Michael Lewis, The Big Short | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
What I didn't like about the 60 Min interview (none / 0)
Is that it once again tried to focus the blame for the crisis on the poor and bad credit risk people that took the home loans in the first place. This is totally bogus. If the loans weren't securitized into a giant bundle where the underlying loan data wasn't available anymore and then the bundles given a AAA rating, none of this would have happened.

There are lots of risky loans made but they're identified as such and given B or some other non Investment Grade rating to prevent pension funds and other large investors from buying them. Why? Because nearly all funds have rules about what they can invest in and for pensions it's usually AA+ or AAA only.

The rating agencies didn't do their jobs but others were in on it. How do I know? The firm I worked for at the time, a trillion dollar money manager, didn't have ANY of these on their books or on any of their clients' books. Not one. How is this possible? Hmmm.

by toosinbeymen on 03/17/2010 12:34:35 PM EST

loans (none / 0)
I felt like the loans were portrayed more like the "Mark" in the scam rather than the guilty party. In the big picture, it ain't the loans as you say that were the problem. It was Goldman Sachs ability to do manipulate the game. Something that still has not changed.

The timing of the mark to market rule changes, interest rate hikes by the fed, bankruptcy reform bill and the Bush adminstration defeat of Elliot Spitzer's attempt to stop predatory lending in 2004 are at the center of this fraud. Not to mention fall in line with Paulson's move from Sachs to Treas.

Now we find out that not only were the traders making the big bucks, but regulators were getting bonuses for "innovation" as well.  Of course innovation on wall street means stealing so.....

by sisco66 on 03/21/2010 07:38:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Michael Lewis, The Big Short | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)