1) Summary of cause of the economic meltdown.
In the film “Too Big to Fail”, Wallstreet began giving out loans, they would then sell to investors. Plenty of money was made, pressure was put on the lenders for more loans to be given out. Lenders already gave loans to people with good credit scores. They then changed this. The minimum needed credit score used to be 620 points, but it was changed to a minimum 500 points without a down payment. The average person then assumed that since the bank was allowing them to take the loan out, they could afford it. They assumed that the bank knew what they were doing. The lender would then do things such as buy a new car or house, because the bank allowed him to believe that he could afford it. The bank
…show more content…
They would then take out an insurance that if the loan was not repaid, they would be covered. The bank insured their potential loses to shift the risk from their side to the side of the insurer. They could then invest more money and make more returns. It was assumed that the housing market was going to go up, but it didn’t, it plummeted. The mortgage of the person who bought the house with the loan went up exponentially and they couldn’t pay the loans off anymore. All the banks claimed at one time for their loss of income from the mortgage payments that weren’t being payed. They all claimed on the same day. The banks as well as the insures went down under. The main cause of the economic crisis is that nothing was regulated, nothing was regulated due to the high levels of money being made. Nobody wanted to …show more content…
4) What type of company is “AIG”
AIG (American International Group) is a finance and insurance company. It operates as a public company and trades as NYSE. AIG offers personal as well as business insurance. It operates in General insurance, life and retirement. The company was rated 49th on the top 500 Fortune list. It operates locally and worldwide.
5) What caused AIG’s Economic crisis?
AIG partook in the selling of credit defaults. They did this in attempt of boosting profits and customer basis. The debtors who had taken mortgage loans out used AIG as an insurance company to insure their risks. AIG had assumed the housing market would continue it way up, but in reality, it fell. The people who had AIG as their insurer had to be paid out as the US economy fell along with everything else such as major banks, e.g Lehman
Just as the great depression, a booming economy had been experienced before the global financial crisis. The economy was growing at a faster rtae bwteen 2001 and 2007 than in any other period in the last 30 years (wade 2008 p23). An vast amount of subprime mortgages were the backbone to the financial collapse, among several other underlying issues. As with the great depression, there would be a number of factors that caused such a devastating economic
Likewise, Andra C. Grant says, “Between 1929 and 1932, home prices in New York fell an average of 50% and the unemployment rate rose substantially. As a result, many residential mortgages were at serious risk of foreclosure. Lenders in the 1930s faced substantial incentives to avoid foreclosure” (Grant). Most Americans couldn’t afford to buy a home prior to this downfall. The down payment was 80% upfront, and people only had five to seven years to pay the remaining amount (“How Did the FHA Help End the Great Depression?”). However, in 1934 a reform called the Federal Housing Administration uprooted. (“How Did the FHA Help End the Great Depression?”). It helped recreate the failing housing market. It is known for lowering down payments, creating a longer loan period, and introducing the idea of paying interest over time and loan standards (“How Did the FHA Help End the Great Depression?”). Through solving the housing problems, the Federal Housing Administration helped get America back on its
report of the national commission on the causes of the financial and economic crisis in
...o turn their securities back into AIG and demand billions of dollars. AIG was faced with a problem and they had to start asking subsidiary insurance companies to liquidate their pension and insurance holdings so they could cover their losses. If this happened those customers would have received a fraction of the money due to them and would ensure a global crisis. Of all the people complaining about AIG, Goldman-Sachs was doing it the most frequently and the loudest. An audit of AIG showed that they had no liquidity to pay off the bulk of what they owed so the Federal government issued a bail out of $80 billion which later elevated to $200 billion. Goldman-Sachs received the largest percentage of that $200 billion and would have torched the entire country in order to get that money that felt they deserved; and the housing-market bubble was just at the beginning of it.
It can be argued that the economic hardships of the great recession began when interest rates were lowered by the Federal Reserve. This caused a bubble in the housing market. Housing prices plummeted, home prices plummeted, then thousands of borrowers could no longer afford to pay on their loans (Koba, 2011). The bubble forced banks to give out homes loans with unreasonably high risk rates. The response of the banks caused a decline in the amount of houses purchased and “a crisis involving mortgage loans and the financial securities built on them” (McConnell, 2012 p.479). The effect on the economy was catastrophic and caused a “pandemic” of foreclosures that effected tens of thousands home owners across the U.S. (Scaliger, 2013). The debt burden eventually became unsustainable and the U.S. crisis deepened as the long-term effect on bank loans would affect not only the housing market, but also the job market.
The money never made it so the poor had to find some way to get money and that was through loans from the banks. The poor had no way of making money which made it close to impossible to pay back the loans plus the interest thus, beginning the ban and loan crisis. Banks were closing rapidly because of the money loss.
In the early 2000’s the housing market boomed, real estate was a hot investment and everyone was looking to buy a home. However not everyone can afford a home and a majority of people were forced to take out a mortgage to purchase real estate. During the housing boom banks were supplying subprime loans and upping the risk in the real estate market. These loans were not only risky but irresponsible on the part of the banks’ lending them, and although individuals receiving the loans thought they were being helped at the time, these loans were a major reason why so many people their homes, almost crippling toe U.S economy as a whole.
Banks all around, especially the large ones, sought to support the market before it could crash down. As the stock prices crashed, banks struggled to keep their doors open (“Economic Causes and Impacts”). Unfortunately, some banks were unsuccessful. Customers wanted their money out from their savings account before it was gone and out of reach, leaving banks insolvent (“Stock Market Crash of 1929”).
The recession officially began when the 8 trillion dollar housing bubble burst. (State of Working America, 2012) Prior to that, institutions bundled mortgage debt into derivatives that were sold to financial investors. Derivatives were initially intended to manage risk and to protect against the downside, but the investors used them to take on more risk to maximize their profits and returns. (Zucchi, 2010). The investors bought insurance against losses that might arise from securities so that they could secure their money. Mortgage defaults unexpectedly skyrocketed, which caused securitization and the insurance structure to collapse. (McConnell, Brue, Flynn, 2012). The moral hazard problem arose. The large firm investors thought they were too big for the government to allow them to fail. They had the incentive to make even more risky investment.
Banks failed due to unpaid loans and bank runs. Just a few years after the crash, more than 5,000 banks closed.... ... middle of paper ... ... Print.
(Murphy, 2008) The US banking sector was first hit with a crisis amongst liquidity and declining world stock markets as well. The subprime mortgage crisis was characterized by a decrease within the housing market due to excessive individuals and corporate debt along with risky lending and borrowing practices. Over time, the market apparently began displaying more weaknesses as the global financial system was being affected. With this being said, this brings into question who is actually to blame for this financial fiasco.
The term “too big to fail” became popular when a U.S. Congressman used it in a 1984 Congressional hearing. The theory behind “too big to fail” is that some financial institutions are vital to the economy because they are so big that if they were to fail that the economy would be in a disastrous state and therefore people believe that the government should step in and help support and save these financial institutions when they face problems. (Investopedia) I believe that this is right in assuming that the financial institutions are vital to the economy but I also believe that it is a waste of government and tax payers money to keep bailing out the big financial institutions every time they need to be bailed out. The solution that I and many other people believe to help this be less of a problem is to break up the bigger financial institutions into smaller ones.
Shortly after the financial crisis in 2008, many economists had to rethink their approach to the market. Everyone knew we had a panic because the stock market and the housing market collapsed. American economy was reaching to the bottom. Many people considered it as a second worst recession after the great the Great Depression. But what was the cause? Who were responsible for the crisis? What can we learn from this turmoil? In the recent New York Times Sunday magazine article, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman offered his explanation for the causes and insight toward fixing the economy.
Individuals like the two young and rambunctious mortgage consultants portrayed in the film gave loans to anyone and everyone that could sign the paper, regardless of the recipient’s ability to pay the loan in full. It is doubtful that all consultants fully understood the ramifications of their actions, but undoubtedly the overall disregard for consequence was the start of the collapse. Mortgage consultants mislead and tricked people into loans they could never afford by playing on their desire to live the American dream. Distributing adjustable rate loans to individuals without jobs, without collateral is unconscionable. Unfortunately, from their perspective they were helping these individuals. In a twisted way, these consultants were acting ethically from a utilitarian point of view. The consultants won because they received utility in the form of a bonus for distributing the loans, and the loanee won because they could now afford the home of their dreams. What the consultants didn’t consider in their calculations were the long term results and utility of their actions, unethically building the flawed foundation of the housing
Steverman,B. and Bogoslaw, D. (2008) ‘The financial crisis blame game’, Business week, October [Online]. Available at: http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/oct2008/pi20081017_950382.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story (Accessed: 1st August 2010).