Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* AlternateAesopInterpretation: A more positive way to view Tuld's HistoryRepeatsSpeech is "market crashes are a naturally reoccurring part of the economy that are always followed by periods of growth. So while times may be hard at the moment, prosperity will return in due course."
to:
* AlternateAesopInterpretation: A more positive way to view Tuld's HistoryRepeatsSpeech HistoryRepeats speech is "market crashes are a naturally reoccurring part of the economy that are always followed by periods of growth. So while times may be hard at the moment, prosperity will return in due course."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* AlternateAesopInterpretation: A more positive way to view Tuld's HistoryRepeatsSpeech is "market crashes are a naturally reoccurring part of the economy that are always followed by periods of growth. So while times may be hard at the moment, prosperity will return in due course."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* EvilIsCool: Check out any youtube clip involving John Tuld and read the comments. Most of them are about how awesome he is despite being bone-chillingly ruthless.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
* MoralEventHorizon: The movie is about a collective group of people who make the conscious decision to cross it. Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no. And they try to justify themselves for betraying the trust of their clients and wreaking the economy by claiming that when a bubble bursts it is their job to be the first outta the door, that the people this firm sells to are traders just like themselves and that they should know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault, failing to see the hypocrisy of blaming those who are similar to them and their own fault for not recognising that their assets were toxic to begin with.
to:
* MoralEventHorizon: The movie is about a collective group of people who make the conscious decision to cross it. Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no. And they try to justify themselves for betraying the trust of their clients and wreaking wrecking the economy by claiming that when a bubble bursts it is their job to be the first outta the door, that the people this firm sells to are traders just like themselves and that they should know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault, failing to see the hypocrisy of blaming those who are similar to them and their own fault for not recognising that their assets were toxic to begin with.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4,5 (click to see context) from:
* MoralEventHorizon: The movie is about a collective group of people who make the conscious decision to cross it. Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no. And they try to justify themselves for betraying the trust of their clients and wreaking the economy by claiming that the people this firm sells are traders just like themselves and that they should know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault, failing to see the hypocrisy of blaming those who are similar to them and their fault for not recognising that their assets were toxic to begin with.
What is happening is that a bubble bursts, and these folks by identifying the moment, are first out the door.
What is happening is that a bubble bursts, and these folks by identifying the moment, are first out the door.
to:
* MoralEventHorizon: The movie is about a collective group of people who make the conscious decision to cross it. Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no. And they try to justify themselves for betraying the trust of their clients and wreaking the economy by claiming that when a bubble bursts it is their job to be the first outta the door, that the people this firm sells to are traders just like themselves and that they should know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault, failing to see the hypocrisy of blaming those who are similar to them and their own fault for not recognising that their assets were toxic to begin with.
What is happening is that a bubble bursts, and these folks by identifying the moment, are first out the door.with.
What is happening is that a bubble bursts, and these folks by identifying the moment, are first out the door.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
We cannot have a debate on the pages so let's try to some everything up as if its made by one person. How they justify themselves doesn't do anything to change the objective narrative of the film and there is often a huge amount of victim-blaming at play when the guilty ones try to find excuses for their sins. Any fraud or embezzlement or kind of crime for that matter, can be justified by arguing that the victim deserved it for being tricked or for being weak, mentally in that case. Also the assets were toxic enough to spell doom for their owner. It is also pretty ironic that the fact that their targets are similar to them makes it more okay for them to legally swindle them. They weren't just the first out of the door they had to trick others into staying behind for them to leave. If it is the others fault for failing to understand the trickery, then isn't it their own fault as well for failing to anticipate what was going to happen and taking steps to avoiding it without needing to leave someone behind to be ruined in their stead?
Changed line(s) 4,5 (click to see context) from:
* MoralEventHorizon: The movie is about a collective group of people who make the conscious decision to cross it. Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no.
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor are the securities "worthless" (even afterwards). What is happening is you're seeing a bubble burst, and these folks are identifying the moment the bubble is breaking, and are first out the door. Remember this is a trading company, selling to other traders. This isn't a retail security sellers. The people this firm sell to are people just like themselves. People who SHOULD know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault. At least that is how themselves justify betraying the trust of their clients and wreaking the economy.
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor are the securities "worthless" (even afterwards). What is happening is you're seeing a bubble burst, and these folks are identifying the moment the bubble is breaking, and are first out the door. Remember this is a trading company, selling to other traders. This isn't a retail security sellers. The people this firm sell to are people just like themselves. People who SHOULD know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault. At least that is how themselves justify betraying the trust of their clients and wreaking the economy.
to:
* MoralEventHorizon: The movie is about a collective group of people who make the conscious decision to cross it. Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no.
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor areno. And they try to justify themselves for betraying the securities "worthless" (even afterwards). What is happening is you're seeing a bubble burst, trust of their clients and these folks are identifying wreaking the moment economy by claiming that the bubble is breaking, and are first out the door. Remember this is a trading company, selling to other traders. This isn't a retail security sellers. The people this firm sell to sells are people traders just like themselves. People who SHOULD themselves and that they should know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault. At least that is how themselves justify betraying fault, failing to see the trust hypocrisy of blaming those who are similar to them and their clients fault for not recognising that their assets were toxic to begin with.
What is happening is that a bubble bursts, andwreaking these folks by identifying the economy.moment, are first out the door.
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor are
What is happening is that a bubble bursts, and
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor are the securities "worthless" (even afterwards). What is happening is you're seeing a bubble burst, and these folks are identifying the moment the bubble is breaking, and are first out the door. Remember this is a trading company, selling to other traders. This isn't a retail security sellers. The people this firm sell to are people just like themselves. People who SHOULD know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault. At least that is how themselves justify betraying the trust of their clients and wreaking the economy
to:
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor are the securities "worthless" (even afterwards). What is happening is you're seeing a bubble burst, and these folks are identifying the moment the bubble is breaking, and are first out the door. Remember this is a trading company, selling to other traders. This isn't a retail security sellers. The people this firm sell to are people just like themselves. People who SHOULD know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault. At least that is how themselves justify betraying the trust of their clients and wreaking the economyeconomy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor are the securities "worthless" (even afterwards). What is happening is you're seeing a bubble burst, and these folks are identifying the moment the bubble is breaking, and are first out the door. Remember this is a trading company, selling to other traders. This isn't a retail security sellers. The people this firm sell to are people just like themselves. People who SHOULD know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault.
to:
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor are the securities "worthless" (even afterwards). What is happening is you're seeing a bubble burst, and these folks are identifying the moment the bubble is breaking, and are first out the door. Remember this is a trading company, selling to other traders. This isn't a retail security sellers. The people this firm sell to are people just like themselves. People who SHOULD know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault. At least that is how themselves justify betraying the trust of their clients and wreaking the economy
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Not ymmv.
Deleted line(s) 2 (click to see context) :
* CorruptCorporateExecutive: Most of the firm's senior managers, with the exception of Sam Rogers, who warns his boss and colleagues that the mass selloff they have planned to save the firm will destroy any credibility of the firm and anyone acting on its behalf have accumulated in the market. After it succeeds, he asks the company's CEO if he can leave the firm.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Deleted line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) :
** That's highly debateable. Nothing they're doing in the film is illegal, or, frankly even unethical. Tuld is correct: they're selling at the current market price to people who are both willing and know what they're buying. That said buyers don't recognize what the VALUE of what they're buying is, is not this firm's problem. The issue is that MBS-type securities, as a market, were completely rotten as a concept. But it's simply incorrect to label the people in this film as "corrupt" because of what they're doing in this film. Before, as sellers of MBS, certainly. But not for unloading MBS as they did. That's plain old "get out before the bubble breaks" foresight.
** Also note that Sam does not object to selling off the MBS. His objection is SOLELY about the firesale poisoning his relationships with other traders when they find out he was smart enough to sell ahead of the crash, and they weren't. His objections have NOTHING to do with ethics - they're solely about his career prospects.
** Also note that Sam does not object to selling off the MBS. His objection is SOLELY about the firesale poisoning his relationships with other traders when they find out he was smart enough to sell ahead of the crash, and they weren't. His objections have NOTHING to do with ethics - they're solely about his career prospects.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
* Also note that Sam does not object to selling off the MBSs. His objection is SOLELY about the firesale poisoning his relationships with other traders when they find out he was smart enough to sell ahead of the crash, and they weren't. His objections have NOTHING to do with ethics - they're solely about his career prospects.
to:
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor are the securities "worthless" (even afterwards). What is happening is you're seeing a bubble burst, and these folks are identifying the moment the bubble is breaking, and are first out the door.
to:
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor are the securities "worthless" (even afterwards). What is happening is you're seeing a bubble burst, and these folks are identifying the moment the bubble is breaking, and are first out the door. Remember this is a trading company, selling to other traders. This isn't a retail security sellers. The people this firm sell to are people just like themselves. People who SHOULD know what they're selling (and buying), and if they don't, it's their own fault.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* CorruptCorporateExecutive: Most of the firm's senior managers, with the exception of Sam Rogers, who warns his boss and colleagues that the mass selloff they have planned to save the firm will destroy any credibility of the firm and anyone acting on its behalf have accumulated in the market. After it succeeds, he asks the company's CEO if he can leave the firm.
** That's highly debateable. Nothing they're doing in the film is illegal, or, frankly even unethical. Tuld is correct: they're selling at the current market price to people who are both willing and know what they're buying. That said buyers don't recognize what the VALUE of what they're buying is, is not this firm's problem. The issue is that MBS-type securities, as a market, were completely rotten as a concept. But it's simply incorrect to label the people in this film as "corrupt" because of what they're doing in this film. Before, as sellers of MBS, certainly. But not for unloading MBS as they did. That's plain old "get out before the bubble breaks" foresight.
* Also note that Sam does not object to selling off the MBSs. His objection is SOLELY about the firesale poisoning his relationships with other traders when they find out he was smart enough to sell ahead of the crash, and they weren't. His objections have NOTHING to do with ethics - they're solely about his career prospects.
** That's highly debateable. Nothing they're doing in the film is illegal, or, frankly even unethical. Tuld is correct: they're selling at the current market price to people who are both willing and know what they're buying. That said buyers don't recognize what the VALUE of what they're buying is, is not this firm's problem. The issue is that MBS-type securities, as a market, were completely rotten as a concept. But it's simply incorrect to label the people in this film as "corrupt" because of what they're doing in this film. Before, as sellers of MBS, certainly. But not for unloading MBS as they did. That's plain old "get out before the bubble breaks" foresight.
* Also note that Sam does not object to selling off the MBSs. His objection is SOLELY about the firesale poisoning his relationships with other traders when they find out he was smart enough to sell ahead of the crash, and they weren't. His objections have NOTHING to do with ethics - they're solely about his career prospects.
Added DiffLines:
** Those other people aren't "unsuspecting". Nor are the securities "worthless" (even afterwards). What is happening is you're seeing a bubble burst, and these folks are identifying the moment the bubble is breaking, and are first out the door.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Approved by the thread
.
.Added DiffLines:
* MagnificentBastard: John Tuld is the English-American billionaire CEO of a major US bank who quickly cuts through the office politics when apprised of the possible bankruptcy of the firm because of its over-reliance on risky CDO products. Tuld ruthlessly initiates a real estate market crash by spreading the toxic assets through the rest of the economy in a fire sale, motivating his in-house salesmen with massive bonuses and bribing the analyst who originally stumbled onto the crisis before he was let go the same day to keep him quiet. Tuld's charisma and persuasion of the rest of his staff allows his firm to stay afloat at the end of day, as he starts planning his next move to somehow profit from the crisis.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
* TheWoobie: Eric Dale. Sacked just before his greatest contribution to the firm and effectively bullied into coming back. He also pulls off a CrowningMomentOfHeartWarming by explaining how he saved a town 1,200+ ''years'' of time by building a bridge. And ironically he has one of the kindest fates by the end of the film, he just makes it clear that money isn't everything for him.
to:
* TheWoobie: Eric Dale. Sacked just before his greatest contribution to the firm and effectively bullied into coming back. He also pulls off a CrowningMomentOfHeartWarming SugarWiki/{{Heartwarming Moment|s}} by explaining how he saved a town 1,200+ ''years'' of time by building a bridge. And ironically he has one of the kindest fates by the end of the film, he just makes it clear that money isn't everything for him.him.
----
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
* MoralEventHorizon: Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no.
to:
* MoralEventHorizon: The movie is about a collective group of people who make the conscious decision to cross it. Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
* TheWoobie: Eric Dale. Sacked just before his greatest contribution to the firm and effectively bullied into coming back. He also pulls off a CrowningMomentOfHeartWarming by explaining how he saved a town 1,200+ ''years'' of time by building a bridge.
to:
* TheWoobie: Eric Dale. Sacked just before his greatest contribution to the firm and effectively bullied into coming back. He also pulls off a CrowningMomentOfHeartWarming by explaining how he saved a town 1,200+ ''years'' of time by building a bridge. And ironically he has one of the kindest fates by the end of the film, he just makes it clear that money isn't everything for him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* HarsherInHindsight: All the criticism leveled at Creator/DemiMoore's character Sarah Robbertson. She is based off Erin Callan the CFO of Lehman. Callan was fired just around the time that Lehman was contemplating selling itself to a different bank, and six months later, she would attempt suicide.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* AlternateCharacterInterpretation: John Tuld insists "it wasn't brains that got me here"- that is, to be the man in charge of the company- and he acts as though this is all out of his control and that if they do not sell (and ruin the market doing so), there are a number of other companies in the exact same position they are in now that will do the same and so the only ethics left are those of survival. Yet he also says that it is his job to predict "where the music is going" - that is, what the market will be months or years down the line-, and he is pretty quick to come to his ultimately very ruthless decision that might leave the company's reputation in the ruins and force him to retire but will ''also'' leave him and a handful of others very, very rich. Is he as innocent as he claims to be, or did he see this coming a mile off, know exactly what borderline / outright criminal activities his company was involved in, and is he basically the BigBad BitchInSheepsClothing of the whole movie?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* MoralEventHorizon: Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no.
to:
* MoralEventHorizon: Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no.no.
* TheWoobie: Eric Dale. Sacked just before his greatest contribution to the firm and effectively bullied into coming back. He also pulls off a CrowningMomentOfHeartWarming by explaining how he saved a town 1,200+ ''years'' of time by building a bridge.
* TheWoobie: Eric Dale. Sacked just before his greatest contribution to the firm and effectively bullied into coming back. He also pulls off a CrowningMomentOfHeartWarming by explaining how he saved a town 1,200+ ''years'' of time by building a bridge.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* MoralEventHorizon: Dumping worthless securities on unsuspecting buyers bothers everyone, but not enough for anyone to say no.
