/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>18675784
About 60%, but it is one of the most based movies of all time

>>18675784
Accurate in the scenarios that occurred but lacking in the underlying dynamics that caused the crash. Simply blaming greed isn't intelligent

>>18675784

I don't know the true story behind the individuals, but I can tell that most of the things they said about finance were pretty accurate.
Unfortunately, it took a very sensational turn to make everything look bad; feeding that image of evil bankers.
Furthermore, it greatly missed the underlying macro-economic variables.

All in all, it is not a reflection of the the truth, but it can pass as something somewhat true. Its accuracy is comparable to the average WWII movie.

Margot robbie has never taken a bath

Fairly accurate. When it comes to the people it's detailing, it's less acurate. But when detailing why the collapse happened it's pretty accurate. Only problem is they don't straight up name the greedy, rootless, hook nose, bloodthirsty, capitalist bankers who were responsible for destroying the middle class.

8/10 would recommend

>>18676441
Topkek

>>18675784
would give it a 7/10
great acting, flowed well, and they did well to explain to the general public as to how bankers were in bed with ratings agencies and the other crimes they comitted etc.

Only problem is they did not include the Federal Reserve and other central banks roles at all. No mention of how they actually started this bubble with record low interest rates causing people to speculate in the housing market.

There were two culprits, wall street AND the Fed, I wish they had covered the Fed more

>>18675784
The problem is, OP, that you probably aren't seeing all the posts. If you are just viewing [biz] through the /biz/ board, you don't see the green posts, the posts with letters in their ids, or anything numberless. Together, those make up about 40-70 percent of [biz], depending on the day. So conversation will appear disjointed and spastic, because you won't be getting the full picture.


I actually just flipped over to the /biz/ interface to make this post, and it's pretty funny how unintelligible [biz] is like this.

>>18676633
The fed's LOW interest rates was a problem now?
Nothing caused people speculating in the housing market, thats just what people do and are still doing. Speculating everything. They should be regulated.

>>18675784
If you want to understand the crash's cause, read Peter Wallison's dissent in the government's official Financial Crisis Inquiry Report.
tl;dr: The government (both Democrats and Republicans) wanted to increase homeownership, so they forced banks to make more loans to poor people. The banks already were making as many loans as they could to poor people who had good credit, so the additional government pressure encouraged them to go after poor people who had bad credit as well. Fannie Mae also used a bad definition of "subprime" loans ("loans made by 'subprime lenders'" rather than "loans made to people with FICO under 660") to mislead investors as to exactly how many bad loans were on the market, contributing to why the bubble went undetected for so long.

any other movies like this? will add to my quarantine movie list

>>18675784
the book is pretty accurate, but obviously it was hard to condense that down to 2hrs or however long the movie goes for, without it being absolutely boring. i mean normies struggled with the concepts in the movie as it was, imagine if it was even drier lmao

>>18675784

let's all be honest. who here actually understood what was going on?

>tfw i understood maybe like 30% of what was being said

>>18676657
>Nothing caused people speculating in the housing market, thats just what people do and are still doing

Yes, because the rates are even lower now. Debt is far higher than 2008 ( personal, corporate, sovereign) so the recession ( which has already started) is going to be far worse than 2008
This is all a function of low interest rates and cheap money, would not be surprised if the FED goes negative next week

>>18676691
margin call, inside job and inside the federal reserve for movies related to the gfc

I would have loved if they could have gone without Margot Roastie, Selena Gomez, the bankier woman from DB and all females in general because I don't want them in my movies.
Is it true they kept the price of CDO's high to sell sell sell and then let it drop?

you are going to have a lot of people on this board convince you that it was all the governments fault and nothing else. they were definitely at fault along with the fed yes, but the commercial and investment banks really took the piss on this one

>>18675784

It is generally correct. Option market, a crazy long-pockets trade (they have paid tens of millions in order to not get liquidated)

No serious flaws. Banks are market makers, they sell options and other similar instruments for a quick small profit (which pay big on scale).

Once in a while shit hits the fan.

BTW, going and really checking for a bubble part is really brilliant.

>>18676721
thanks anon

>>18676757
I'll second Margin Call

>>18675807
>>18676374
kikes

>>18675784
I had an exam where I had to write a long-ass essay on mechanisms of this crisis (subprimes, securitization, all that stuff); later that day I went to watch this movie. It was super weird to watch people on a screen more or less recite my paper in an accurate if oversimplified manner.
They had to ruin it with "capitalism bad" though.

Was mostly accurate, just dumbed down for tje layman. Legitimately great movie though

Margin call was even better

>>18676374
>feeding that image of evil bankers
Think it's more than just an image mate

>>18675784
replace mortgages with pensions and you will see this played out again

>>18676697
they literally spoon feed it to you, are you 8 years old?

the Bale character M. Burry isnt that autistic irl

what's that smell

>>18678468
Duning Kruger.
Also,
>literally

>>18676722
bro, they gotta sell the show somehow to normies. People here barely have enough attention as it is, hence the billion and 2 booty pics for topic openers.

>>18677139
it is "bad" tho