), but there’s no way to do so when he approaches brokerage banks. However, the Wall Street guys are only too happy to create a financial mechanism to accommodate Burry, especially when he’s spending millions on the mechanisms, especially since they are convinced that the mechanisms are guaranteed winners for them.

The movie also focuses on a Wall Street banker, Jared Vennett (played by Ryan Gosling). Vennett learns of the plays that Burry makes, and tries to make money by selling the same mechanisms. He gets rejected by most people that he approaches, but he isn’t dismissed by Mark Baum (played by Steve Carrell), who heads a fund. Baum is suspicious of everything by nature. How his wife (played by Marisa Tomei, who always looks good) puts up with him is hard to figure. However, Baum’s suspicion leads him to do extensive research, and he eventually spends millions buying the financial mechanisms, as he too comes to believe that the bundled mortgage securities are poised to implode.

You’d expect a docudrama about a subject like the international financial crises of 2008 to be pretty serious. To some extent this film is. However, the movie has to educate the audience about a good number of financial things for it to make any sense. The screenwriters came up with a rather interesting way of doing so, where they used comedy to provide this information. It provides some levity to a subject, and a story, that is both serious and sad.

For those into accuracy, I should note that Michael Burry is the only real-life person in the film. The other characters are loosely based on people in Lewis's book, but not real-life people that were a part of the financial crisis.

The movie is a challenge to rate. It’s entertaining, but it also leaves you somewhat angry and somewhat stunned at what took place. This is not a feel-good story, and not even the good guys, so to speak, seem proud of what they accomplished. I found it rather informative, and the performances by Bales and Carrell were excellent. I’m not usually a fan of Ryan Gosling, but he does a very good job in the movie. Brad Pitts has a semi-small roll in the film, and I didn’t even notice he was in the film until I saw the credits.

I’d give it a 3.25 – 3.5 out of 4 stars, and recommend it as such, with the caveats listed in the previous paragraph.

That's all fine and dandy, but it still doesn't address the fact that the politicians, via Congressional Legislation in 1999, created the "syndicated subprime market" and the politicians who proposed and created the Legislation that enabled it (Barney Frank being one of the prime movers) took massive amounts of political donations from Countrywide (Mazillo), FNMA (Raines) and FHLMC. Essentially, the 1999 legislation not only cut the GSE's reserve requirements allowing them to reach much higher leverage ratios, but the 1999 legislation also allowed SUB-PRIME LOANS to be purchased by the GSE's and counted toward their zip-code calculated "social mission" Requirement (e.g., lending at rates well below what the average credit score for the zip-code warranted) - because the GSE's are a private-public entity and largely funded by the government (hence the term "quasi-agencies"), they have a "social mission" component to their lending which by PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT must be made to certain qualifying zip-codes.

The 1999 Legislation allowed sub-prime loans to be counted toward Fannie's and Freddie's "social mission" Requirement if the GSE's bought the sub-prime loans and held them in their mortgage portfolio. This in turn sparked the "Sub-Prime Syndication" business (the first step in creating mortgage syndication is standardizing loan docs so the mortgages can be pooled). This was all already in the works by Countrywide who was the other primary political donor to this desired legislation - go figure, Fannie, Freddie and Countrywide were among the biggest political donors annually and they got precisely the legislation they desired (Raines at Fannie was a political animal and the former head of HUD), who'da thunk it? In any event, sub-prime syndication accounted for 0% of loan syndication in 1999 and by 2006 sub-prime syndications accounted for 17% of all mortgage syndication! The primary buyers of all those syndications? You guessed it, the other party to the desired 1999 Legislation, Fannie and Freddie (btw, take a guess who was one of the biggest recipients of GSE and Countrywide political contributions back at the time during their Senate campaigns and then ultimately a Presidential campaign?).

Things aren't always what hollywood film-makers want you to believe in their little propaganda films - bankers played a minor bit role in the crisis; the "conditions" that created the crisis were created by LEGISLATION of the US Government (the US Congress is the creator and REGULATOR of Fannie and Freddie) especially the changes made in 1999 which not only created the "sub-prime syndication" loan market, but insanely permitted the GSE's to skyrocket their leverage ratios when they were the primary buyers of this nuclear waste. The makings of the crisis were in place long before any of the characters discussed in the film -- the characters in the film merely recognized the absurdity of what the bribed US Politicians did in 1999 and that it very clearly meant that you should be short mortgage exposure because his tinderbox was going to explode at some point.
 
Last edited:
The shorting didn't cause the meltdown. What caused the meltdown was production of mortgages that had no chance of being repaid. Hedge funds levering up on said loans. Insurance companies guaranteeing said loans.

This story and film are about as realistic as the Tuohy's just happening to adopt a kid who was an NFL lineman prospect because he seemed nice.

LdN
with out being able to short, how does the collateral being non existent get exposed ? You may have a some defaults here and there, but the CMO probably stays in place. The CDS were the real problem, as they were just bets, nothing else. It was like going to Vegas and betting red or black. (is GE going to default on their loan?? I say no, you say yes let's make a bet) When you make too many bad bets, the leg breaker comes looking for their money, when they find out you don't have that money, or the things you own that can be turned into money, don't have the value you say that have, then there is a problem.

FWIW I believe the Tuohy's did adopt the kid because he was nice, and had no place else to go. it happens, I don't think they knew a 14-15 yr old kid would be a #1 draft choice. Just as easy he turns out to be a Charlie Wysocki. Look him up if you don't know.
 
The shorting didn't cause the meltdown. What caused the meltdown was production of mortgages that had no chance of being repaid. Hedge funds levering up on said loans. Insurance companies guaranteeing said loans.

This story and film are about as realistic as the Tuohy's just happening to adopt a kid who was an NFL lineman prospect because he seemed nice.

LdN
I didn't think the point was that the shorting caused the crisis...just that they were among the few to see the insanity of the mbs/cdo/cds market at the time. When aaa paper winds up selling for 15 cents on the dollar post crisis, something went wrong....
 
The shorting didn't cause the meltdown. What caused the meltdown was production of mortgages that had no chance of being repaid. Hedge funds levering up on said loans. Insurance companies guaranteeing said loans.

This story and film are about as realistic as the Tuohy's just happening to adopt a kid who was an NFL lineman prospect because he seemed nice.

LdN
There was a good paper - I'm very rusty on all of this now - that was based on solid research for the period of something like 2005 - 2008 and showed that both shorts that were delivered and not delivered had a positive effect on markets. For example, they found that they reduced pricing errors and ultimately volatility. I assume, but don't exactly remember, that they would also reduce order imbalances. The conclusion was that the focus on banning naked short sales and failures-to deliver was wrong and the better way to rectify the problem was to improve liquidity and transparency in the market.

I found it. Here is the article citation:
Fails-to-deliver, short selling, and market quality
 
with out being able to short, how does the collateral being non existent get exposed ? You may have a some defaults here and there, but the CMO probably stays in place. The CDS were the real problem, as they were just bets, nothing else. It was like going to Vegas and betting red or black. (is GE going to default on their loan?? I say no, you say yes let's make a bet) When you make too many bad bets, the leg breaker comes looking for their money, when they find out you don't have that money, or the things you own that can be turned into money, don't have the value you say that have, then there is a problem.

FWIW I believe the Tuohy's did adopt the kid because he was nice, and had no place else to go. it happens, I don't think they knew a 14-15 yr old kid would be a #1 draft choice. Just as easy he turns out to be a Charlie Wysocki. Look him up if you don't know.

CDS, although a problem, was not THE problem. If anything CDS caused the meltdown to happen sooner than later. If it happened later it would have been even worse.

The problem was Nothing was stopping the insurers from guaranteeing the loans. Nothing was going to allow the loans to be repaid except for refis which would have been even more levered up. In the end the mortgages were crap. For lack of a better word. Never should have been loaned out or allowed.

With regards to CDS, CDS requires collateral postings. If the mark moves the bank (AIG in this case via their FP entitiy) has to post collateral (US Treasury securities) to match the loss to the counterparty.

Under insurance guidelines the regulator just oversees the risk. That was actually a bigger problem but the insurers are still riding out the risk and not paying anyone.

LdN
 
There was a good paper - I'm very rusty on all of this now - that was based on solid research for the period of something like 2005 - 2008 and showed that both shorts that were delivered and not delivered had a positive effect on markets. For example, they found that they reduced pricing errors and ultimately volatility. I assume, but don't exactly remember, that they would also reduce order imbalances. The conclusion was that the focus on banning naked short sales and failures-to deliver was wrong and the better way to rectify the problem was to improve liquidity and transparency in the market.

I found it. Here is the article citation:
Fails-to-deliver, short selling, and market quality
I think we are talking about 2 different things here. They were trying to find a way to short Mortgage backed securities, and you are referring to shorting the equity market. Of course any short seller can commission a study to make his job easier. Naked shorting (ie not borrowing the security) certainly caused part of the melt down. Any stock, that is company, can get run out of business, if you are allowed to sell more shares than the number of shares outstanding! It just math!! By the time anyone is worried about FTD, it's too late. See Windstar communications for one.
 
Franklin's rant is a bit long but he's correct in essence--the truth is that Congress was also culpable and for "social engineering" reasons--essentially the belief that everyone deserves to own a house. It wasn't just the bankers (mind you, they have their own actions to answer for as well).
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu2016
I think we are talking about 2 different things here. They were trying to find a way to short Mortgage backed securities, and you are referring to shorting the equity market. Of course any short seller can commission a study to make his job easier. Naked shorting (ie not borrowing the security) certainly caused part of the melt down. Any stock, that is company, can get run out of business, if you are allowed to sell more shares than the number of shares outstanding! It just math!! By the time anyone is worried about FTD, it's too late. See Windstar communications for one.
I am talking equities. I would read the article that I cited though. This is from the Journal of Financial Economics. It might be a little technical.

LINK to article

Above is the working paper. The final article appeared in Elsevier's Journal of Financial Economics.
 
Last edited:
This is an unusual take on one of the key issues that caused the financial meltdown in 2008.

The film is an adaptation of the best-selling book by Michael Lewis. He’s the same guy that wrote The Blind Side – a best seller which also became a pretty popular film.

This movie doesn’t have the emotional pull of The Blind Side. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is up to the viewer to decide.

The Big Short is a docudrama about greed on Wall Street, lack of oversight by rating agencies and governmental departments, and a handful of people that figured out the sham that was being perpetrated on the nation.

The movie focuses on the guy (Michael Burry) that first figured out that the numbers and details for bundled mortgage securities being sold in the early to mid-2000s were going to fail. He’s an awkward guy who has poor social skills, but is really good with arcane details, especially numbers. Christian Bale plays Michael Burry, and as usually is the case, he really nails the role of his character.

Burry decides to bet against the securities (to go short on them), but there’s no way to do so when he approaches brokerage banks. However, the Wall Street guys are only too happy to create a financial mechanism to accommodate Burry, especially when he’s spending millions on the mechanisms, (plus they are convinced that the mechanisms are guaranteed winners for them).

The movie also focuses on a Wall Street banker, Jared Vennett (played by Ryan Gosling). Vennett learns of the plays that Burry makes, and tries to make money by selling the same mechanisms. He gets rejected by most people that he approaches, but he isn’t dismissed by Mark Baum (played by Steve Carrell), who heads a fund. Baum is suspicious of everything by nature. How his wife (played by Marisa Tomei, who always looks good) puts up with him is hard to figure. However, Baum’s suspicion leads him to do extensive research, and he eventually spends millions buying the financial mechanisms, as he too comes to believe that the bundled mortgage securities are poised to implode.

You’d expect a docudrama about a subject like the international financial crises of 2008 to be pretty serious. To some extent this film is. However, the movie has to educate the audience about a good number of financial things for it to make any sense. The screenwriters came up with a rather interesting way of doing so, where they used comedy to provide this information. It provides some levity to a subject, and a story, that is both serious and sad.

For those into accuracy, I should note that Michael Burry is the only real-life person in the film. The other characters are loosely based on people in Lewis's book, but not real-life people that were a part of the financial crisis.

The movie is a challenge to rate. It’s entertaining, but it also leaves you somewhat angry and somewhat stunned at what took place. This is not a feel-good story, and not even the good guys, so to speak, seem proud of what they accomplished. I found it rather informative, and the performances by Bales and Carrell were excellent. I’m not usually a fan of Ryan Gosling, but he does a very good job in the movie. Brad Pitts has a semi-small roll in the film, and I didn’t even notice he was in the film until I saw the credits.

I’d give it a 3.25 – 3.5 out of 4 stars, and recommend it as such, with the caveats listed in the previous paragraph.
Excellent review, thanks. For a guy that struggled through micro and macro eco thousands of years ago it was hard to understand how "short" worked and how you make money on them but other wise, a movie with no gunshots, murders,bombs or sex scenes was still riveting.
 
CDS, although a problem, was not THE problem. If anything CDS caused the meltdown to happen sooner than later. If it happened later it would have been even worse.

The problem was Nothing was stopping the insurers from guaranteeing the loans. Nothing was going to allow the loans to be repaid except for refis which would have been even more levered up. In the end the mortgages were crap. For lack of a better word. Never should have been loaned out or allowed.

With regards to CDS, CDS requires collateral postings. If the mark moves the bank (AIG in this case via their FP entitiy) has to post collateral (US Treasury securities) to match the loss to the counterparty.

Under insurance guidelines the regulator just oversees the risk. That was actually a bigger problem but the insurers are still riding out the risk and not paying anyone.

LdN

No doubt, the genesis of the problem was GSE Legislation created years before and not just created, but KNOWINGLY created despite being warned repeatedly of the risks. Anyone who doubts that need only read these quotes from cowardly, hypocritical, zero-accountability politicians who were massively bribed by the GSE's and the sub-prime syndicators into creating the legislation customized to their specifications as quid pro quo for their bribes. Click on the following hotlink with a classic Barney Frank quote following link as an example:

What They Said About Fan and Fred

*******************************************************************
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .
*******************************************************************
 
  • Like
Reactions: mn78psu83
Is the movie loosely based on the guy from Texas who made billions off shorting mortgage backed securities? Interesting guy. He also thought there would be a spike in the price of copper so he hoarded five million bucks worth of pennies.
 
Is the movie loosely based on the guy from Texas who made billions off shorting mortgage backed securities? Interesting guy. He also thought there would be a spike in the price of copper so he hoarded five million bucks worth of pennies.
kyle bass? It doesn't cover him or John Paulson, surprisingly. Maybe Lewis wasn't given access to either of those guys.
 
This is an unusual take on one of the key issues that caused the financial meltdown in 2008.

The film is an adaptation of the best-selling book by Michael Lewis. He’s the same guy that wrote The Blind Side – a best seller which also became a pretty popular film.

This movie doesn’t have the emotional pull of The Blind Side. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is up to the viewer to decide.

The Big Short is a docudrama about greed on Wall Street, lack of oversight by rating agencies and governmental departments, and a handful of people that figured out the sham that was being perpetrated on the nation.

The movie focuses on the guy (Michael Burry) that first figured out that the numbers and details for bundled mortgage securities being sold in the early to mid-2000s were going to fail. He’s an awkward guy who has poor social skills, but is really good with arcane details, especially numbers. Christian Bale plays Michael Burry, and as usually is the case, he really nails the role of his character.

Burry decides to bet against the securities (to go short on them), but there’s no way to do so when he approaches brokerage banks. However, the Wall Street guys are only too happy to create a financial mechanism to accommodate Burry, especially when he’s spending millions on the mechanisms, (plus they are convinced that the mechanisms are guaranteed winners for them).

The movie also focuses on a Wall Street banker, Jared Vennett (played by Ryan Gosling). Vennett learns of the plays that Burry makes, and tries to make money by selling the same mechanisms. He gets rejected by most people that he approaches, but he isn’t dismissed by Mark Baum (played by Steve Carrell), who heads a fund. Baum is suspicious of everything by nature. How his wife (played by Marisa Tomei, who always looks good) puts up with him is hard to figure. However, Baum’s suspicion leads him to do extensive research, and he eventually spends millions buying the financial mechanisms, as he too comes to believe that the bundled mortgage securities are poised to implode.

You’d expect a docudrama about a subject like the international financial crises of 2008 to be pretty serious. To some extent this film is. However, the movie has to educate the audience about a good number of financial things for it to make any sense. The screenwriters came up with a rather interesting way of doing so, where they used comedy to provide this information. It provides some levity to a subject, and a story, that is both serious and sad.

For those into accuracy, I should note that Michael Burry is the only real-life person in the film. The other characters are loosely based on people in Lewis's book, but not real-life people that were a part of the financial crisis.

The movie is a challenge to rate. It’s entertaining, but it also leaves you somewhat angry and somewhat stunned at what took place. This is not a feel-good story, and not even the good guys, so to speak, seem proud of what they accomplished. I found it rather informative, and the performances by Bales and Carrell were excellent. I’m not usually a fan of Ryan Gosling, but he does a very good job in the movie. Brad Pitts has a semi-small roll in the film, and I didn’t even notice he was in the film until I saw the credits.

I’d give it a 3.25 – 3.5 out of 4 stars, and recommend it as such, with the caveats listed in the previous paragraph.

Everyone would be better off watching "Inside Job"

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Job-Matt-Damon/dp/B0041KKYBA
 
That's all fine and dandy, but it still doesn't address the fact that the politicians, via Congressional Legislation in 1999, created the "syndicated subprime market" and the politicians who proposed and created the Legislation that enabled it (Barney Frank being one of the prime movers) took massive amounts of political donations from Countrywide (Mazillo), FNMA (Raines) and FHLMC. Essentially, the 1999 legislation not only cut the GSE's reserve requirements allowing them to reach much higher leverage ratios, but the 1999 legislation also allowed SUB-PRIME LOANS to be purchased by the GSE's and counted toward their zip-code calculated "social mission" Requirement (e.g., lending at rates well below what the average credit score for the zip-code warranted) - because the GSE's are a private-public entity and largely funded by the government (hence the term "quasi-agencies"), they have a "social mission" component to their lending which by PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT must be made to certain qualifying zip-codes. The 1999 Legislation allowed sub-prime loans to be counted toward Fannie's and Freddie's "social mission" Requirement if the GSE's bought the sub-prime loans and held them in their mortgage portfolio. This in turn sparked the "Sub-Prime Syndication" business (the first step in creating mortgage syndication is standardizing loan docs so the mortgages can be pooled). This was all already in the works by Countrywide who was the other primary political donor to this desired legislation - go figure, Fannie, Freddie and Countrywide were among the biggest political donors annually and they got precisely the legislation they desired (Raines at Fannie was a political animal and the former head of HUD), who'da thunk it? Anyway, sub-prime syndication accounted for 0% of loan syndication in 1999 and by 2006 sub-prime syndications accounted for 17% of all mortgage syndication! The primary buyers of all those syndications? You guessed it, the other party to the desired 1999 Legislation, Fannie and Freddie (btw, take a guess who was one of the biggest recipients of GSE and Countrywide political contributions back at the time during their Senate campaigns and then ultimately a Presidential campaign?). Things aren't always what hollywood film-makers want you to believe in their little propaganda films - bankers played a minor bit role in the crisis; the "conditions" that created the crisis were created by LEGISLATION of the US Government (the US Congress is the creator and REGULATOR of Fannie and Freddie) especially the changes made in 1999 which not only created the "sub-prime syndication" loan market, but insanely permitted the GSE's to skyrocket their leverage ratios when they were the primary buyers of this nuclear waste. The makings of the crisis were in place long before any of the characters discussed in the film -- the characters in the film merely recognized the absurdity of what the bribed US Politicians did in 1999 and that it very clearly meant that you should be short mortgage exposure because his tinderbox was going to explode at some point.
Good post, but I sure wish you would hit the "Return" key periodically.
 
The shorting didn't cause the meltdown. What caused the meltdown was production of mortgages that had no chance of being repaid. Hedge funds levering up on said loans. Insurance companies guaranteeing said loans.

This story and film are about as realistic as the Tuohy's just happening to adopt a kid who was an NFL lineman prospect because he seemed nice.

LdN

An interesting comment, but I'm not sure why you made it. The movie did not claim that shorting caused the meltdown, and I didn't make such a claim in my review. The movie does indicate that the bundled mortgage securities, which were a packaging of mortgages that never should have been written, were the primary cause of the meltdown. It also touches on a few other causes that were related to the securities.
 
That's all fine and dandy, but it still doesn't address the fact that the politicians, via Congressional Legislation in 1999, created the "syndicated subprime market" and the politicians who proposed and created the Legislation that enabled it (Barney Frank being one of the prime movers) took massive amounts of political donations from Countrywide (Mazillo), FNMA (Raines) and FHLMC. Essentially, the 1999 legislation not only cut the GSE's reserve requirements allowing them to reach much higher leverage ratios, but the 1999 legislation also allowed SUB-PRIME LOANS to be purchased by the GSE's and counted toward their zip-code calculated "social mission" Requirement (e.g., lending at rates well below what the average credit score for the zip-code warranted) - because the GSE's are a private-public entity and largely funded by the government (hence the term "quasi-agencies"), they have a "social mission" component to their lending which by PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT must be made to certain qualifying zip-codes. The 1999 Legislation allowed sub-prime loans to be counted toward Fannie's and Freddie's "social mission" Requirement if the GSE's bought the sub-prime loans and held them in their mortgage portfolio. This in turn sparked the "Sub-Prime Syndication" business (the first step in creating mortgage syndication is standardizing loan docs so the mortgages can be pooled). This was all already in the works by Countrywide who was the other primary political donor to this desired legislation - go figure, Fannie, Freddie and Countrywide were among the biggest political donors annually and they got precisely the legislation they desired (Raines at Fannie was a political animal and the former head of HUD), who'da thunk it? Anyway, sub-prime syndication accounted for 0% of loan syndication in 1999 and by 2006 sub-prime syndications accounted for 17% of all mortgage syndication! The primary buyers of all those syndications? You guessed it, the other party to the desired 1999 Legislation, Fannie and Freddie (btw, take a guess who was one of the biggest recipients of GSE and Countrywide political contributions back at the time during their Senate campaigns and then ultimately a Presidential campaign?). Things aren't always what hollywood film-makers want you to believe in their little propaganda films - bankers played a minor bit role in the crisis; the "conditions" that created the crisis were created by LEGISLATION of the US Government (the US Congress is the creator and REGULATOR of Fannie and Freddie) especially the changes made in 1999 which not only created the "sub-prime syndication" loan market, but insanely permitted the GSE's to skyrocket their leverage ratios when they were the primary buyers of this nuclear waste. The makings of the crisis were in place long before any of the characters discussed in the film -- the characters in the film merely recognized the absurdity of what the bribed US Politicians did in 1999 and that it very clearly meant that you should be short mortgage exposure because his tinderbox was going to explode at some point.
Outstanding post here. "Government-sponsored enterprises" says it all. Both had monopoly privileges - a line of credit from the Treasury, no corporate taxes at the state or local level, and they were the only two Fortune 500 companies exempt from SEC regulation. Instead, both were regulated by HUD and FHFA.
 
That's all fine and dandy, but it still doesn't address the fact that the politicians, via Congressional Legislation in 1999, created the "syndicated subprime market" and the politicians who proposed and created the Legislation that enabled it (Barney Frank being one of the prime movers) took massive amounts of political donations from Countrywide (Mazillo), FNMA (Raines) and FHLMC. Essentially, the 1999 legislation not only cut the GSE's reserve requirements allowing them to reach much higher leverage ratios, but the 1999 legislation also allowed SUB-PRIME LOANS to be purchased by the GSE's and counted toward their zip-code calculated "social mission" Requirement (e.g., lending at rates well below what the average credit score for the zip-code warranted) - because the GSE's are a private-public entity and largely funded by the government (hence the term "quasi-agencies"), they have a "social mission" component to their lending which by PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT must be made to certain qualifying zip-codes.

The 1999 Legislation allowed sub-prime loans to be counted toward Fannie's and Freddie's "social mission" Requirement if the GSE's bought the sub-prime loans and held them in their mortgage portfolio. This in turn sparked the "Sub-Prime Syndication" business (the first step in creating mortgage syndication is standardizing loan docs so the mortgages can be pooled). This was all already in the works by Countrywide who was the other primary political donor to this desired legislation - go figure, Fannie, Freddie and Countrywide were among the biggest political donors annually and they got precisely the legislation they desired (Raines at Fannie was a political animal and the former head of HUD), who'da thunk it? In any event, sub-prime syndication accounted for 0% of loan syndication in 1999 and by 2006 sub-prime syndications accounted for 17% of all mortgage syndication! The primary buyers of all those syndications? You guessed it, the other party to the desired 1999 Legislation, Fannie and Freddie (btw, take a guess who was one of the biggest recipients of GSE and Countrywide political contributions back at the time during their Senate campaigns and then ultimately a Presidential campaign?).

Things aren't always what hollywood film-makers want you to believe in their little propaganda films - bankers played a minor bit role in the crisis; the "conditions" that created the crisis were created by LEGISLATION of the US Government (the US Congress is the creator and REGULATOR of Fannie and Freddie) especially the changes made in 1999 which not only created the "sub-prime syndication" loan market, but insanely permitted the GSE's to skyrocket their leverage ratios when they were the primary buyers of this nuclear waste. The makings of the crisis were in place long before any of the characters discussed in the film -- the characters in the film merely recognized the absurdity of what the bribed US Politicians did in 1999 and that it very clearly meant that you should be short mortgage exposure because his tinderbox was going to explode at some point.
A really solid analysis and CAPS were limited to the appropriate aceonyms for idiotic government agencies! Kudos!
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT