>But John if you do this you will kill the market for years. It's Joever. And you're selling something that you know has no value.
>We are selling to willing buyers at the current fair market price so that we may survive
How do you even respond without sounding mad
You can't, Tuld was objectively correct. Sam keeps b***hing and moaning but never offers a viable alternative.
>a viable alternative.
You do realize things need to die, right?
>yeah bro let's just lose more money than the company is worth, it's for the greater good
lmao
Yes. Especially if the alternative is literally fraud.
There wasn't any fraud though
selling something you know is worthless "at market value" is literally fraud.
Rating Agencies fault, sue them
If we let it die, “the world gets real fricking fair real fricking quick,” as Paul Bettany’s character says.
>Tuld was objectively correct. Sam keeps b***hing and moaning but never offers a viable alternative.
He wasn't. However he was correct in other way.
The alternative was to let the company fail but retrain his customers trust.
Yes, people with stocks would get fricked over but they knew the risk and they themselves encouraged that behavior.
Tuld however was a stockholder and CEO, he was about to lose a shitton of money, so he had every incentive to threw his customers under the table. Also, he believed that he wouldn't need the trust of those customers, because he could always get new ones, still had half or so of his company, and enough money to survive the storm until it ended, he counted on people's greed forcing them to work with them, and he was right.
That was the magic about his speech about all the economic crisis, people's greed is infinite, but so is their stupidity, is natural, it will happen, you can't control it, but you should see it when it happens and take your piece of the pie while is still good.
>the new buyers of the garbage are totally absolved of assessing the risk though
Hurr durr
I never said that though.
Jump up out of my seat, yell "KINO!!!" at the top of my lungs and then dance like Deion Sanders celebrating a pick-6.
The free market isn't free.
yes but have you considered
I mean, did Sam really think the company would sit idle and lose literally billions of dollars because it was "the right thing to do"? Come on bro
Because his dog died, he was having a conflict of conscience. He fell back in line when he was done.
Tuld was right even though he was a huge piece of shit, which is a requirement to successfully run a large corporation. A CEOs loyalty lies solely with the shareholders of the company. If a CEO must choose between the publics best interest and the shareholders best interest, he is obligated to choose the latter so long as it isn’t illegal
>so long as it isn’t illegal
pretty sure fraud is illegal bro
Is it really illegal if you own the regulators and law makers? I dont remember any executives being prosecuted
that's the crux of the issue, innit
> I dont remember any executives being prosecuted
That's because it's a civil tort, not a criminal crime.
The board responded by firing Chapek and bringing Iger back. Disney's stopped commenting on laws since then.
He was selling at the current fair market price. How is that fraud?
Actually competition and self-interest is pareto-efficient. Communism isn't.
Because he was selling goods at current market value that he knew were not current market value. Like selling a car as new that is used and damaged.
What he should have done, after he was informed he was holding turds is say
>Sorry, I was playing candy crush on my phone and missed the conversation. Completely independent of this meeting, I previously came to the conclusion that I would like to sell these assets.
Ez
The issue is that the people he was selling to were people who should how to valuate the items properly. He wasn't acting on some secret information only he knew. The underlying problems with the MBS products were all public information, his company wasn't even the first that figured that out, it was just the biggest one. Loads of smaller firms and teams had either simply chosen to stay out of the field entirely or decided to bet against it. They were trading on public information as well. People laughed at those people. Tuld just happened to be the first big bag holder to dump his shit on the market.
>The issue is that the people he was selling to were people who should how to valuate the items properly.
Not really - people literally pay them to evaluate the stock and sell it to them. They were wholesalers, sure, but if you were a large manufacturer who sold dud TV's to Wal-Mart they would probably sue you. Or, as Spacey's character says, essentially make sure you never work again. But Iron's makes the fair point that if they don't defraud their customers, they are left holding junk and won't work again anyway. It's still fraudulent behaviour. Just not outright illegal, black and white fraud like Madoff or Holmes.
This.
A bunch of slack jawed f@&&ots in this thread!
In your example, they owe different duties to their counterparties.
Either bait or you guys don't understand how things work. Fraud would be a company literally lying about their financials and their current projects and getting investors to give them money with that information. A company like the one in the movie is trading securities that are basically as public as you can be about things, anyone can look at it and draw their own conclusions, there's no hidden information. The "fair market price" is literally how much can you get out of something if you try to sell it right now. You can't be sued by the guy who bought your shares if they drop in value 1 hour after you sell them unless you were trading with insider information, you don't have to warm the one you're selling your Microsoft shares that your model predicts the company is going to tank soon.
>a company literally lying about their financials
You mean like knowingly selling garbage loans as if they're AAA rated?
That's the responsability of another department. Tuld and his sellers were the ones responsible for trading securities.
"Clients" can mean different things for a company like the one in the movie. In the movie there were no real clients just two counterparties trading assets. The company doesn't own their counterparty any warning, each one must value the assets and trade accordingly. They could also act as brokers which is where you could say they owe their clients a duty to perform in their best interest depending on what the client asks for. If they tell you they want to purchase security A and B at this price then they just execute and maybe if the representative is feeling generous can warn them if they think it's a bad investment. The only time where the company must be careful not to defraud the public is when people come to them asking for investment advice and they purposely give them bad advice or fail to disclose conflicts of interests. The other time is where the company is the one making the products.
The movie never involved the company defrauding clients because they were trading with other companies on equal ground. Congress morons thinking they "owned" the companies because they made them "admit" they were trading shit they knew was garbage is inconsecuential. No crime was commited that just how business works and they were just being smart by knowing and acting first.
>That's the responsability of another department
so bribing them to forgo their responsibilities is okay?
Who got bribed?
The rating companies.
They weren't bribed
being promised a high paying job in exchange for fudging the numbers is a bribe
>do what we want (rate garbage loans as AAA) or we'll take our business elsewhere
there's a bit of a gray area between bribery and extortion.
Wasn't Tuld the CEO of the firm? Everything is his department.
>unless you were trading with insider information
The Congressional hearings where internal communications from the banks was laid out proved that the banks knew that the products were garbage, yet they continued to sell them as top rated products to their clients. And the banks had paid the rating agencies to rate the garbage as top tier products.
Most people would count that as fraud but they hid behind being market makers and of course nobody went to jail
this is bait
impossible to be this brain damaged and still be able to post on a website
Was it fraud? They knew the assets they were selling were dramatically overvalued but they were not defective assets, just over valued. And they didn't have any kind of special inside information, just a good analyst that used the data everyone else also had access to. Anyone else could have also spotted the problem at anytime, which is why they had to move so fast.
>they were not defective assets
A loan's only function is to be repaid. a loan that can't be repaid is literally a "defective loan."
>they were not defective assets,
Anon, it was literally bonds for loans given out to people who often had no job, income or anything else, during a housing bubble. Even smart with money people just defaulted on their mortgages during that crash because their 400K home was now a 100K home but they still held 300K worth of debt in the mortgage.
Said loans were socialized to the rest of the country via ratings agencies
If the government weren't involved those companies wouldn't be able to launder their shit loans to the big banks and would just die. Then again they wouldn't be doing it in the first place because the perverse incentive wouldn't be there in the first place
one of the many reasons capitalism is destroying our country
Look what happened when the evil capitalist Henry Ford wanted to pay his workers more
Never give away over half of the ownership of your company.
>The Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford could not lower consumer prices and raise employee salaries.
>LE Capitalism bad!
Get a job r*dditBlack person.
>Lives in a society of state-sponsored corporatism.
>Calls it capitalism
>WASN'T REAAAAAL CAPITALISM
You gays are as bad as commies
Still richer than you.
Yes, that is the end state of capitalism. Corporate interest controlling government.
Name one system of governing where the rich don't control the government.
The United States, as it was founded, designed in such a way as the richest man alive, the King of England, couldn’t just buy it back.
>The United States
When it was founded and before Hamilton and his stooges tried fricking it up, yeah. Everyone says it died in 1913 but it was getting killed right after Andrew Jackson fricked over London bankers and the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 passed.
>Name one system of governing where those that control the government don't get rich
Fixed that for ya
"Capitalism" meaning some free market private enterprise zero government economy thing is a 20th century invention by people like Milton Friedman, who also tried to reinvent words like "greed" to not refer to the obsessive addiction to hording wealth to simply mean any desire to make any kind of profit at all.
Seeking profit is greed through. What are you even going to do with it?
You can do anything you want. You can pay your workers more money. You can invest in local infrastructure. You can donate it to charity. You can hire people to make wonderful art. And so on. "Greed" by definition is when you simply refuse to do anything like this and instead just do everything you can to earn a bigger profit regardless of the morality of your actions.
its the same with people who say things like "I want to be happy." What they actually mean is that they want to live a life where they can think about their circumstances and actions, and not feel sad. If they just wanted to feel happy they could just do heroin, which is what some people do in their pursuit of happiness.
boomer cope for being a shitty person and giving up
Giving up what?
>"Greed, for a lack of a better word, is good."
And look where that got us. Collapsing economies for profit.
I find really funny how our current economy is
>Huh... the future population will know how to deal with it
People say it's a boomer mentality but it's getting passed down to younger generations too. Instant gratification is seen as the number one priority before having a solid financial foundation.
They made way easier to get debt.
Literally everyone and their mother have debt even some people were fooled into "managing your credit", "using your cards instead of they using you", it's fricking insane.
It’s really just
>frick you got mine.
Explain Disney then, literally battling sex-ed laws with the governor of Florida, lose tax-exemptions law etc. in the process.
How would that ever be for the benefits of the shareholders?
The CEO answers to the board, who are supposed to represent the shareholders. If the board doesn't like what the CEO is doing, they'll have him replaced. If the shareholders don't like what the board is doing, they will sell their stock in protest.
Which is why the Disney stock is down the fricking shitter. Because the board isn't sufficiently protecting the shareholders interests
Pic related. This is what Disneys stock looks like when you account for inflation.
A boomer who put $100 in todays money into Disney stock in 1993 would have made a 0% return on the stocks value when you account for inflation within the 1993-2023 period, and excluding dividends.
Boomers like to think of Disney as a blue chip but in reality it's a huge piece of shit
>Pic related. This is what Disneys stock looks like when you account for inflation.
We're on Cinemaphile so I assume some people here own stock in studios because the charts in nominal terms don't look too bad. But when you account for inflation it suddenly becomes apparent that most of the studios are in fact dying
What's the green dotted line?
>excluding dividends
Can't just exclude those though.
>Excluding dividends
Bro just disregard the part of the investment that pays you and it's worthless bro. Trust me.
Bro-finance morons should get the rope.
That court ruling was one of the worst ones in US history, and part of the reason every MBA out there is a borderline sociopath.
Capitalism sucks in so many ways, but this particular aspect of suckiness was caused by politicians and the courts.
>Capitalism sucks in so many ways, but this particular aspect of suckiness was caused by politicians and the courts.
Capitalism having business corrupt government is one of the earliest criticisms of it.
I wonder if there is an ancient tribe of people who have also been widely criticized for their manipulation of financial markets
Also why do coins have ridges?
It would be much better if the government and its various agencies controlled all aspects fo production. We would be much more free and wealthy.
No system can regulate itself.
That's basically what the government does right now. its just that they don't do it by appointing CEOs or whatever. If they want people to stop making SUVs they can just write laws to decrease the incentives to make SUVs. Its just that right now they also accept money from private enterprises to write laws for said private enterprises. If the only alternative you can imagine to not taking bribes is full on communism I don't think you've thought much about the role of government.
>they don't do it by appointing CEOs or whatever
They do it by choosing which companies supply the most products to the defense industry and then go from there.
The CEO of a company is actually legally compelled to act in the interest of the shareholders. If line go down you can actually be charged.
>The CEO of a company is legally compelled to commit fraud
>The CEO of a company is actually legally compelled to act in the interest of the shareholders. If line go down you can actually be charged.
I would take a civil suit vs criminal charges anyday.
Isn't selling assets literally trying to scam people anyway? These companies have bonds and shares hoping to make more money out of it than they purchased it for. If you think about it if they are selling then they obviously think the asset is worth less than what you offer them otherwise why would they sell and you buy because you think it's worth more than what you offer, you're just hoping they are wrong and yoy are right. So why would anyone get mad when they make a bad deal? The info was right there for anyone to see and value.
Assets appreciating in value is not a scam. Would you say that selling a house you bought for 100m in the 90s for 800k today today is a scam? It's the exact same house after all.
>Isn't selling assets literally trying to scam people anyway?
Are you fricking moronic?
>But I just told you in front of multiple witnesses that you are asking me to commit fraud. Have you been drinking tonight?
>ywn have a Demi Moore top executive wife
>what time is it?
>greedy evil character eats during time of emotional difficulty
bravo
so many moronic armchair lawyers in this thread
it is fraud, plain and simple
defending this just means you simp for israelites
How?
defrauding someone means you knowingly deceived them in the transaction for your material benefit, which is precisely what happens in the movie. Fraud is illegal so there can at least be some basic good faith requirement in buying/selling.
If they had sold all their securities without first discovering that they were bad, then there would be no crime. That they knew about it and deceived others buy selling it all off anyways makes it a crime.
You can't defraud someone when you're trading on public information. Anyone could reach the same numbers they got the night before. Specially when the ones trading are two megacorps that have entire teams that are supposed to value shit on a daily basis.
>why are you selling all these stocks? Is something wrong with them?
>um, n-nope!!
fraud
They show the selling of the stocks in the movie and not once does that get asked. And even if it did, why is it the trader's responsibility to answer? They could be selling for any number of reasons, if the buyer has cause for concern then they should do their own research first or just say no to the trade.
Why is it the firm's fault for selling a stock at the price the market has valued it at?
>Why is it the firm's fault for selling a stock at the price the market has valued it at?
Because they knew it wasn't of that value.
>sue the people being extorted for giving into extortion
lmao
seriously man, why are you putting so much effort into defending the people who caused the coming economic collapse?
>extorted
>if you don't commit a crime for us we will take our business elsewhere
lmao that's not extortion that's greed from the rating agency
Okay, so here's a similar scenerio
>critic has a blog
>needs ads to support blog
>needs early access to movies to be critic
>studio: rate our movies what we say or no ads or access
Rating companies do one thing, rate loans. They either rate how their only clients want or they have no clients.
I realize there's more than one simple variable here to understand, therefore your simple mind is completely lost, but please, if that's the case, learn to not speak.
early access to movies to be critic
No you don't
>Rating companies do one thing, rate loans
Yes, and they were so greedy they allowed the possibility of losing business to push them to break the law. None of this is extortion
>they allowed the possibility of losing business to push them to break the law.
Correction, they allowed the possibility of ceasing to exist to push them to break the law.
Same as the banks who knowingly sold bad loans, as good loans.
They were rated as good loans, the incentives were warped by...the government...again
They knew the ratings were wrong.
The extent to which this is true is unknown, and they have nobody else to rely on other than the government granted cartel
So who’s they? The banks who originally made subprime loans, knowing most of them were beyond worthless, and sold them? The banks who packaged bad loans with good loans and sold them? The banks who bought the bad loan packages and sold them? Etc, etc?
It was all ~~*classic*~~ tricks. And of course, some greedy people that turned their head away because they were earning absurd amount of cash by doing so.
The linchpin is the ratings agencies
Without them misrepresenting the ratings, the other ventures would just fail
>nobody is buying my loans, guess I cant do more of them
>nobody is buying my clustered garbage, guess I can't do more of that
> they allowed the possibility of ceasing to exist to push them to break the law.
If there existence relied on falsifying information they deserved to cease to exist. If they falsified information to save their own ass they weren't extorted they were greedy
The ratings agencies are literally a government enforced cartel
It's not exactly the same. It's more like multiple blogs competing and the studio naturally grants access to whichever blog they think is most favorable to them, which shapes the market incentives for all blogs to be favorable to the studio since none of them want to lose business to the competition. The studio isn't doing anything illegal here.
>They show the selling of the stocks in the movie and not once does that get asked
they say
>what's going on? what has you so worked up [about these stocks]?
>err they dont tell me anything! all i know is MY LOSS IS YOUR GAIN
it's literally fraud
>why is it the trader's responsibility to answer?
because there's a criminal statute prohibiting fraud, you dumb gay. Even if you ignore criminal codes, they absolutely open themselves up to civil exposure and could be sued
Do you think the supermarket committed fraud because you bought a bad peach?
prove the supermarket knew and intended to sell me a bad peach
imagine not knowing what mens rea is
Exactly, prove it, in a court of law. Are you a psychic? How can you know my intent.
that's why your false equivalence is garbage
they would easily take depositions of all these board members and lower staff employees to prove the criminal intent in this plot
You know sellers can be held liable for selling dangerous products even if they didn't make the product, right? Your "common sense" is not a substitute for the actual law.
Mostly because regular people must be protected from giant companies. A single person can't properly asses every single thing they buy from 100 different companies. If you go the supermarket and buy 99% alcohol and the bottle says exactly that then that should be enough for someone to be smart and not drink it. Now they do put a "do not drink" to help literal morons and you can't sue for fraud because you were told all you needed to know.
When you talk about giant companies they are expected to know the basis without having to be spoonfed information. The securities were in the open for everyone to look if they are complete morons that don't know how manage their risks then it's their fault. There's no fraud it's exactly how the trading market works.
Just as individuals can't asses the whole of every purchase the bigger banks can't assess every loan, thus they use agencies to rate them
Trusting rating agencies is like trusting the food critic that gets paid by the restaurant. It's moronic and they paid the price.
They don't have an alternative. But sure, I dont weep for these companies. The fact remains that the critical fault lies with the ratings agencies and therefore the government
>we no longer think these assets fit our credit profile so we want to get rid of them for a fair price do you want to buy?
>b-but is anything wrong with it
>are you new or something? ask your risk department and your superior if you're allowed to trade these assets and on what terms now do you want to buy?
That's why these companies have people doing that exact job, if the company doesn't feel like they can accurately value them in time and don't want to take the risks they could simply refuse to trade but they thought they knew better and fricked up
Companies pay rating agencies to "rate" their garbage. Just on that fact people shouldn't trust them but they do because they are right most of the time. It's not bribery because no bribe is needed that's how the system works.
israeli alien
it wouldn’t be a sin to murder you irl in any religion or culture
You know it takes time to do that research, right? The firm in Margin Call didn't just discover this overnight, they had Eric Dale's research that he'd been working on for weeks to help them.
yeah and loads firms had people doing the same research and those people would have come to the same conclusions because its all just public information. The only special thing about this particular firm was that they finished crunching the numbers before everyone else and that was still after Eric Dale had been working on it for a long time.
That's exactly the point, they knew the securities were worthless before anyone else did, so it was fraudulent for them to market those securities as valuable. It doesn't matter whether other firms would have eventually come to the same conclusion - what matters is the knowledge at the time of the sale.
high finance is literally built on the idea people won't investigate, which means high finance is literally fraud.
>defrauding someone means you knowingly deceived them
You can't deceive someone with available information. If I sold you a house with no roof on it, it doesn't matter if I insist to the entire time that the house is in perfect condition and everything is amazing. If you never once bothered to look up once and see that there is no roof, that's on you. Me telling you that the roofless house is in perfect condition while selling it to you is not fraud
Lawgay here
While I totally agree that your example should be the case, it is not totally true.
With obvious defects, it is true. However, things that are not so obvious (but still should be discovered with some due diligence) can constitute a form of fraud
With the immediate case its simply not fraud because you aren't representing anything false to the buyer.
a more apt example is that the homeowner thinks, based on studying housing market trends and demographic trends, that the neighborhood or city in which his house is located is going to become a shithole in the future, so the homeowner sells to the buyer his house that conforms with all the covenants and regulations and statutes that the house is exactly as it is being marketed. now, if the homeowners prediction that external factors will cause the value of the house to depreciate, do you think the buyer should be able to recover on the basis of fraud? even if the homeowner-seller says that the neighborhood or city is great, it is still the truth because at the present moment the neighbor or city is great. thats why there is no fraud. you cant sue someone for selling a conforming asset to regulatory standards then be upset that you overpaid because that is not fraud.
but what if i use words to make you wrong?
>It's just money bro, it's made up
Did you just say "Joever"?
It was the ratings agencies fault in the first place, acting in self interest and the interests of everyone involved with your company is not evil
If you think your shares of apple stock are going down, would you not sell it out of altruism? No, that's obviously fricking ridiculous
its been a pretty common tactic, for the last century or so, for "evil" to act like acting in its interests is acting in your interests, your family's interests, everyone's interests, etc.
this guy hands you a thumb drive and tell you to "be careful"
wyd?
k bro
throw it in a drawer and forget about it most likely
This is the most baffling part of the movie. No way the security escort that was literally standing right there allows that handoff to happen. And since when do major firms allow USB drives?
>This is the most baffling part of the movie. No way the security escort that was literally standing right there allows that handoff to happen. And since when do major firms allow USB drives?
There's no reason to stop him, he is talking to a subordinate, if he was handing it out to a 3rd party then you would had a point.
>"If we achieve a 90% sales rate this morning, the top salesmen will receive a million dollar bonus. If we achieve 95%, the entire floor receives a million dollar bonus."
>"If we achieve an 85% sales rate, the floor will enjoy a complimentary Friday pizza party."
>see these digits? These digits costs more than you car
are there any lesser known financial kinos? i've seen all the big ones
The main character is a finance major who's dirt poor and decides to enter the cocaine trade. He uses his education to help launder money.
Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room is pretty wild if you want to see a documentary.
it's not a great movie, but there's rogue trader from 1999 about the guy that caused barings bank to collapse. it even has ewan mcgregor in the lead.
Are the morons arguing in this thread confusing the plot of this movie with the Big Short?
Big Short and Margin Call are about basically the same issues but with different perspectives. In the Big Short you have people borrowing money to buy bonds which they dump on the market so they can make money when they know the economy is going to implode while Margin Call is about a company that thinks they're making sound investments and realizing the economy is about to implode and doing their best to not go under.
Yes, my point is that the quality of the MBS holdings is NOT the point of Margin Call, nor is it information the characters would have had access to in the timeframe the movie depicts. The central issue in Margin Call is the firm being overleveraged in those securities during a period of historically high volatility. The fact that that other firms were also overleveraged in those same securities is an issue for their risk departments, not the responsibility of the Margin Call firm.
The issue with Margin Call is that the firm has realized that MBS products are going bad and how to deal with that. The movie hints at the fact that some people int he firm knew this would happen and that they even fired the guy whose job it was to assess the risk on MBS products because he was raising to many points about the leverage and the bonds themselves, which pooped the party of everyone else who was making shitloads of money selling them.
>hints at the fact that some people int he firm knew this would happen and that they even fired the guy whose job it was to assess the risk on MBS products because he was raising to many points about the leverage and the bonds themselves, which pooped the party of everyone else who was making shitloads of money selling them.
Even then they were fricking lucky that Zachary Quinto managed to predict how deep in shit they were getting into and the exact moment it was happening (It was already trending downwards for 2 weeks or so and nobody noticed aside from the risk management chief and even then he didn't had the full picture)
If Christian Bale could figure out what was going to happen then why couldn't anyone? Why is it the banks' fault that people are lazy and stupid?
James Woods' character in Too Big to Fail (underrated 2008 recession kino) has a good few lines on this.
>People act like we are crack dealers. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them to buy a house they couldn't afford, and while you're at it, get a line of credit on that baby and buy a boat.
For all the blame the banks got for pushing subprime mortgages, the fault of the customers who overextended themselves financially can't be ignored.
The autists who figured out genius bear strategies won, the bankers simply got bailed out, the average taxpayer lost (always does), and the people who took out six mortgages ended up killing themselves.
Greed, what people need to understand is that pension funds and other big investments put limits to certain kind of investmenets to set risk profiles. So many of them are locked mainly on AAA rated assets by their own policies, therefore there's was huge demand for CDO/MBS and all that jumbo.
Think about credit rating agencies, their business was analyzing a company's financials and their new bond and give their opinion. This is more or less easy. Now companies come with structured products that have 700 long contracts and 100000 long apendixes with thousands of loans. Now they come with thousdans of these securities and tell them to rate them. Do you hire a million extra slaves or do you just tell your current workforce to make it happen. When the complexity of the assets goes through the roof is where investors should stop caring about rating agencies and focus on what their own people can value.
Because of group think, it happens every fricking day about issues far more important than a recession
Because he did the research and found everyone was either wrong or lying. Because he was willing to allow for the idea that banks knowingly issued loans they knew would default and then knowingly allowed those loans to be rated as AAA, then banks knowingly packaged subprime loans with legit loans to offload them onto otheres, etc, etc.
The long and short is he allowed for the idea business was being conducted in bad faith. If everyone did that, there’d be no business.
The common man will think:
>The banks aren't going to risk their own existence whole economy to be filthy rich
> Even if they were, wouldn't the goverment stop them from doing that? There aren't regulations for these things?
>Even if shit went bad, the bad banks would be punished, the government isn't stupid enough to bail them out of their own mistakes.
The issue is that traders of MBS products were making commission on trades. If they told 10 million dollars of MBS to someone, they got paid cash money for that sale. Their job is find reasons to to keep buying MBS products and the more sure they are of the granite foundations of the MBS market the harder they can crush the next sale. There's no reason to even entertain the notion that MBS aren't good products, especially not publicly or to their bosses.
It's both the banks are greedy and people are stupid
Even if you hate Tim Dillon he has a bunch of stories about how literally every fricking moron selling flip phones and ringtones at the mall would ask for a loan, get a ungodly amount with terrible and variable interest rates, and then ask for an even bigger one before signing
>Do you know I was a janny once?
>Sorry?
>A janny.
>No, I didn't know that.
>I was a janitor on Cinemaphile
>Hmmm... hmmm.
>some people like typing out the captcha, who the frick knows right?
.
Does Tuld wear a cheaper suit than his subordinates as a corporate "frick you" or does he wear one because he got forced into a 2am emergency meeting?
So when you work at this level do you really have clothes ready in case they call you at 3am? I doubt Tuld and Jared ironed their own shirts.
Execs always have spare clothing on hand in case of an emergency. You were promoted to be presentable to big clients.
Tuld arrives in a chopper so I'd assume that he wasn't at home.
Im a trial attorney and my closet is generally ready before the week. I keep my jackets and ties in my office. If I had a bigger office I would just keep an entire wardrobe there.
I saw this movie expecting nothing, and it was 10/10.
You sometimes have to work fricked up hours to have video meetings with Australia/Japan/China etc.
these people have aides that do this. none of the higher ups have ironed their shirts in decades
"Listen. People wanna live like this in their cars, in their big fricking houses they can't even pay for, then you're [bankers] necessary. The only reason people get to continue living like kings is because we've got our fingers on the scales in their favor. I take my hand off, well then the whole world gets really fricking fair really fricking quickly - and nobody actually wants that. They say they do, but they don't. They want what we have to give them, but they also want to, you know, play innocent and pretend they have no idea where it came from; well that's more hypocrisy than I'm willing to swallow, so frick 'em. Frick normal people."
best part of the film
frick normies
you are part of the normies he's talking about
hush anon, just let him find his own way to enlightenment
I'm actually Paul Bettany's banker.
just coping for being an immoral piece of shit
What cope? You are literally who he's talking about. The only reason we in the West can have such good lives is because there's chinks or currys working 80 hour weeks in sweatshops busting their asses off.
Money is always made off of someone. People who use the services of banks profit from this without any complaints as long as it benefits them, but as soon as those services stop being in their benefit and they become the ones who are taken advantage of, they screech like they were cheated and that it's not supposed to be how the system works. They're fine with getting luxuries they don't need from bubbles and financial irregularities, but they start pleading for equality and compensation when they're on the other side of the situation. It's hypocrisy.
>The only reason we in the West can have such good lives is because there's chinks or currys working 80 hour weeks
for luxury items or electronics, clothes maybe. It's actually entirely possible and affordable to not contribute to stuff like that most people just don't think about it and consoom anyway.
Yep. You can still enjoy yourself without chasing the top dollar.
>for luxury items or electronics, clothes maybe
Anon literally everything manufactured has some imported component on it. Maybe raw materials like oil, coal and wood or national crops like wheat and corn are 100% US.
Unless you're living near the Amish or decide to live innawoods something it is genuinely impossible to avoid contributing to it because you're still buying things form business that buy products made by poor people for peanuts.
Even the Amish pay taxes and conduct business, to pay taxes.
me when i’m a reddit stereotype
I watched this after seeing the memes and it was actually pretty good. It respects the intelligence of the audience
Anyone know any other kinos like this? I don't mean financial thrillers of whatever, just ones that take place
prmarily in an office building (preferably at night) or something of that sort.
For example: like this music video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Gjt1t_HDs