Moneyball author Michael Lewis explains how Wall Street bleeped us all

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

LWillhite

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
79
Brilliant article that got me to understand how Wall Street investment banks just might have been the biggest fraud in American history. Unbelievably galling. You probably need 20-30 minutes to read this, but it's worth it. About three-fourths of the way, it explains why the money lost is far, far greater than the actual mortgage defaults.

Between this and the sordid AIG tales...sheesh.

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom?tid=true&print=true

LW
 
I read this yesterday. It is staggering. And completely sickening. I've seen all these bits in other articles but Billy Beane (ok, bad joke) did a fantastic job of tieing it together.

On the ratings agencies, who polished subprime turds into AAA securities:

"He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S&P couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. “They were just assuming home prices would keep going up,” Eisman says.



What Wall Street has done to this country is catastrophic. Its incalculable. Yet there are no reprisals. Nobody held accounted for. We have a very very sick country.
 
You're right Lindsey.
There's a paragraph in there that explains why the subprime crisis went so far beyond a bunch of people defaulting on their mortgages that is the single most lucid thing I've read on this crisis.
Lewis is an impressive writer, able to make complex issues digestible -- sometimes by just conceding they're too complex to be digested.
 
I enjoyed that. I knew Steve Eisman in his Oppenheimer days. He hasn't changed. I did financial reporting and we'd do these columns on financial equities, but written for the lowest common denominator. It was not highbrow financial reporting. I'd get analysts that Institutional Investor had rated higher than him on the phone and they'd pontificate as long as I wanted about this buy and that buy and they were basically puppets for the investment bankers calling the shots. It was all a bunch of blarney. If you called Eisman, he would cus you out just for calling or if he listened for a second, he'd yell at you and slam the phone for just asking the wrong question--even though it was simply the question you had to ask because of the prevailing sentiment on Wall Street toward something. Rather than saying, "Well, Dean Eberling at Prudential is an idiot," or "Alison Deans is full of ****," he'd sigh, make a noise like his head was exploding and hang up on you. He doesn't seem to have changed a bit. I have a soft spot for people like that. They make me smile.

As for Lewis' story, he's on the mark, but it really boils down to a simple truism in life: caveat emptor. No one forced Lehman and Merrill and the others to leverage themselves to the hilt and take big risks on a crazy asset class. And no one forced any investor to buy what was basically a steaming pile of dog doo. If Steve Eisman--and others--could see the inherent problems in these securities, others could too. People chose not to. Now those investment banks are worthless. And people who invested in those securities have lost a fortune. Caveat emptor. We should let them lie smoldering and dying; we shouldn't be bailing out fools who lost their money.
 
50 million active mortgages in the US; about 1.5M in or in danger of foreclosure. Shows you how many ways Wall Street sliced and diced to have gotten where we are.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Shrugging your shoulders and saying caveat emptor is simply just not an acceptable answer to this.
 
Unfortunately, there will never be an acceptable answer to fix this problem. Fastest way to grown an economy is by creating jobs and if you're businessman on steady ground financially, why would you care to move your cheap labor in Mexico or China back to the United States? The government can't afford to offer sweetheart deals to businessmen who have $ signs pumping through their veins. The American greed doesn't care about "Joe the Plumber" when "William the CEO" has enough money to support the next 5 generations of "William the CEO's".

If I say go fix the auto-industry, what about other American manufacturing companies dying on the vine and trying to holdout from going Global (i.e. ship jobs to Mexico, China, etc.)... it really is going to be a difficult mess that I don't believe anyone in congress has the ability to comprehend, let alone fix.
 
Which is why inherited wealth is the welfare that nobody wants to talk about. If rich people just made enough to keep themselves rich so that their kids would actually have to make an effort, it would be a step in the right direction.
 
The Big Ragu said:
poindexter said:
Shrugging your shoulders and saying caveat emptor is simply just not an acceptable answer to this.

Why not?

Ratings agencies have been paid premium dollars to provide a service. Either fraudulently or though negligence, they didn’t even come close to providing that service. They should be held accountable. Slapping AAA ratings on POS and then saying “buyer beware” is bull****. And it happened in every step along the chain.

Our economy, and business in general is only is good as the trust you have in the other party. The Jim Rome theory of “if you aren’t cheating, you’re not trying” is obviously alive and true in Wall Street. But there is a heavy price to pay for that. Trillions, in fact.
 
Saying buyer beware in this case is like telling the person who ate contaminated meat because the FDA fell down on the job that they should have set up a meat inspection facility in their basement.
 
There was an item after Lewis's first story for Portfolio (I remember it was on Gawker but originated elsewhere) that he was being paid $12 a word for his stories, although I think that was refuted.

The other thing is, I thought he signed a deal with Vanity Fair that included him writing exclusively for them? Maybe that starts at the beginning of the year.
 
Small Town Guy said:
There was an item after Lewis's first story for Portfolio (I remember it was on Gawker but originated elsewhere) that he was being paid $12 a word for his stories, although I think that was refuted.

The other thing is, I thought he signed a deal with Vanity Fair that included him writing exclusively for them? Maybe that starts at the beginning of the year.

That sounds like a very, very, very, very, very good freelance deal.
 
poindexter said:
The Big Ragu said:
poindexter said:
Shrugging your shoulders and saying caveat emptor is simply just not an acceptable answer to this.

Why not?

Ratings agencies have been paid premium dollars to provide a service. Either fraudulently or though negligence, they didn’t even come close to providing that service. They should be held accountable. Slapping AAA ratings on POS and then saying “buyer beware” is bull****. And it happened in every step along the chain.

Our economy, and business in general is only is good as the trust you have in the other party. The Jim Rome theory of “if you aren’t cheating, you’re not trying” is obviously alive and true in Wall Street. But there is a heavy price to pay for that. Trillions, in fact.

The CEO's of the bond agencies all should be in jail for life. This crap makes Kenny Lay and Jeff Skilling look like A-ball players.
 
The lede alone hit home for me:

To this day, the willingness of a Wall Street investment bank to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars to dispense investment advice to grownups remains a mystery to me. I was 24 years old, with no experience of, or particular interest in, guessing which stocks and bonds would rise and which would fall. The essential function of Wall Street is to allocate capital—to decide who should get it and who should not. Believe me when I tell you that I hadn’t the first clue.

Sadly (for myself), I was not getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, but at 25 I was appearing frequently on cable business news shows as an "expert" on the Netscape-fueled IPO boom that was going on at the time, my qualification being that I was editing an IPO newsletter in New York. Six months off the turnip truck from the Johnson County (Ind.) Daily Journal, I had Wall Street veterans asking me on the air, as if I knew, how they could get into this boom. People nationwide called me from across the nation to ask how they could get in on the first day. My mom, for god's sake, wanted to know how to flip Yahoo. One reporter, I think from CNN, sat in my crappy cubicle to interview me to ask why these IPOs were popping. I gave her my standard, BS answer: "Because people think they're worth it." No, no, no, she said, there's got to be some technical, analytical reason for it. I was in a bit of a cold sweat, thinking maybe she was right, and I repeated: "Because people think they're worth it."

I didn't really know what I was talking about, but I did. The mid-90s IPO boom really fed the casino mentality on Wall Street. The underlying fundamentals didn't matter anymore. But eventually, they do. Heck, Netscape collapsed once people realized there was no way on this Earth it could financially be justified to have a higher market cap than American Airlines (even now). So it goes with the mortgage market (subject of another sleepy newsletter our group had at a time when MBS was new). Unfortunately, that has graver consequences because while we don't all have Netscape stock, the greater economy is fueled by credit and home-buying, especially the last few years.

The circle will probably continue. After all this ****pile gets cleaned up, everyone on Wall Street will talk soberly about underlying fundamentals, until the next out-of-nowhere fad comes up. Then, suddenly, coked-up 40-year-old managers will scream at 24-year-old coked-up analysts and traders to get their ****ing **** moving before someone else takes off with all the money, and then here we go again.
 
Great story, Bob.

The IPO boom was PT Barnum writ large.

The only bigger pile of snake oil was the Y2K crap.
 
poindexter said:
The Big Ragu said:
poindexter said:
Shrugging your shoulders and saying caveat emptor is simply just not an acceptable answer to this.

Why not?

Ratings agencies have been paid premium dollars to provide a service. Either fraudulently or though negligence, they didn’t even come close to providing that service. They should be held accountable. Slapping AAA ratings on POS and then saying “buyer beware” is bull****. And it happened in every step along the chain.

Our economy, and business in general is only is good as the trust you have in the other party. The Jim Rome theory of “if you aren’t cheating, you’re not trying” is obviously alive and true in Wall Street. But there is a heavy price to pay for that. Trillions, in fact.

I didn't say not to hold Moody's or S&P accountable. There is no one saying you have to trust their ratings or subscribe to any of their services. There is nothing saying anyone has to. There was precedent before now to suggest that they are not infallible. So anyone simply relying on a Moody's rating as their basis for buying a volatile derivative investment got what they deserved. In reality, there were few people like that.

A good fixed-income investor does his or her own research (ask Steve Eisman) rather than simply relying on a Moody's rating. Even bad fixed-income investors, such as the Lehman traders who were going nuts on crazy CDOs, had their own independent researchers.

I say caveat emptor... and I am still with you on this. Hold Moody's responsible. Don't buy their products. Let them whither away if they highly rate investments that are much riskier than their rating suggests.

And if you are that passionate about it, you might even take it a step further -- start your own rating service that does it better. Even if you offer a niche product, the are always people who will pay for good research and information.

It still comes down to caveat emptor. If my neighbor gives me a tip on a horse, and the horse loses, I'm the idiot for making the bet. I'm an idiot if I listen to my neighbor a week later when he has a hot tip. And I'm an idiot if the horse has only three legs--and I can see it--and I still make the bet. I get what I deserve.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top