Who needs Margot Robbie in a bubble bath when we can have Richard Coffin in front of a Game of Thrones poster?

@neal2049

4 жыл бұрын

Good one lol.

@StuffedBox

4 жыл бұрын

I only stared at Margot Robbie so I didn't understand what she was talking about

@DocOrtmeyer

3 жыл бұрын

🤤🤤🤤 she gets me going so bad

@stgrozdanovic

2 жыл бұрын

@@StuffedBox Boobs--what, uhhh stocks, yeah

@TheNaldiin

Жыл бұрын

I do man.

You mean they explain it in 'Lehman's' terms.... I'll see myself out

@abdiqaniyusuf7438

4 жыл бұрын

Hahahaha 😭😂😂😂😂

@slappy8941

4 жыл бұрын

The police have been notified.

@ouruhuru

4 жыл бұрын

Outstanding.

@toasterr4238

4 жыл бұрын

Please check your inbox, we have sent you a cease and desist for libel.

@Aw3someOpZ

3 жыл бұрын

FBI Open up!

This happens often in mathematics research as well. A researcher at a university is forced to keep pumping out papers, so they makes mistakes, then other researchers base new concepts on those mistakes, the other researchers and it continues until someone finds the root mistake and allll the research ends up wrong like a domino effect.

@BloggerMusicMan

2 жыл бұрын

That's a really illuminating analogy that makes this whole thing easier to understand. Thanks. :)

@ginosuinoilporcoinvasivo8216

Жыл бұрын

Academia is rotten

@12kenbutsuri

Жыл бұрын

@@ginosuinoilporcoinvasivo8216 yeah, in some aspects, it's seriously broken.

@francescodibello2380

Жыл бұрын

@@ginosuinoilporcoinvasivo8216 e se lo dice gino suino il porco invasivo non posso che fidarmi

@user-se6rv5rr6i

Жыл бұрын

How could anyone expect tenure without pumping out papers non-stop in the current research environment?

when he said "about" i knew he was canadian, good video btw

3 years later: Explaining explaining the explanations in the big short

@SONYAdicto

4 жыл бұрын

A synthetic CDO of explanations 😂

@EkranoPasakoriusReviews

3 жыл бұрын

I heard that reaction to the reaction to the explanation's explanation gonna be big next year. To the moon! 🚀🚀🚀

@12kenbutsuri

3 жыл бұрын

This happens often in mathematics'

@olurotimiwilliams

Жыл бұрын

It is now 3 years later. Let's have it, lol.

@Adiscretefirm

Жыл бұрын

3 years after your post the algorithm serves this video up to me

FYI whenever you have a movie based on real people or events, and the names of the characters are different from those of the real people, it's because A) the real people didn't want to give their permission to be portrayed, B) the studio or production team didn't want to bother with securing those rights, or C) sometimes a movie character is a combination of real people (either for sake of interest or because it's just a bit character), therefore no real name can be used.

@playgroundchooser

Жыл бұрын

In regards to your "C," the female scientist in Chernobyl was based off of like, 15 real life scientists in the USSR at the time that all were quite similar in their thinking about the crisis.

@Noxshus

Жыл бұрын

Which is interesting because Steve Carell's character has a fake name, but is a 1:1 of the real Steve Eisman discussed in the book, and his partners at his firm - Vincent Daniel, Porter Collins, and Danny Moses - all have their real names.

@BHRamsay

Ай бұрын

The rl Brownfield Fund guys have openly said they wanted to still have a personal life after the book and the resulting movie, so their names were modified

> at a thanksgiving dinner > **RELEASES THE VIDEO AFTER CHRISTMAS LIKE A BOSS**

I actually liked this type of video and would not be opposed to having some more come out. I watched the movie and uderstood the first two parts but the Selena Gomez one was a bit confusing so you clearing things up really was a big help, so thanks! I really appreciate it!

@tomlxyz

3 жыл бұрын

I think that part was an oversimplification in the movie. Just having a binary win/loose scenario doesn't make sense to have synthetic CDOs building on other synthetic CDOs and not on the first CDO directly

@davidbryant3532

Жыл бұрын

So you like explanations that are incorrect?

The scene of the side bet with Selena and Richard is wrongly executed, after she loses all the people is regreting their decissions when actually half of the people should be celebrating

@conors4430

3 жыл бұрын

I always took that in terms of what actually happened to the American economy. Because half of the people didn’t win. At least that was my takeaway, yes it was an explanation, but I thought it was an explanation to the specific narrative that the movie was telling, not just an explanation of how those kinds of derivatives work in general. Maybe I’m wrong

@harishr6740

3 жыл бұрын

You are right..The ones who paid premiums for the synthetic CDOs should be making a fortune..But I think they did not want to show the whole group in a literal sense ..

@swiftrealm

3 жыл бұрын

It's because pretty much everyone lost out because of the crash in the long run. Think about it, you may have made money because you shorted the market, but that means people lose jobs, they lose retirements, and that could easily have been someone you knew. The film does explain this when a couple of the investors on the short side start celebrating, and Brad Pitt yells at them. Shorting means only very few get to profit from a catastrophic event that will ruin the lives of many innocent people.

@cyjanek7818

3 жыл бұрын

I dont know enough about this event but should they? Wasnt it so bad that no one could pay those "bets" so in the end there was a lot of "you have to pay me" but no one paid?

@lukamagicc

3 жыл бұрын

I don't agree because the people who turned a profit on the big short we're easily less than a percent of the whole group affected, not even including the entire country. So the metaphor/analogy is fitting

This is actually quite helpful since even with the celebrity cameos I was still confused for the most part.

@Studeb

2 жыл бұрын

I'm still confused, by design.

Great video! Spot on commentary to an already great movie... The movie didn’t talk about it either, but a couple aspects of Credit Default Swaps that are interesting/important are: A) they are technically exactly like insurance, but were called “swaps” so that those contracts wouldn’t be regulated like insurance (which requires the issuer to have some percentage of the potential payout held in reserve, just in case) B) when the banks that issue mortgages buy CDS’s (basically insuring their mortgages against failure), that effectively took the risk of the mortgage off of their books, and allowed them to issue even MORE new mortgages... continuing the MBS->CDO->CDS cycle. C) BUT, since the issuers of the CDS’s (e.g. insurance) didn’t actually have the money to pay out if/when the mortgages defaulted, the mortgage lenders were actually just continuously ratcheting up their risk level until even the smallest blip in mortgage payments brought the whole thing crumbling down.

@TheHellogs4444

3 жыл бұрын

Holy crap this is a good insight. Thank you so much

@bjbell52

3 жыл бұрын

You've got the right idea basically, but not really. It was the mortgages themselves that caused the problem; if a mortgage went bad the bank repossessed the house keeping the down payment and the payment made up to that point. More often than not, they made money!. What you're talking about are mortgaged backed securities (I see you do write MBS so I think your on the right track). There are many things I can talk about right now but I'll talk about the biggest part of the problem. It isn't just the issuers didn't have the money per say, it's because in 2000 a law was passed keeping CDS's (actually derivatives in general) unregulated. Therefore it was "anything goes" and what really happened was investment firms learned they could make money by trading CDS's as if they were stocks. Worst, since there were no regulations, they could make money issuing more than ONE CDS per MBS. I know for a fact (because my last task at Lehman was to electronically transmit derivatives so I had to study them) that in 2007, for every MBS there were between 7-10 CDS's. So bottom line, a $100,000 mortgage going bad caused a MBS to lose $250,000 (you had to add the interest it would have made to the loss) causing the issuers of the CDS's to pay out but because there were as many as 10 CDS's, the total payout was $2.5 MILLION. And that was the real problem. BTW - what was the last job I held? I was in charge of all electronic trade communications in the Mortgaged Backed Securities department of Lehman Brothers (Chicago) for over 12 years.

@troypresley

3 жыл бұрын

@@bjbell52 thanks for the info from inside the walls! I don’t disagree with anything you said. I was just pointing out an interesting piece that was covered in the book, but glossed over or skipped in the movie. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was complex with enough blame to spread in many places. The lack of adequate reserves on CDS’s is one high impact piece of a larger puzzle. And the issuing of many CDS’s against one MBS definitely played a huge role in increasing the systemic risk (although if every CDS was covered with reserves on the seller’s side, that risk would have been much lower)

@GrantValdes

3 жыл бұрын

@@bjbell52 Pure gold buried in the comments

@igrowfaster

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for this explanation. It's helpful.

Ur such an underrated KZreadr this video is great

My favorite scene in this movie was with the rating agencies one. It wasn't with a celebrity but omg that scene I think it explained the whole movie letting the viewer know and aware how bad and corrupt the system was.

"I am going to try and find moral redemption at the roulette table" Great video ... really nice job on this one 🤘🤘

Michael Lewis also wrote 'Moneyball', which was also made into a film with Brad Pitt. I haven't seen the film, but the book is also worth a read if you're into that sort of thing (which if you watched the film and this video, you probably are).

Kinda glad you made this. I haven't seen TBS but from the clips you showed it looks like their metaphors are so abstract they wind up not explaining much.

Loved this one. Lots of value add, Richard. Thank you!

Those who don't recall their past are condemned to repeat it, this vid is great, man, thank you!

Really awesome video - I've watched the movie several times and I still learnt something (especially from the Blackjack analogy)

This was very informative (especially for the one about Synthetic CDOs). This movie does do a great job at taking a complicated subject and not only explaining stuff to the general audience, but also making it still entertaining as well. But even they couldn't explain everything perfectly so I'm glad you were able to elaborate some stuff even further.

Thank you for your explanation! The Big Short is literally my fav movie!

thank you so much for explaining the last scene! it never clicked for me that the synthetic cdo were comprised of cds; I had just accepted I'd never understand that scene

3:35 by the way... When you hear sub prime.. think SHIT! THAT'S MY FAVOURITE LINE 😂

Honestly, I had to watch this movie 3 - 5 times to understand what was really going on and everytime I watched it the value of the movie gets deeper and deeper. This is very informative thank you explaining. Thank you @ThePlainBagel!

This video was value added! Also goes to show we need stronger regulation to keep this stuff from happening. Dodd-Frank didn't go far enough and even it's been rolled back in part.

Thanks for this explanation. I was waiting something like this from the moment I saw that episode.

Thanks! And Merry Christmas! Watched the whole thing 🙂

4:40 There was also an issue with the agents working for the lenders telling people "don't worry, in 3 years you just re-mortgage, use the money to pay off this mortgage and get the same low rate for another 3 years"

Yes, you added great value!!! Sure the movie explains what´s going on in essence but I needed to understand it in actual finance terms and you did that, thank you!!

Thanks! Please continue putting out this type of content!

Saw the movie several times but you did add to the explanations, thanks. Subbed!

As a person who got out of the housing market entirely in 2006 because of a divorce, the collapse of the housing market was a silver lining during a difficult time in my life. Sorry to those who got caught in the aftermath. Pardon the anecdote but here's how the movie timeline parallels my life. We sold our home in Utah after the divorce where the market was still hot. I moved to Ohio and the market was completely different. There were so many for sale signs that I couldn't make any sense of the value of the homes. I opted to live in an apartment for a while. Whew!!! People were in a frenzy leading up to the housing collapse. You could do no wrong in real estate. People would leverage debt to get rich or simply refi to buy a new truck. I get that same feeling from people who are investing in stocks right now. I hear, "why pay down debt when I can make way more in the stock market?"

@tomlxyz

3 жыл бұрын

@@Grosbolt because that's basically the same as taking out a loan and then investing it. Sure the long term gain is bigger than the loan interest. However if the stock market makes a dip once putting you in the red on paper the one giving you the loan will force you to sell your investments to prevent further losses which realizes your losses and you'll end up having nothing. Depending on your leverage the dip doesn't even need to go far down. That's what happened in the 1930s. If you don't pay your mortgage and instead invest the money and you end up in a real estate crash again you might get foreclosure and then your investments will be seized to cover the loss. Loan basically gives you leverage both ways. Small gains make big gains, small losses can make you bankrupt.

@magahongkong4664

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomlxyz If you gain, you gain big possibly 2x or more. If you lose, you only lose 100% of it. If you are a good financer, you'd take the risk, particularly the poors

Amazing explanation, I'm keeping your video in my finance lessons! By the way, there are many videos which deserves an explanation like Barbarians at the Gate, Wall Street, Wall Street 2, The Banker. If you have sometime I would love to see your comments on those ones! Cheers!

Absolutely loved it, thank you.

Great video man! When I watched the movie it did leave me with some blank spots but you did a nice job covering it 👍

You definitely added value. Thanks for the explanation.

Amazing video, a really good idea to explain these cameos

Great video! Def keep doing these.

@9:30 I think it means it refers to combining two BB to make AAA AA, A, BBB, BB and again combining the BBs to make AAA again. Great video ♥️

Great material ! Keep it up!

I enjoyed it, and you should do more, the value you added wasn't that i hadn't understood before, and now i do... it was just that re-stating something i've already heard in your voice, ads value to me... its fun to watch.

Thanks for this video. Such a great movie, and you make it better

Thanks for explaining, another one would be awesome! 🙂

Thank you for explaining clear how the short actually works!

Great idea doing this. It certainly helped me after I have seen the movie. Liked.

Man, Mr. Bagel. Well done and thank you.

Thank you man for the great content!

Please do more, great job

Yes, you added value! Great vid.

It wasn't that people didn't know how the balloon interest rates worked, it was that they assumed the value of the house would increase and they would either sell the house or refi before the higher interest rates were due.

@jayrodathome

Жыл бұрын

Which I believe he covered under the “hot hand fallacy”

That was awesome , great video !

I really like this video 👍 thanks for the full explanation. It helps understand it!!!!

You did add value.... Especially with the last one...thanks

Always thought this would be an interesting topic 👏🏻👏🏻

Thanks for explaining the explanations. This really helped

You should give Margin Call a re-review. It had a lot of the same elements, but in a much tighter story and script. For the Selana Gomez and Richard Thaler explanation, I think there is an interesting nuance that they missed. By setting it up as a bet, the idea is that if all these people "lost" money then it implies there is another side of that bet that "won" money. However, as I understand it, what really happened is that billions of dollars simply "disappeared" from the economy. The vast majority of money in (mostly digital) circulation is not produced by the Fed or US Mint, but by the regular everyday business of loans. And the money derived from the MBS products and CDO's also was circulating as those were traded and sold. So when the loans defaulted massively, all that money based on the credit market essentially evaporated from the economy which is what the "credit crunch" - the most simplistic term for it - referred to. Is that correct?

Watching this I feel the same feeling I had when the market crashed. Very good explanation

I worked as a collector in a mortgage company back in 2008. One of the products the company sold was Adjustable Rate Mortgages or ARMs. In theory the bank would forego much of the vetting that determined a potential client's creditworthiness; instead the loan's interest rate went up or down periodically, depending on borrower behavior. Pay regularly before the due date, interest rate goes down. Be a shit borrower, the rate goes up. Pretty straightforward until the marketing department decided to lure people in with a "2% rate for 5 years" or "interest-only for 5 years" kind of deals. At the end of the promo period everyone's interest rates obviously went up because, let's face it, in spite of the bank's goodwill in reaching out to folks who couldn't get loans because of their credit reports, most of them were still essentially bad credit risks. Monthly payments went up, more and more people defaulted, this put a strain on the banking system, etc.

for the “synthetic CDO” section the things I wanted to know when I watched the movie were: 1. why would anyone make or sell a synthetic CDO instead of doing business with mortgage-backed securities? 2. how did the existence of synthetic CDOs affect the eventual crash? i think the answers are: 1. more investors wanted to get in on the “safe money” of mortgages than the real housing market could support; likewise, institutions could sell these attractive financial products without having to go through the messiness of actually buying or holding anything 2. the existence of synthetic CDOs magnified the amount of value at risk in any potential housing crash; the collective effect was the entire economy being over leveraged on housing which increased the pain of the crash i am curious how close i am with those answers!

@michadegraaf4570

Жыл бұрын

denk wel aardig juist , zeker bij vraag 2. vrij herkenbaar als je in crypto doet de laatste jaren

Love your creative film editing

Awesome video, thank you!!

Fabulous explanation! Love it

@15:21 I'm still convinced to this day that due in that shot is the Epic Meal Time guy.

love your explanation man. thank you so much.

Thank you, I understand just a little bit more now.

Great analogies this is the best explanation of CDO's & mortgage back securities I've heard. ❤

Great video dude, cleared all my doubts

I like the creative video idea, great explanations.

"Now f*** off" - Yes mam 😂😂😂

Well done Mr. Bagel. I am amused and amazed at the cross pollination of terms between Vegas and Wall Street. Many times I have heard someone describe gambling at a table as an investment and vice versa. Any wonder some crap out?!

Thank you so much this helped a lot!

Finally after like 10 videos I understand it good enough tp explain it to others.

this was great. more like this!

In Chile, insurances (MTL, PP) companies are swapping with our money for retirement (AFP), investing in C tranche (50/50% risk "initially") like is usual on the CDO-squared by investing on High-yield emerging market, making bubbles foreward. Awesome content on your videos, blessings from the world's butt

You did a great job I love your explanation

0:23 _yeah. this is_ *_big brain_* _time!_

Great help… thanks

Loved this

Great video. Thanks.

Anthony Bourdain’s laugh at the beginning of his cameo makes me smile and breaks my heart at the same time. ❤️‍🩹

There's lots of value in this kind of content, thanks Plain Bagel!

Great explanations!!!

Nice idea!!

Thank you for explaining their explanation. When is the video explaining your video coming out. 🤔

Thanks for making that - i have seen the movie 1/2 dz times….. and i really enjoyed you breaking it down….. you should do a breakdown of Margin call- good discussion- thanks !!

Great explanation. I understood a few words. Bought more GME. thanks!

You should definitely do more like these... 🤓👍

You added value on the third one

very helpful, thank you

This was amazing. Love the movie and loved this video, keep the content coming! Also, quick side question. Which movies would you recommend? Looking for something similar to The Big Short. Thanks ;)

@tapio_m6861

4 жыл бұрын

What I would recommend beyond any movie would be books. I'm currently reading Lewis' Flash Boys and it's just as great as The Big Short. Lewis is an excellent writer. The HBO movie "Too Big to Fail" goes deep into the financial crisis from the government's viewpoint.

@IlanHirschfield

4 жыл бұрын

6548R read Fed Up by Danielle DiMartino Booth. She highlights the Fed’s cluelessness about the whole enterprise very well

@anuar143

4 жыл бұрын

Try Margin Call. It didn't explain the situation like The Big Short, but it gives you insight on what happened inside on of the firm that plays the game

You are the best bro (y) please continue with your work

Gillian Tett explained well that CDS was invented as an insurance policy against risks of volitilities. I think you could've expanded on that a bit more in your video. It's a good tool that got misused in the mortgage market. Also most characters in the film actually won their money through CDS contracts, just like other speculators around the table did.

Thanks for this I actually understood it a lot better

This actually helped a lot.

“Yes ma’am” lol

Can You please do a video explaining what credit swaps are, and specifically how they work. Also do all swaps function in a similar way that was used in this movie? Thanks a lot, keep up the good work!

@warriormanmaxx8991

Жыл бұрын

@John Placide - 3 years have passed ... are you still waiting to find out what credit swaps are? Any search engine "credit swaps explained" will answer the question. Does The Plain Bagel ... have to do everything?

this is basically a GQ episode, really well done

As always,your simplified explanation helped me to understand the subject better. Thanks for being such a great guy. I'll resume supporting you on Patreon as soon as I'm able to

Great video

great idea