Not a secret I am fond of films inspired by the financial meltdown in
2008. Quite naturally, plenty of such films (documentaries or fictional) were
shot shortly after the crisis (Let’s make money, Inside job and Margin Call
just to name those reviewed on PES), yet new productions come up even seven
years after the climax of the market turmoil. The Big Short, which premiered in
late 2015 is one of such pictures. So yesterday, instead of joining KOD in
picketing for freedom of expression in the public media, I drove to a cinema to
watch Big Short in the silver screen.
The films is generally based on facts and tells the story of a handful
of astute investors who predicted the collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage
market. Same old story recounted, you would say. True, and because of this you
can easily guess how the film would end. Yet, the insight into the crisis is
shown from a rarely highlighted angle of those who predicted it in advance and
for years were scorned. This, compounded with the word “fraud” (and its
derivatives) uttered several times induces a question, whether perpetrators of
the crisis were mercenary, greedy bankers attempting to makes us much money as
possible before subprime time bomb went off, or did they genuinely believed
they had invented a perpetual motion machine.
The simple answer to the question is, I believe, straightforward. As the
Polish saying goes, Siebie oszukujemy w miarę potrzeb, innych w miarę
możliwości (you deceive yourself as much as you need to, while you deceive
others as much as opportunities permit).
The more complicated answer draws on flawed foundations of the banking
system and the principal – agent problem. Let’s consider a situation when a
specific market (may there be subprime mortgages in the United States or
CHF-denominated mortgages in Poland) is getting dangerously red-hot.
1. As long as the market keeps rising, your stakeholders expect you to
stay on the market (US investors wanted fund managers to invest in CDOs, head
offices of Polish banks wanted them to grant CHF-denominated mortgages).
2. But if the circle keeps turning and you back out, you lose clients
and earn less (therefore few fund managers liquidated their exposure to
subprime securities before the market subsided, therefore few banks voluntarily
gave up on CHF-denominated loans).
3. When the market collapses, everyone makes roughly equal losses, so as
long as you do not fall short of your peers, your stakeholders put up with your
mistake, as everyone has made it (investors across the world could feel duped,
but for reasons different than mortgage market downfall, head office of foreign
banks have not laid off a single executive involved in aggressive origination
of CHF-denominated loans, though now these mortgages as a portfolio are
loss-making)
4. But when the market crashes and if you have had the courage to swim
against the tide and reap horrendous profits and your bets, would it be
appreciated? History gives negative answer (ever heard of elated investors
extolling their fund managers for earning them 500% profits, name a bank proud
today of staying away from CHF-denominated mortgages).
While you
leave out the leitmotiv of the crisis, mortgages, debt, derivatives, defaults
and other notions confusing for laymen, this is a film about human psyche. Big
short is about having the courage to swim against the tide. In 2005 someone
betting against the mortgage market was dubbed a downright moron. Despite hard
facts supporting the conclusion residential housing market fundamentally was
bound to fall down, speaking it out publicly was out of favour. A tough test
for one’s guts to stick to what you deeply believe, while everyone else laughs
them off. A tough test for one’s humility to tell nearly everyone, including
renowned financiers and bankers, are wrong. A tough test for one’s investment
strategy as well, since the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay
liquid.
Yet, before
you realise market is in a bubble, craze has rubbed off on everyone around and
valuations of assets have strayed from fundamentals, you need to realise dreams
cannot come true if you cannot afford them. Dream of home ownership simply must
be out of reach for those who cannot afford to repay a mortgage.
The problem of the financial system is that the price to pay for taking
excessive risks is too low, while the price to pay for refraining from taking
excessive risks is too high.
No comments:
Post a Comment