My headcanon is that Steve Carell didn't know how any of this happened, the script taught him it for the first time, and his character's shock and outrage is genuine.
@@Sammyli99 You can buy Puts on SPY lets say spend 10 dollars and it is like betting against 560,000 USD worth of the stock. They are insurance, but imagine the person selling you those contracts. if they go in the money they have to pony up over half a million in SPY shares to cover assignment.
He’s one of the greatest actors of our time. He can play a plethora of roles and you forget it’s even Pitt playing the part, sure, he’ll always look like Brad Pitt, but his aura changes for each role.
The best summary of this movie I've ever seen was something like this: What's your favorite comedy movie? "The Big Short" What's your favorite horror movie? Also "The Big Short"
What is your favorite documentary ? 'The Big Short' What is your favorite thriller ? 'The Big Short' What is your favorite character study ? 'The Big Short' What is your favorite drama ? 'The Big Short' 😉
Margin call is another banger. The dialogue is so good that all you hear in the background is A/C humming. And the whole thing has the same feeling as the titanic trying to avoid that iceberg. People died; the wealthy and connected largely left unscathed; and the tragedy was avoidable.
Love this movie, I love how these conversations never happened they just invented them so stupid people like me can understand what’s going on 🤣 they way they talk to each other is like they are talking to idiots but really they are talking to the audience. Never felt so (rightly) patronised in my life, great movie.
Its a reason why this happened in the first place. Even the people that "understood" it, didn't or didn't want to because of the massive (temporary) moneybag.
Ao true! I've read the book this movie is based on; have to say youre absolutely right. All explanations in the movies simplified for understanding of a person bellow average. In reality it was much more complex
One thing I loved about this movie was the well done way they depicted the mid 00s zeitgeist. It was kinda the last pre social media era (the financial collapse happening nearly the exact same time modern era social media started)
One thing the film doesn't touch on is the effect all this had on the Repo market which was even more devastating. Banks loan each other money in exchange for "security" and the banks used these CDO's as security. When it turned out they were all useless it left banks owning billions. It's how banks all across the world got hit by a US housing market collapse.
@@abhinavn4555 banks of several countries had their money heavely invested on CDOs, and thos nations, like Portugal, Iceland, Greece and Spain were some of the European countries that suffered the most
Since when did the repo market start using structured finance obligations as collateral? The repo market I knew was run off U.S. treasuries, commercial paper and related cash instruments.
@@siddiqahmad5193 I think this explains it pretty well: In recent years, the tri-party repo has allowed the repo market to accept a wide range of collateral, including mortgage-backed securities, CDOs, and almost any asset that the clearing banks could hold in custody. Hence, it has allowed investors in various securities to more easily secure financing in the repo market by simply putting up their positions as collateral. However, an important factor contributing to the loss of liquidity in fixed-income markets in February and March 2008 was the sudden refusal of lenders in the repo market to accept as collateral the same wide range of assets as before. This made it difficult to impossible for holders to value the instruments and led to a sharp worsening of the liquidity profile of institutions-in the case of Bear Stearns, which had a large quantity of these assets on its balance sheets
Lets put in a good word for all the other actors too - they all did amazing in this movie! Gosling is so different here - didnt even recognize him at first.
Prime example of “experts” working jobs they had no understanding of. A worker is responsible for a certain job/result, but if his workmanship is poor, he is expected to understand how that result affects the finished product (value/safety). Actions have consequences, but no one except a select few in the scenes here actually understood the bigger picture if things went poorly. No one even considered the “what if” scenario until it was too late.
they understood just fine they just didn't care. The wealthiest people weren't the ones hurt by the crash it was the poor people they treated as pawns.
They understand the risk of the product themselves, they just didn't care since the customer would take the loss, not them, they get the big fat fees out of it and called it a day. Even when the Subprime loan got rated AAA by Morgan Stanley and S&P, when the congress questioned them why the fuck they dare to rate those shit loan at AAA rating? They just answer: "Well it's our opinion on it. Trusting it is our customer problem, not ours". Then none of those fucker even get jailed for fucked over the entire world's Economy with their lies. They got the big fat fees from the banks to rate those shit loan triple A and when they got question by the people? Just brush it off.
He understood perfectly, even the movie made that clear. He just didn't care if his investors got burned because he assumed no risk himself. A lack of fiduciary duty.
You're completely wrong. A lot of people knew what was gonna happen if things went poorly. They just didn't care. And they were right. Because the government bailed them out using the taxpayer's money; most of them coming from people who never had anything to do with the Wall Street, bonds, stocks or big banks. Those fuckers even celebrated when the bailout was given, and wrote themselves bonus checks from that bailout money. Trump's administrations pretty much did the same thing. They gave large corporations unreasonable tax cuts, and created international trade wars that benefited the riches only. He raised the country's national debt by 4.2 trillion dollars in just one year. The prior record was held when the government bailed out the banks during subprime mortgage crisis, which was 1.6 trillion dollars. Guess who has to pay off those debts? The next generations middle and lower class, while the riches get richer. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Just look at the economy today. It's complete shit filled with inflation and ridiculously high interest rates, which only hurts the hard working people, not the riches. They just didn't give a shit.
That ending scene is one of my favorites "short everthing that guy has touched, I want half a billion more in swaps" "The collateral alone could bankrupt you" 😂😂😂
It's a really powerful moment. One of the few times the film slows down its crazy editing, rapid dialogue, and chaotic sound effects and really lets you soak in what's actually going on.
Watch Margin Call afterward. The dismissive flippancy of the CEO deciding to destroy the financial world to save his own butt will make you seethe with the fire of a thousand suns. If the bubble bursting and destroying the American housing market didn't send all the Lehman and Goldman Sachs execs to jail (or up against a wall), nothing ever will.
@@IdgaradLyracant Maybe the rampant fraud and the fact that nobody was held accountable for that fraud. The banks were bailed out, the C-suite execs got bonuses, and the taxpayer got screwed. If anything is going to make me a Lefty Communist it is crap like this.
@@blackchuckstable I'm not a big fan of fight club tbh. Seven was good but was it good because of Pitt or his character or rather the story? With the movies I listed on the other hand, whenever Pitt came onscreen, he brought something unique to the movie.
I love the laughing track on the "synthethic CDO's" at 4:14. It's like you cant ff'in make this up they had to specifically design this sh*t to f everybody over.
Now we have a whole new housing market issue with AirBnB's threatening to crash the market. Now that everyone bought a BnB and saturated the market, BnB's become to expensive and people travel less, then people who were relying on short term rentals to pay the bills realize they have to cover it themselves, then try to sell in an inflated market with rising interest rates so no one can buy... Same recession, different cause....
No. airbnbs didnt revolutionize travel or anything. What you had was people hoping to make a passive income from something that doesnt exist: a highly mobile population constantly on the move. No, what happened is the majority of homes right now have been purchased outright by investment firms so the actual supply of actual homes is tiny while the demand is high, so they control the prices now because they possess the supply.
Some argue it's the same cause. Some say the subprime narrative is really just a way to shift blame. The ones who really crashed the market were investors. They dumped all their real estate en masse in the year leading up to the collapse. If the economy were just teetering on a cliff's edge, they were the ones who pushed it over
Most Airbnb are vacation homes. Sure it's a problem in Florida and California those are the two states having the biggest issues right now, but realistically the landlords with one or two rental properties aren't really hurting the market. If anything they're helping keep it balanced. It's the investment firms buying up entire neighborhoods and refusing to lower the cost of rent so it's accurately adjusted for the market which leavies them empty, yet nobody can live in them.
Dancing in a casino, already a massive symbol of greed and preying on the addictive-minded, after basically tricking a bunch of hedonistic banker types. It's weighted, for sure.
Ben wasn't saying their bet was responsible for collapsing the American economy; his willingness to help the two investors showed he also felt it was inevitable and all they could do was capitalize on it. He just wanted them to understand that they were making money off a tragedy and to not be so gleeful that it was happening.
It's more about the idea of the greed. I trade on a daily basis and it's astonishing the amount of people that pray every single day for a war or a catastrophe to happen just so their little position can go up a couple hundred or thousand bucks.
...and they all walked away ...they knew what they were doing ...they were in a win/win situation...lose THEIR JOBS...nah....they retire to some sun kissed coastal town with zero homeless people...still makes my piss boil and bat so few went to prison.
Brad Pitt in Big Short: You know what I hate about banking it reduces people to numbers Brad Pitt in Moneyball: here is why we should reduce people to numbers
insider trading on mortgages by banks, basically..."awesome" means the banks make tons of legal money risk free, with a probable high rate of return and to top it all off they played it like a loss, the side bets against mortgages were gigantic, "oh you clued into the fact that we insured ourselves against loss? here's a few crumbs..." and the banks are so smart they made money off the crumbs, so the payout was covered...
I think the editing in this movie helps emphasize spectacle and the lack of attention on the actual scene. Much like how the banks, investors, resl estate mortgage people were not paying attention to what actually is going on. What is a critic but someone who reads quickly, arrogantly, but never wisely. There is plenty of different aspects directors like to play around with to communicate with the audience. To name a few, composition, editing, cinematography, structure, cuts, etc. Take Kubrick for example, in the shining he was famous for moving objects in the hotel to different locations or removing them entirely between takes. He did this for the viewer because he knew people were going to watch his movie multiple times. It's like playing a game with your audience and leaving little breadcrumbs through out the movie. They're just begging the viewer to notice them. One must consider that a good movie uses every opportunity to communicate with the audience. Time is very limited in films, a good director knows this and will deliberately use subtle ways of communicating to the audience without sacrificing quality in other areas of the film. I think Martin Scorsese was right about the MCU. I wouldn't consider anything made by marvel for cinemas films. I would consider them movies. I think the worst thing anything like a story, book, movie etc can be is okay. Like if you saw a movie and some asked you what you thought of it, and you just said,"eh, it was okay." What that means is that it was boring. There was nothing of substance to it. Either it had nothing new or creative to offer, or what it did offer has already been done before and much better. I dislike marvel movies because they do not bring anything new or creative to offer the medium through which they create. They're boring and lazy movies. They're okay.... Movies i would consider to be of the variety of being unimaginative and offering nothing new or interesting or experimental to the medium through which they operate. Films i would describe as bringing something new, experimental, risk taking, or nuanced to the medium. I would even consider the room with Tommy Wisea, i probably spelled his name wrong, but i would consider the room a film. Because he tried something, sure it wasn't successful but at least he tried. But ill tell you what it wasn't, it wasn't boring. I'm sorry for going on a long ass rant. But i am tired of people who are unwilling to engage with the material and actually analyze and study it, who then go on to claim that the work is bad or terrible. It's upsetting because it's very dismissive and arrogant. If you're not willing to engage with the material and give it a fair chance then i believe you you have no leg to stand on, so to speak. You did not do your due diligence as the audience and watch/observe. It's like talking to someone who isn't listening to what you have to say. They're just waiting till it's their turn to speak. My point is, you're not giving the person the opportunity to be understood. Often in debates, negotiations, and arguments, being understood is far more important than winning. It is extremely frustrating when someone is arrogant and unwilling to even try to understand what you are trying to communicate. I can tell you i would be very upset if i were to make anything only for it to be dismissed. I dislike movies like the MCU because whatever they have to offer has already been done before and far better by someone else. Movies like that are not art, it's escapism, it's the desire to be sedated, the unwillingness to meet reality on reality's terms
@@danielsappore3423 My criticism was not pertaining to the subject of of scene. My criticism was directed to those in the comments section. I saw several comments expressing the opinion that the editing in the scene was objectively bad. My post was in response to those comments. Upon reviewing my response I recognize my failure to establish this clearly and concisely. Thank you for asking for clarification. I'll be making an effort to avoid making this mistake in the future. Does this help recontextualize my original comment?
@@danielsappore3423 also I would like to note that In my original comment I was upset and admit I went off topic. I definitely see how i can tighten my argument up. I was not criticizing the scene. I love the movie, in fact I just bought it. My criticism has nothing to do with the scene.
@Tormanoid , Because once the adjustable rate mortgage increases kicked in, she, like countless others, would be unable to afford the payments on one property, let alone 4 more of them.
Turns out if you offer a home to someone who wants one bad enough, the fine print won't matter too much to them. Combine that with firms knowing full well who is capable and incapable of paying those mortgages, it starts to smell alot more like a scheme. Not even mentioning rating agencies selling ratings for fees, financial jargon being purposefully and needlessly complicated, and the intentional targeting of immigrant and low earning families for predatory loans without fixed rates and income verification. But sure, the families who lost homes are the crooks here, not the industry leaders who got bonuses for this shit. @@RandoBurner
For the record, this film cemented what I hate about capitalism, financial services and, importantly, American as the absolute shit scow it is. Thank you Hollywood.
When i first saw this movie I was like "there are zero reasons for these guys to talk to him" and then I realized they aren't actually having these conversations, they're just written to explain to us dummies what's going on and we are learning at the same time as Carell's guy
You are right about it in my case. What about you. What did you understand about this movie. Can you explain it to a layman who has no expertise in financial science.
He basically said that the bonds defaulting would cause more returns harming the economy than it would in a thriving economy. How the hell does the country going under make you more money than you would see in a normal economy? Insane.
I was at a conference, when Cisneros was HUD Secretary. He was hyping programs that were going to push the rates of American home ownership to the highest levels. At the time, I wondered if this was such a good idea. Turns out it wasn't such a good idea, giving out mortgages like Halloween candy.
Neither talks about how we had to give them money to save their banks and that year the CEOs raised their yearly bonuses. Nor how they never gave any money back, and now they are again asking for more.
The soldier sitting there blowing his money at slots was a great visual to slip in. The embodiment of selfless service and sacrifice, being taken by a contrived, selfish system, literally programmed to beat you.
This is a super super simplification. I don't fully understand it myself. But I'll do my best to explain it in a nutshell: Imagine you have a piggy bank (personal savings), and you've been saving up to buy a toy (house). But the toy is expensive, and you don't have enough money yet. So, your friend (bank) says, "I'll lend you the money to buy the toy now, and you can pay me back later, a little bit at a time." You're really excited, so you agree (take out a mortgage). Now, let's say lots of kids in your neighbourhood want expensive toys, but like you, they don't have enough money. So, many friends (banks) start lending money to buy these toys, thinking it's a good way to get a little extra money in return from the payments (because of interest). And if you can't pay back you have to give the toy back to the friend that loaned you the money (security), since he thinks he can sell it for more than you bought it for (asset appreciation). But there's a problem. Some of the kids who borrowed money find out they can't pay it back (defaults). Maybe they spent their allowance on other things, or they didn't get as much allowance as they thought they would. When they can't pay back, the friends who lent the money get worried because they were counting on getting that money back or the toy that is worth more now. But since there are so many toys that are studently for sale (supply and demand), the price goes down and not up as he expected (asset depreciation) which leads to your friend losing all his money.
except that kids lending the money knew that the rates would go up cause the people to lose mortgages and the banks thought they would just get the houses back and resell them to the next person. I did not get it at first, but it was all planed. when it did not go the way, the banks thought it would the American people got stuck with the bill as usual. @@erik10030
It's a funny thing people pity those who lost homes. But in a perfectly run economy, those folks shouldn't have lived in those big houses for even a day. They got a taste of candies. They just dreamed too much
Best informative film of all those that were made for the 2008 Crash and VERY relevant today where ALL is in a bubble, not just housing... When traders pay 100K for a program like B/c and Real rare gold is 2K, something is very very very wrong!!!!
Fake News: This is from a movie called "The Big Short" and they are all actors. Kind of ridiculous to suggest Brad Pitt has a side-hustle as a trader. He doesn't need that kind of money.
The big questions to the problem are, why is there a rise in default rate? And why Banks have assets that are unreliable? These are questions that can only be found at National Level. Ultimately the government are complicit in contributing to the crash.
The government is definitely complicit. They passed the Community Reinvestment Act that pushed banks to meets the needs of borrowers in low-income neighborhoods. It was designed to reduce discriminatory credit practices in low income neighborhoods. Ron Paul said the CRA forced banks to lend to people who would normally be rejected due to poor credit. How stupid!
@@justinm1200 There's a reason why the media are called the fourth estate. And apparently they are very good at it. I know a friend of mine who treat these films like the Big Short, Margin Call, Too big to fail etc... as some sort of Gospel, yet he couldn't explain the root cause of such high default rates and irresponsible lending. Facts that played very small part in their narrative and are easily forgettable for their lack of emphasis and misdirection. Sure, Corporation could be irresponsible and run out of control, but it wouldn't be that easy without the blessing of government. Bailing Banks out and enacting CRA is like giving the Gambler a no limit credit.
@@mattlittlej Well yea. The Human condition are not unknown to us. People are always greedy. And people run the Banks and the Corporation. It's something I heard over and over again. But who even forces taxpayers to bail out banks? And who encourages or pushes Banks to make risky or irrational business decision? Those are the questions not often discussed.
@@tweeboonKVK Lots or less regulations, the end result always comes from the same issue. No system can work properly if its parts are corrupted. Sure, forcing banks to lessen restrictions on money lending can have bad results, but the finance sector did nothing to prevent them, they prayed on it. Adjustable absurd prime rates, lazy fact checking and tracking of the products (so complicated that it took too long to layer), using housing bonus as securities and creating artifical money out of those bets, did not have anything to do with the original said restriction. Fraud in money applications is not equal to "lessening requirements for credit". If anything you could argue that these types of bets should not be allowed, because they elevate the risk of default relying only on the fact that the products are mortages. And credit rating agencies had a conflict of interest problem and decided to go with it and not really try to fix it. Instead of trying to better the system, they got greedy and lost track of what they were doing , because it was making them lots of money. That is irresponsible, and does not have to do with government only. It is tiring blaming always the government for the greedy and corrupt actions.
This movie never addressed whose idea it was to force mortgage companies to lower down payments?….the answer: the government. The government turned good renters into bad homeowners.
That is not true. While government did make those mortages easier to offer it did not FORCE anyone to offer them. This is exactle the kind of "blaming poor people" the movie talks about at the end.
"Every 1% unemployment goes up, 40,000 people die." That's what I tried to point out during the lockdown. Taking jobs and businesses away from people wasn't without dire consequences. It's called "deaths of despair". You're not saving lives by locking down the economy. You're just transferring the deaths from the elderly to the middle aged.
Put easily and how i understand it, a CDO is just a lot of mortgages put together. This is adventagious because if you put 100 together and 1 defaults (doesn't or cannot pay) the other 99 would cover the payment still. but given a certain % of profit on the product, say 5%, if 5% or more of the mortgages dont get paid the entire CDO is suddenly useless. The AA, BB, CC is the credit rating they are referring to. the lower the rating the lower the income from the home buyer. but because so many houses were sold to essentially everyone that the standards for getting a mortgage got lowered to the point you didnt need an income. to still sell these CC mortgages they bundled them together with AA. on paper this is great because it lowers risk. In actuality there is still only (for example) 5% profit on the CDO, and altough its A rated it has more than 5% CC rated mortgages in there, more than covering the profit. people with no income or with a low income and 3 houses are forced to liquidate their homes to cover depts even if the housing prices go down temporarily. Now if at some point enough people dont pay their mortgage all the CDO's go to 0 (profit is 0 so no one buys the CDO of of each other anymore) from AA - CC. the synthetic CDO's just consist of a lot of the regular CDO's together, on paper lowering risk, in the real world only making it so more money is "bet" on the same product in a different place. Because the mindset was "this cannot go tits up" we build our entire economy around CDO's. This was great for the economy because a person without money could buy a house, establish equity in the home, and become a richer citizen. Essentially we just created 300.000 dollars out of nothing. now the bank sells the mortgage on to an investment bank, they bundle all of them together and sell it off to the public. how could the investment bank afford so many mortgages? they couldn't, but because the mindset was "this cannot go tits up" the investment bank essentially took out a gigantic loan to buy up as many mortgages they could, bundle them together and sell them off to the public. just as in the last example the bank just created money out of nothing, this time not 300.000 but BIllions. This was all considered low risk because everyone always pays their mortgage, but the exponentional loaning of money on the same product made us so leveraged that if it were to go bust everyone would lose. People lose houses, banks go out of business forcing standing out loans to liquidate. Spreading this to everything, small business cant loan money because the banks are gone. Growth slows. essentially, banks got greedy normal man gets shafted
You don't get it? That's literally the entire point. Expert mathematicians couldn't figure out how all this was going to work. Look, it's simple. You don't @!#$ with equilibrium. This is true for everything that you know, and don't know that exists. It doesn't matter what Wall Street called it. CDO, synthetic CDO, whatever. You can't just make wealth happen out of thin air. It has to come from somewhere. All you need to understand is all the people in this movie are making the "somewhere" so complicated, that no one knows what's going on. For example, take your paycheck. I used to get it attached to the check. Then Kroger forced direct deposit, but you still got the paystub. Then they forced us to go to a website to see that paystub. Then they changed it so it's hidden and hard to find (you have to click several links to find it). Guess what's happening now? People are getting screwed out of their pay because no one is going to constantly keep track of their pay every week. Wall Street did this, but to a whole new level. And since everyone was getting rich on it, no one was bothering to keep track.
And Mark Baum was absolutely correct. Yet, after the housing bubble blew up...we managed now to get house prices at the percentage of average income EVEN HIGHER, 16 years later. It's going to happen again, but worse - because we not only learned nothing, we ARE NOT STOPPING. It's happening RIGHT NOW, especially in the UK. And it's starting to peak here, just as the economy is on the fringe of expanding again under a new government. Watch and see if I'm wrong.
I tried finding figures on that 1% 40,000 people die figure. I couldn't find anything to support that claim. It's a cool movie but maybe we should all stop pretending it's super accurate portrait of economic banking.
Hi everyone! What grade (out of 10) would you give this video?
9
8
10
8
10
My headcanon is that Steve Carell didn't know how any of this happened, the script taught him it for the first time, and his character's shock and outrage is genuine.
I still dont get it, but thats the point right, bets on the bet on the bet wrapped up in a bet...50:1 from the base...what a poop show.
not far from the truth i suppose..
Save it for your blog, m8
@@Sammyli99 You can buy Puts on SPY lets say spend 10 dollars and it is like betting against 560,000 USD worth of the stock. They are insurance, but imagine the person selling you those contracts. if they go in the money they have to pony up over half a million in SPY shares to cover assignment.
Carell is no fool, yet like most of us he had no clue how fucked this was
The CDO manager did great acting.
Those intermittent smirks are on point
5 if you use a helicopter
seems like Ryu fron Street Fighter got a business degree after helping to take down bison
He is brilliant at playing scum bags.
Just top notch chew talking
Brad PItt played his character so damn good in this movie.
He’s one of the greatest actors of our time.
He can play a plethora of roles and you forget it’s even Pitt playing the part, sure, he’ll always look like Brad Pitt, but his aura changes for each role.
@@shanedjoy8954 agree! But a lot of people neglect that only because he is too handsome ~_~
well, he played it well.
He is what i like to call a character actor with a main character face
I've watched this movie roughly 12 times over the years. I had genuinely no idea Brad Pitt played that character. Truly an amazing transformation.
"His face is starting to boil, he looks like the bad guy from DUNE."
I lost it at that line.
Tehe
Not modern Dune, David Lynch Dune.
DOOM. the old video game
@@fleximus_81 no it’s dune I thought the same at first.
The greed must flow
The best summary of this movie I've ever seen was something like this:
What's your favorite comedy movie? "The Big Short"
What's your favorite horror movie? Also "The Big Short"
What is your favorite documentary ?
'The Big Short'
What is your favorite thriller ?
'The Big Short'
What is your favorite character study ?
'The Big Short'
What is your favorite drama ?
'The Big Short'
😉
It's also my favorite documentary, up there with Falling Down and Office Space.
Margin call is another banger. The dialogue is so good that all you hear in the background is A/C humming. And the whole thing has the same feeling as the titanic trying to avoid that iceberg. People died; the wealthy and connected largely left unscathed; and the tragedy was avoidable.
@@itchyisvegetaever watch deep water horizon?
@@itchyisvegetaIdiocracy
Love this movie, I love how these conversations never happened they just invented them so stupid people like me can understand what’s going on 🤣 they way they talk to each other is like they are talking to idiots but really they are talking to the audience. Never felt so (rightly) patronised in my life, great movie.
Well I don't expect the average person to even know what a CDO is
I appreciate someone who can look through a film to understand what it's trying to portray without believing it's gospel- folks like you are rare.
Its a reason why this happened in the first place. Even the people that "understood" it, didn't or didn't want to because of the massive (temporary) moneybag.
Best explanation in the movie was given by marot Robbie
Ao true! I've read the book this movie is based on; have to say youre absolutely right.
All explanations in the movies simplified for understanding of a person bellow average. In reality it was much more complex
One thing I loved about this movie was the well done way they depicted the mid 00s zeitgeist. It was kinda the last pre social media era (the financial collapse happening nearly the exact same time modern era social media started)
Lol, I suppose in retrospect that was about the time that Myspace was officially dead and Facebook was king, 2008 financial crash.
One thing the film doesn't touch on is the effect all this had on the Repo market which was even more devastating.
Banks loan each other money in exchange for "security" and the banks used these CDO's as security.
When it turned out they were all useless it left banks owning billions. It's how banks all across the world got hit by a US housing market collapse.
Did banks all over the world used CDOs?
how did it affect the banks across the world?
For a while it seemed like it would end Iceland.
@@abhinavn4555 banks of several countries had their money heavely invested on CDOs, and thos nations, like Portugal, Iceland, Greece and Spain were some of the European countries that suffered the most
Since when did the repo market start using structured finance obligations as collateral? The repo market I knew was run off U.S. treasuries, commercial paper and related cash instruments.
@@siddiqahmad5193
I think this explains it pretty well:
In recent years, the tri-party repo has allowed the repo market to accept a wide range of collateral, including mortgage-backed securities, CDOs, and almost any asset that the clearing banks could hold in custody. Hence, it has allowed investors in various securities to more easily secure financing in the repo market by simply putting up their positions as collateral. However, an important factor contributing to the loss of liquidity in fixed-income markets in February and March 2008 was the sudden refusal of lenders in the repo market to accept as collateral the same wide range of assets as before. This made it difficult to impossible for holders to value the instruments and led to a sharp worsening of the liquidity profile of institutions-in the case of Bear Stearns, which had a large quantity of these assets on its balance sheets
Steve carrel did amazing
Fucking awesome, dude is legit
Steve carrel is amazing jeje
Lets put in a good word for all the other actors too - they all did amazing in this movie! Gosling is so different here - didnt even recognize him at first.
Prime example of “experts” working jobs they had no understanding of. A worker is responsible for a certain job/result, but if his workmanship is poor, he is expected to understand how that result affects the finished product (value/safety).
Actions have consequences, but no one except a select few in the scenes here actually understood the bigger picture if things went poorly. No one even considered the “what if” scenario until it was too late.
they understood just fine they just didn't care. The wealthiest people weren't the ones hurt by the crash it was the poor people they treated as pawns.
They understand the risk of the product themselves, they just didn't care since the customer would take the loss, not them, they get the big fat fees out of it and called it a day. Even when the Subprime loan got rated AAA by Morgan Stanley and S&P, when the congress questioned them why the fuck they dare to rate those shit loan at AAA rating? They just answer: "Well it's our opinion on it. Trusting it is our customer problem, not ours". Then none of those fucker even get jailed for fucked over the entire world's Economy with their lies. They got the big fat fees from the banks to rate those shit loan triple A and when they got question by the people? Just brush it off.
no he understood perfectly
He understood perfectly, even the movie made that clear. He just didn't care if his investors got burned because he assumed no risk himself. A lack of fiduciary duty.
You're completely wrong. A lot of people knew what was gonna happen if things went poorly.
They just didn't care.
And they were right. Because the government bailed them out using the taxpayer's money; most of them coming from people who never had anything to do with the Wall Street, bonds, stocks or big banks. Those fuckers even celebrated when the bailout was given, and wrote themselves bonus checks from that bailout money.
Trump's administrations pretty much did the same thing. They gave large corporations unreasonable tax cuts, and created international trade wars that benefited the riches only. He raised the country's national debt by 4.2 trillion dollars in just one year. The prior record was held when the government bailed out the banks during subprime mortgage crisis, which was 1.6 trillion dollars. Guess who has to pay off those debts? The next generations middle and lower class, while the riches get richer. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Just look at the economy today. It's complete shit filled with inflation and ridiculously high interest rates, which only hurts the hard working people, not the riches.
They just didn't give a shit.
"you're 20 minutes away"
"Five if you use the helicopter"
That _was_ funny
That ending scene is one of my favorites "short everthing that guy has touched, I want half a billion more in swaps" "The collateral alone could bankrupt you" 😂😂😂
Tyler Durden working from the inside now
Funny
that economic News site writing gig really paid off
Zero Hedge
we met him at the collapsing moment of the economy in America.
Tyler prolly bought bitcoin and forgot the password to his fuggin account
"Whoa, I just got really scared" is THE line in this movie.
It's a really powerful moment. One of the few times the film slows down its crazy editing, rapid dialogue, and chaotic sound effects and really lets you soak in what's actually going on.
Or, the worst acting job ever😆
a "Bill and Ted Bet Against the American Economy" moment
or "woah thats so cool "
I am just glad Kendall Roy was able to pivot and jump to a career in finance after losing out on running his father's empire
“I don’t talk about that.”
“I’ve watched another show with this actor”
And michael scott became smart. Sad to not see him with holly though
The real person behind his character in The Big Short ended up in jail, tho 🤣
god this movie was so perfectly cast, from brad pitt to jeremy strong, every role had a great and fitting actor
And their doing it again this time 120x
That they are, figure out how to profit from that real quick and get paid
What do you mean brother?
No they arnt lol
Shits possibly coming again
Truth. The ants however now have various means of finding the grasshoppers that kicked over their mound..grasshoppers will be torn to shreds.
This move is great and terrifying and fills me with a seething rage.
Watch Margin Call afterward. The dismissive flippancy of the CEO deciding to destroy the financial world to save his own butt will make you seethe with the fire of a thousand suns. If the bubble bursting and destroying the American housing market didn't send all the Lehman and Goldman Sachs execs to jail (or up against a wall), nothing ever will.
Rage against who? Most of this mess is due to the almighty 401k. That's the poison no one wants to admit.
@@IdgaradLyracant Maybe the rampant fraud and the fact that nobody was held accountable for that fraud. The banks were bailed out, the C-suite execs got bonuses, and the taxpayer got screwed. If anything is going to make me a Lefty Communist it is crap like this.
Aight bludster calm down there
The more this scene progresses, the more Steve starts to look exactly like Felonious Gru
"I assume no risk for these products myself, Mark".
The look on his face. Solid-gold lawful evil assholery. Dude should be cast in more things.
Brad Pitts best roles are supporting roles. Change my mind.
Exhibits: True Romance, 12 Monkeys, Snatch, This
Fight club? Seven?
@@blackchuckstable I'm not a big fan of fight club tbh. Seven was good but was it good because of Pitt or his character or rather the story? With the movies I listed on the other hand, whenever Pitt came onscreen, he brought something unique to the movie.
Meet Joe Black?
Moneyball
@@themoderndog Haven't seen it
Why edit it at all? Why mess with two basically perfect scenes?
maybe that's the reason. what you just said.
Maybe they don't have the right to show Selena Gomez.
Copyright probably
I love the laughing track on the "synthethic CDO's" at 4:14. It's like you cant ff'in make this up they had to specifically design this sh*t to f everybody over.
Now we have a whole new housing market issue with AirBnB's threatening to crash the market. Now that everyone bought a BnB and saturated the market, BnB's become to expensive and people travel less, then people who were relying on short term rentals to pay the bills realize they have to cover it themselves, then try to sell in an inflated market with rising interest rates so no one can buy... Same recession, different cause....
No. airbnbs didnt revolutionize travel or anything. What you had was people hoping to make a passive income from something that doesnt exist: a highly mobile population constantly on the move.
No, what happened is the majority of homes right now have been purchased outright by investment firms so the actual supply of actual homes is tiny while the demand is high, so they control the prices now because they possess the supply.
Some argue it's the same cause. Some say the subprime narrative is really just a way to shift blame. The ones who really crashed the market were investors. They dumped all their real estate en masse in the year leading up to the collapse. If the economy were just teetering on a cliff's edge, they were the ones who pushed it over
Most Airbnb are vacation homes. Sure it's a problem in Florida and California those are the two states having the biggest issues right now, but realistically the landlords with one or two rental properties aren't really hurting the market. If anything they're helping keep it balanced. It's the investment firms buying up entire neighborhoods and refusing to lower the cost of rent so it's accurately adjusted for the market which leavies them empty, yet nobody can live in them.
@@eliwilson3902
Sounds like Evergrand in China
Corporations didn’t shouldn’t be allowed to buy a block of houses. That’s going to crash the market.
I understand Ben's sentiment, but the economy was going to fail even without their bet against the housing market. But yeah, just don't celebrate it.
Dancing in a casino, already a massive symbol of greed and preying on the addictive-minded, after basically tricking a bunch of hedonistic banker types. It's weighted, for sure.
Ben wasn't saying their bet was responsible for collapsing the American economy; his willingness to help the two investors showed he also felt it was inevitable and all they could do was capitalize on it. He just wanted them to understand that they were making money off a tragedy and to not be so gleeful that it was happening.
@@jbeshaysax Ben pretty much condenses the entire sentiment in his last sentence: "Just don't f*** dance".
It's more about the idea of the greed. I trade on a daily basis and it's astonishing the amount of people that pray every single day for a war or a catastrophe to happen just so their little position can go up a couple hundred or thousand bucks.
No that was the really the main reason
...and they all walked away ...they knew what they were doing ...they were in a win/win situation...lose THEIR JOBS...nah....they retire to some sun kissed coastal town with zero homeless people...still makes my piss boil and bat so few went to prison.
welcome to the Human race, tried and tested since...
The writing is so clever with its exposition.
Yup, it had to be, given the subject matter. The whole thing plays like a heist movie - which in reality I guess it was
"and i know what youre thinking : what the fuck IS a synthetic CDO" This movie is pure gold, one of its kind.
Damn Brad Pitt himself schooled those kids. He’s not actually acting, that’s Brad Pitt for real.
Brad Pitt in Big Short: You know what I hate about banking it reduces people to numbers
Brad Pitt in Moneyball: here is why we should reduce people to numbers
Brad Pitt's career: Acting 90% Looks 10%
Stupid Fans when it comes to Brad Pitt: Looks 90% Acting 10%
I really like Pitt in the smaller character roles. He was GREAT in this film.
insider trading on mortgages by banks, basically..."awesome" means the banks make tons of legal money risk free, with a probable high rate of return and to top it all off they played it like a loss, the side bets against mortgages were gigantic, "oh you clued into the fact that we insured ourselves against loss? here's a few crumbs..." and the banks are so smart they made money off the crumbs, so the payout was covered...
I don’t think you understand
0:54 this perfectly shows what he thought about those 2 and their business
I think the editing in this movie helps emphasize spectacle and the lack of attention on the actual scene. Much like how the banks, investors, resl estate mortgage people were not paying attention to what actually is going on. What is a critic but someone who reads quickly, arrogantly, but never wisely. There is plenty of different aspects directors like to play around with to communicate with the audience. To name a few, composition, editing, cinematography, structure, cuts, etc. Take Kubrick for example, in the shining he was famous for moving objects in the hotel to different locations or removing them entirely between takes. He did this for the viewer because he knew people were going to watch his movie multiple times. It's like playing a game with your audience and leaving little breadcrumbs through out the movie. They're just begging the viewer to notice them. One must consider that a good movie uses every opportunity to communicate with the audience. Time is very limited in films, a good director knows this and will deliberately use subtle ways of communicating to the audience without sacrificing quality in other areas of the film. I think Martin Scorsese was right about the MCU. I wouldn't consider anything made by marvel for cinemas films. I would consider them movies. I think the worst thing anything like a story, book, movie etc can be is okay. Like if you saw a movie and some asked you what you thought of it, and you just said,"eh, it was okay." What that means is that it was boring. There was nothing of substance to it. Either it had nothing new or creative to offer, or what it did offer has already been done before and much better. I dislike marvel movies because they do not bring anything new or creative to offer the medium through which they create. They're boring and lazy movies. They're okay.... Movies i would consider to be of the variety of being unimaginative and offering nothing new or interesting or experimental to the medium through which they operate. Films i would describe as bringing something new, experimental, risk taking, or nuanced to the medium. I would even consider the room with Tommy Wisea, i probably spelled his name wrong, but i would consider the room a film. Because he tried something, sure it wasn't successful but at least he tried. But ill tell you what it wasn't, it wasn't boring. I'm sorry for going on a long ass rant. But i am tired of people who are unwilling to engage with the material and actually analyze and study it, who then go on to claim that the work is bad or terrible. It's upsetting because it's very dismissive and arrogant. If you're not willing to engage with the material and give it a fair chance then i believe you you have no leg to stand on, so to speak. You did not do your due diligence as the audience and watch/observe. It's like talking to someone who isn't listening to what you have to say. They're just waiting till it's their turn to speak. My point is, you're not giving the person the opportunity to be understood. Often in debates, negotiations, and arguments, being understood is far more important than winning. It is extremely frustrating when someone is arrogant and unwilling to even try to understand what you are trying to communicate. I can tell you i would be very upset if i were to make anything only for it to be dismissed. I dislike movies like the MCU because whatever they have to offer has already been done before and far better by someone else. Movies like that are not art, it's escapism, it's the desire to be sedated, the unwillingness to meet reality on reality's terms
Yap
How is any of that related to this scene? What are you trying to say?
@@danielsappore3423 My criticism was not pertaining to the subject of of scene. My criticism was directed to those in the comments section. I saw several comments expressing the opinion that the editing in the scene was objectively bad. My post was in response to those comments. Upon reviewing my response I recognize my failure to establish this clearly and concisely. Thank you for asking for clarification. I'll be making an effort to avoid making this mistake in the future. Does this help recontextualize my original comment?
@@danielsappore3423 also I would like to note that In my original comment I was upset and admit I went off topic. I definitely see how i can tighten my argument up. I was not criticizing the scene. I love the movie, in fact I just bought it. My criticism has nothing to do with the scene.
i aint readin allat
My favourite scene is when he is interviewing the stripper and he assumes she only has one house but the stripper is like i have 4
@aanshsinghania7780, Actually 5, plus a condo.
Can someone explain why the stripper having so many houses is such a red flag?
@@TormanoidThis movie explained. It's based on a frod. The reason why Wall St collapsed.
@Tormanoid , Because once the adjustable rate mortgage increases kicked in, she, like countless others, would be unable to afford the payments on one property, let alone 4 more of them.
@@mitchellmelkin4078 "Hey there's a bubble"
Now Oscar, explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old and next year, I ll be 6.
This is what happened at housig, Boeing too and Opiod crisis corrupt regulators. Corrupt buisness leaders and the end common man suffered
Yeah, people buying houses with 2 bucks and a paper clip, knowing they can't pay it back, are the real victims.
Turns out if you offer a home to someone who wants one bad enough, the fine print won't matter too much to them. Combine that with firms knowing full well who is capable and incapable of paying those mortgages, it starts to smell alot more like a scheme. Not even mentioning rating agencies selling ratings for fees, financial jargon being purposefully and needlessly complicated, and the intentional targeting of immigrant and low earning families for predatory loans without fixed rates and income verification. But sure, the families who lost homes are the crooks here, not the industry leaders who got bonuses for this shit. @@RandoBurner
Brad Pitt was amazing in this film; such a good actor that even in secondary roles he still manages to capture some attention
And the banks got bailed out while the little guy lost everything. Don't ever tell me the rich don't need to pay their fair share in taxes.
For the record, this film cemented what I hate about capitalism, financial services and, importantly, American as the absolute shit scow it is. Thank you Hollywood.
When i first saw this movie I was like "there are zero reasons for these guys to talk to him" and then I realized they aren't actually having these conversations, they're just written to explain to us dummies what's going on and we are learning at the same time as Carell's guy
You can tell this never happened, it's the screenwriter inserting a moral conscience into the whole affair
My favourite thing about this film is that 99% of viewers had no idea what these guys are talking about.
You are right about it in my case. What about you. What did you understand about this movie. Can you explain it to a layman who has no expertise in financial science.
Best character in the movie, and there were so many great characters.
Brad is so convincing in this role.
Pitt's character is as morally conscious as he is handsome.
He basically said that the bonds defaulting would cause more returns harming the economy than it would in a thriving economy. How the hell does the country going under make you more money than you would see in a normal economy? Insane.
Why is there a stock audio of a cat screaming at 1:24? Who was the editor that went, "yeah this scene needs a cat screaming in the casino"?
could be from the slot machines, but I hear what you're saying
The film doesn't talk about the role the government had from Easy Fed policy or the overtly risky subsidization of surprise lenders.
I was at a conference, when Cisneros was HUD Secretary. He was hyping programs that were going to push the rates of American home ownership to the highest levels. At the time, I wondered if this was such a good idea. Turns out it wasn't such a good idea, giving out mortgages like Halloween candy.
Neither talks about how we had to give them money to save their banks and that year the CEOs raised their yearly bonuses. Nor how they never gave any money back, and now they are again asking for more.
Brad Pitt's character: How bankers and traders and "investor" bros should think
The kids: How they are (except with no remorse)
Seeing so much support and love here is amazing. Blessings to you all.
Amazing job all around. As someone who worked for a bank that failed, I can tell you it was a crazy time!
If you haven't seen this movie...stop...go now and understand.
brad sees the military guy smoking or something and checks his hand for the burn then gets em to quit play fighting lmao thats genius
The soldier sitting there blowing his money at slots was a great visual to slip in. The embodiment of selfless service and sacrifice, being taken by a contrived, selfish system, literally programmed to beat you.
just because it's a tragedy doesn't mean you support the tragedy when you take a position that it's going to happen
I
DECLARE
BANKRUPTCY!!!!
Explain this to me as you would a small boy or a golden retriever.
This is a super super simplification. I don't fully understand it myself. But I'll do my best to explain it in a nutshell:
Imagine you have a piggy bank (personal savings), and you've been saving up to buy a toy (house). But the toy is expensive, and you don't have enough money yet. So, your friend (bank) says, "I'll lend you the money to buy the toy now, and you can pay me back later, a little bit at a time." You're really excited, so you agree (take out a mortgage).
Now, let's say lots of kids in your neighbourhood want expensive toys, but like you, they don't have enough money. So, many friends (banks) start lending money to buy these toys, thinking it's a good way to get a little extra money in return from the payments (because of interest). And if you can't pay back you have to give the toy back to the friend that loaned you the money (security), since he thinks he can sell it for more than you bought it for (asset appreciation).
But there's a problem. Some of the kids who borrowed money find out they can't pay it back (defaults). Maybe they spent their allowance on other things, or they didn't get as much allowance as they thought they would. When they can't pay back, the friends who lent the money get worried because they were counting on getting that money back or the toy that is worth more now. But since there are so many toys that are studently for sale (supply and demand), the price goes down and not up as he expected (asset depreciation) which leads to your friend losing all his money.
except that kids lending the money knew that the rates would go up cause the people to lose mortgages and the banks thought they would just get the houses back and resell them to the next person. I did not get it at first, but it was all planed. when it did not go the way, the banks thought it would the American people got stuck with the bill as usual. @@erik10030
Look up the Selena Gomez explanation lol
@@erik10030thanks man
As always in this movie...he's not confessing, he's bragging.
One of the best movies made.
yep
the spot in the casino where the military guy is playing slots would not happen because he can't be in that attire gamboling.
Twas a metaphor
especially because hes a marine and marines are forbidden to wear utilities off base while off duty
It's a funny thing people pity those who lost homes. But in a perfectly run economy, those folks shouldn't have lived in those big houses for even a day.
They got a taste of candies. They just dreamed too much
"Whoa, I just got really scared."
I really wish I could understand this movie. This is why my wife handles the finances.
Read the book years ago, but never saw the movie. Going to have to watch this.
the background music is Japanese song called "The Last Goodbye"
Best informative film of all those that were made for the 2008 Crash and VERY relevant today where ALL is in a bubble, not just housing... When traders pay 100K for a program like B/c and Real rare gold is 2K, something is very very very wrong!!!!
The movie is like a 2 hour long of The Office
then he found btc went all in and lived happier then ever
Fake News: This is from a movie called "The Big Short" and they are all actors. Kind of ridiculous to suggest Brad Pitt has a side-hustle as a trader. He doesn't need that kind of money.
byron mann was sooo good here lol
The big questions to the problem are, why is there a rise in default rate? And why Banks have assets that are unreliable? These are questions that can only be found at National Level. Ultimately the government are complicit in contributing to the crash.
The government is definitely complicit. They passed the Community Reinvestment Act that pushed banks to meets the needs of borrowers in low-income neighborhoods. It was designed to reduce discriminatory credit practices in low income neighborhoods. Ron Paul said the CRA forced banks to lend to people who would normally be rejected due to poor credit. How stupid!
@@justinm1200 There's a reason why the media are called the fourth estate. And apparently they are very good at it. I know a friend of mine who treat these films like the Big Short, Margin Call, Too big to fail etc... as some sort of Gospel, yet he couldn't explain the root cause of such high default rates and irresponsible lending. Facts that played very small part in their narrative and are easily forgettable for their lack of emphasis and misdirection. Sure, Corporation could be irresponsible and run out of control, but it wouldn't be that easy without the blessing of government. Bailing Banks out and enacting CRA is like giving the Gambler a no limit credit.
Because banks are greedy as hell and know the taxpayer will bail them out.
@@mattlittlej Well yea. The Human condition are not unknown to us. People are always greedy. And people run the Banks and the Corporation. It's something I heard over and over again. But who even forces taxpayers to bail out banks? And who encourages or pushes Banks to make risky or irrational business decision? Those are the questions not often discussed.
@@tweeboonKVK Lots or less regulations, the end result always comes from the same issue. No system can work properly if its parts are corrupted. Sure, forcing banks to lessen restrictions on money lending can have bad results, but the finance sector did nothing to prevent them, they prayed on it. Adjustable absurd prime rates, lazy fact checking and tracking of the products (so complicated that it took too long to layer), using housing bonus as securities and creating artifical money out of those bets, did not have anything to do with the original said restriction. Fraud in money applications is not equal to "lessening requirements for credit". If anything you could argue that these types of bets should not be allowed, because they elevate the risk of default relying only on the fact that the products are mortages.
And credit rating agencies had a conflict of interest problem and decided to go with it and not really try to fix it. Instead of trying to better the system, they got greedy and lost track of what they were doing , because it was making them lots of money. That is irresponsible, and does not have to do with government only. It is tiring blaming always the government for the greedy and corrupt actions.
yeah, they are selling these "products" again, if they ever stopped the first time...
Why are there subtitles??
This is terribly edited
This movie never addressed whose idea it was to force mortgage companies to lower down payments?….the answer: the government. The government turned good renters into bad homeowners.
That is not true. While government did make those mortages easier to offer it did not FORCE anyone to offer them. This is exactle the kind of "blaming poor people" the movie talks about at the end.
very powerful scene
good insight
"Every 1% unemployment goes up, 40,000 people die."
That's what I tried to point out during the lockdown. Taking jobs and businesses away from people wasn't without dire consequences. It's called "deaths of despair". You're not saving lives by locking down the economy. You're just transferring the deaths from the elderly to the middle aged.
How he still mogs me with that haircut and beard bruh
It's crazy how all the comments are about acting and shit and not about the riot we should set up against all of this.
"That is fucking crazy."
I'm definitely Charlie lmao
steve looks a lot like gru here
A movie where everyone played their role 💯 and 10 percent.
I still don't get it and I've watched this movie several times.
It really is gambling, only these people were fixing the game several different ways and the stakes were economies of several nations.
@@keithupton86ku (sigh) that sounds very well put. I believe you.
Put easily and how i understand it, a CDO is just a lot of mortgages put together. This is adventagious because if you put 100 together and 1 defaults (doesn't or cannot pay) the other 99 would cover the payment still. but given a certain % of profit on the product, say 5%, if 5% or more of the mortgages dont get paid the entire CDO is suddenly useless.
The AA, BB, CC is the credit rating they are referring to. the lower the rating the lower the income from the home buyer. but because so many houses were sold to essentially everyone that the standards for getting a mortgage got lowered to the point you didnt need an income. to still sell these CC mortgages they bundled them together with AA. on paper this is great because it lowers risk. In actuality there is still only (for example) 5% profit on the CDO, and altough its A rated it has more than 5% CC rated mortgages in there, more than covering the profit. people with no income or with a low income and 3 houses are forced to liquidate their homes to cover depts even if the housing prices go down temporarily.
Now if at some point enough people dont pay their mortgage all the CDO's go to 0 (profit is 0 so no one buys the CDO of of each other anymore) from AA - CC.
the synthetic CDO's just consist of a lot of the regular CDO's together, on paper lowering risk, in the real world only making it so more money is "bet" on the same product in a different place.
Because the mindset was "this cannot go tits up" we build our entire economy around CDO's. This was great for the economy because a person without money could buy a house, establish equity in the home, and become a richer citizen. Essentially we just created 300.000 dollars out of nothing.
now the bank sells the mortgage on to an investment bank, they bundle all of them together and sell it off to the public.
how could the investment bank afford so many mortgages? they couldn't, but because the mindset was "this cannot go tits up" the investment bank essentially took out a gigantic loan to buy up as many mortgages they could, bundle them together and sell them off to the public.
just as in the last example the bank just created money out of nothing, this time not 300.000 but BIllions.
This was all considered low risk because everyone always pays their mortgage, but the exponentional loaning of money on the same product made us so leveraged that if it were to go bust everyone would lose. People lose houses, banks go out of business forcing standing out loans to liquidate. Spreading this to everything, small business cant loan money because the banks are gone. Growth slows.
essentially, banks got greedy normal man gets shafted
You don't get it? That's literally the entire point. Expert mathematicians couldn't figure out how all this was going to work.
Look, it's simple. You don't @!#$ with equilibrium. This is true for everything that you know, and don't know that exists. It doesn't matter what Wall Street called it. CDO, synthetic CDO, whatever. You can't just make wealth happen out of thin air. It has to come from somewhere. All you need to understand is all the people in this movie are making the "somewhere" so complicated, that no one knows what's going on.
For example, take your paycheck. I used to get it attached to the check. Then Kroger forced direct deposit, but you still got the paystub. Then they forced us to go to a website to see that paystub. Then they changed it so it's hidden and hard to find (you have to click several links to find it). Guess what's happening now? People are getting screwed out of their pay because no one is going to constantly keep track of their pay every week. Wall Street did this, but to a whole new level. And since everyone was getting rich on it, no one was bothering to keep track.
@@bramstrijker4777very well put
My newsfeed is promoting Big Short heavily today!!
Good movie but I didn’t understand shit😂😂
I just realized this old dude was brad pitt
I read it as "Brad shoots...", I haven't seen this movie
It just occurred to me that they made all the handsome men look ugly for this movie.
The world seems to have forgotten that this was a thing
Because the 'double A' loans were actually delinquent too?
This makes so much sense
And Mark Baum was absolutely correct.
Yet, after the housing bubble blew up...we managed now to get house prices at the percentage of average income EVEN HIGHER, 16 years later.
It's going to happen again, but worse - because we not only learned nothing, we ARE NOT STOPPING.
It's happening RIGHT NOW, especially in the UK.
And it's starting to peak here, just as the economy is on the fringe of expanding again under a new government.
Watch and see if I'm wrong.
Bsv bingo
The so called save investments became risky because of leverage.
I tried finding figures on that 1% 40,000 people die figure. I couldn't find anything to support that claim. It's a cool movie but maybe we should all stop pretending it's super accurate portrait of economic banking.
And the economy of the western world DID collapse. But like most really big things, it takes time.