Seeking Alpha
Seeking Alpha Portfolio App for iPad
Finance
(1)
Market Currents

Charlie Munger (BRK.A) is feelin' feisty, taking dead aim at Wall Street bankers, accountants,...

  • Friday, July 1, 2011, 6:15 PM ET
    Charlie Munger (BRK.A) is feelin' feisty, taking dead aim at Wall Street bankers, accountants, mortgage lenders, computerized trading, Alan Greenspan and Dick Fuld. Munger unplugged: "The bubble in America was caused by some combination of megalomania, insanity and evil in... investment banking, mortgage banking."
Track new comments on this story

This news story has 47 comments:

  • Lets not forget lying fraudulent borrowers shall we?
    1 Jul 2011, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • Exactly!

    Those low income borrowers committed willful acts of bubble-blowing when they had their teams of lawyers review those loans and knew full well that they couldn't afford the payments after the teaser rates expired, and of course after unemployment rose, which of course their highly paid department of market analysts told them would happen.

    And they really did the world a disservice when they used their post-graduate degrees in economics and their proprietary market data to ensure that their loans would be securitized and leveraged 30:1 or higher. How dare they!

    The poor, innocent Wall Street bankers were clearly being manipulated into raking in mountains of fees while doing the dirty work of these devious low income borrowers. The poor bankers were left with mere millions in personal bonuses, while those sneaky borrowers are basking in the spoils of their homes that have skyrocketed to more than HALF their previous value! Have they no shame?

    The borrowers' only worry is the sheriff showing up to evict them from their only property, while the bankers have to agonize day in and day out over the thought that their six- and seven-figure bonuses might not increase by double-digit percent next year.

    Oh the humanity!!
    1 Jul 2011, 06:35 PM Reply Like
  • mwphnh,

    Not that there was not some unscrupulous borrowers.

    But,

    The majority of defaults, are a result of either unemployment, or ever lax underwriting standards due to Bankers greed, along with a little help of Government policies.

    And if there was "Fraudulent Borrowers," prudent risk management by such "Talented" professionals should have thwarted it.
    1 Jul 2011, 06:35 PM Reply Like
  • The market behavior of most borrowers simply hasn't changed in hundreds of years:

    - They want to borrow as much as the bank will let them
    - They only have a vague notion of what they can really afford
    - They don't study macroeconomic conditions

    And for hundreds of years, this worked reasonably well. The banks were (are) guarding all the doors and holding all the keys. And as long as the banks' well-being was inextricably tied to the prudence of their loan-making, all was well.

    Then along came Wall Street, thoroughly decoupling the relationship between lender and loan quality.

    Policies like CRA may have been the spark that started the fire, and shady borrowers may have been the kindling, but lenders came along and poured gasoline on the fire, and then Wall Street's derivatives basically just napalmed the whole thing.

    And now the government is trying to put out the forest fire with a squirt gun.
    1 Jul 2011, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • They still lied and borrowed more than they could afford.
    1 Jul 2011, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • > They still lied and borrowed more than they could afford.

    And Wall Street banks lied and tanked the entire global economy.

    Let's keep some perspective!

    Yes, some borrowers lied (though certainly a minority), but they're being punished accordingly: Many millions of foreclosures have happened already -- these folks have lost their home, their investment, and their credit. And by the way the same thing is happening to borrowers who didn't lie and just got caught in the tidal wave of bad circumstances.

    And this is absolutely fair and just. If you can't pay your debt, you lose your collateral and your credit. That's how it's supposed to be.

    Sure, some folks are living payment-free while awaiting foreclosures, but that's an enforcement issue, not a culpability issue. Justice will catch up with them.

    But, of all the groups who played a part in this mess, the borrowers are thus far the ONLY ones who have faced any noteworthy consequences:

    - Realtors? Unless they drank their own koolaid they got out fine.
    - Appraisers? Few went to jail, though many should have.
    - Lenders? Took their fees and ran.
    - Ratings agencies? No repercussions for them.
    - Investment bankers? They got fees and bonuses galore!
    - CEOs? More bonuses, or at least golden parachutes.
    - Congress? Like they EVER face consequences...
    - The Fed? They get the GS retirement package.
    - Regulators? One guy got fired, but that for porn.
    - Ponzi schemers? A couple got locked up, but only because they stole from other rich people, which is a no-no.

    Borrowers? They played one of the smaller parts, monetarily speaking, but so far are facing the most significant consequences.

    When it rains it pours I guess....
    1 Jul 2011, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • SanityChecke,

    WRONG,

    Most could afford it UNTIL they were unemployed.

    Most.

    Never woulda happened if they were required to have some skin in the Game.
    1 Jul 2011, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • cra has nothing to do with it. its been around for almost 40 years now. why would it have made such a big change 5 years ago? when nothing had changed. CRA is nothing but a smoke screen from wall street and bankstes
    1 Jul 2011, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • sure. and they put a gun to the banksters to approve the loan. yeah sure. next you are going to sell a bridge right?
    1 Jul 2011, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • For a default to happen, there has to be a lender and a borrower. Objectively speaking, both are equally guilty parties in bringing the domestic real estate market to collapse, and both were fundamentally propelled by the same insatiable desire to climb as fast as possible to the top of their respective communities' social ladders of wealth and power via the successful execution of the American Dream.

    The real fault lies in the perception that this dream can be realized very quickly without any consequences. Whether you have an MBA or just a regular high-school diploma, it should be instinctively obvious to you that any amount of profit or luxury achieved outside the bounds of your regular day-to-day experience of life comes loaded like a hand grenade, and should be handled very carefully indeed.
    2 Jul 2011, 06:49 AM Reply Like
  • Nevertheless, now bankers are bad because they're not loaning out willy nilly as they did before. Yeah, I know. They're too lenient when that doofus down the street gets approved but when I don't get approved they're the Gestapo.
    A lot of people are up in arms that they might have to come up with a 20% down payment, have an employment history, have income enough, and a good credit history. Its all just too much for them.
    2 Jul 2011, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • You mean like the folks who defaulted on their Las Vegas mansions.

    Perhaps you are a prisoner of myths. The crisis was not caused by low income borrowers.
    2 Jul 2011, 09:52 AM Reply Like
  • I didn't know low income borrowers had 'teams of lawyers' at their disposal.

    Is Nicholas Cage and the other millionaires who defaulted on their Las Vegas mansions included in the low income borrower category.

    Fancy that ...
    2 Jul 2011, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • Whether they lied or not is irrelevant. The banks approved any loan whose borrower had a pulse. In fact, the mortgage brokers encouraged people to lie.

    I'm a business man and enterpreneur. I like Capitalism. But let's not get romantic, it's not perfect.
    2 Jul 2011, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • Reasonable lending standards are not the problem. The problem is that banks have not recovered from their losses. Lower net worth, less lending. It is that simple ...
    2 Jul 2011, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • The CRA decreased its lending requirements at the insistence of Barney Frank and others going back further than five years, its been wel documented and admitted to by Mr. Frank as "a terrible mistake on my part" during his last campaign here in Mass.. Over time Fannie and Freddie viewed of the CRA's requirements became more of a standard for everyone, not just low income borrowers. Millions of loans ended up simply being written by the same guidelines used by the CRA, though they were not CRA loans.

    Following that outfits like Countrywide wrote an increasing number of these loans, broadening the market to much higher prices home, knowing Fannie and Freddie would take them and securitize them. This dynamic created an environment under which a snowball effect from a few failed loans could create and did create multiplying number of foreclosures and the market became flooded with available housing at lower and lower prices.

    Then the banks wrongfully manipulated these loans to make them sell-able to the investment community.

    This was the perfect three legged stool of disaster, bad Government Policy, Stupid Consumers and corruption in the Banking Community-Wall Street.
    2 Jul 2011, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • pl

    Lesson is once government lowers the bar it does not take long for the private sector to follow. Especially when the government steps up to buy the loans. This is the wrong type of leadership from WDC. They should be working on making people richer rather than dumbing down credit criteria. However raising the standard of living is much harder than simply giving away money and it is harder to take credit for and get votes as a result.

    At the height of this stupidity too many people in every sector thought we had broken through old barriers of credit underwriting and we had found a new credit floor. Add on the idea that home prices never go down so therefore the collateral was safe and all kinds of bad things can happen.

    Keep in mind the Wall Street parties that securitized also were drinking Kool-Aid and were holding a ton of these securities on their books in the false belief that risk was low. Bear Stearns and Lehman imploded and Merrill Lynch pulled a Houdini and sold to BofA before the consequnces of their actions came home to roost. They were the luckiest firm on the Street. Corruption does not hold up well when the parties involved pay with their entire firm and all their stock and future earnings. Stupidity was also part of their demise.

    Consumers were stupid and everyone knows it. Some were pure speculators. As said elsewhere 20% down would have kept a lot of that stupidity to a dull roar.

    It is time to clean this mess up which in my opinion will only happen when people live in homes they truly can afford and thereby they become more mobile and focused on working and making a contribution rather than asking for more support. And let's also turn mortgage lending back over to the traditional banks with 20% down and shut down the government mortgage machine.
    2 Jul 2011, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • dw

    Bankers don't like to turn down loans if they can help it. Lawsuits for wrongful denial, government oversight, aggressive lending by competitors, profit pressure and bad community relations are enough heat for any banker to try to make a loan. Add in an environment where government is buying the loans and housing is going up and away and you feel like a fool for not approving the loan.

    Many banks and some over 100 years old and that survived the Great Depression went down in this fiasco.
    2 Jul 2011, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • AIP

    If you believe there are myths then lets have the data to put things in perspective. You have both made qualitative statements so let's get some numbers.
    2 Jul 2011, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • TrueConservative.........

    Your commentary is a classic.

    mwphnh.......what say you?
    2 Jul 2011, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • I think you should be a bit more careful with this.

    Many tea partiers - and quite a few of them infest this site - do not have particularly effective detectors for sarcasm.
    3 Jul 2011, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • With feeling. He's got it right but there is only one way to stop it. Stop bailing them out at tax payers expense.

    PS. I don't pay taxes any more. I live over seas and with the exemptions don't make enough to pay.
    1 Jul 2011, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • cbc

    You haven't heard about the latest feds proposed "$50,000" free and potentially forgivable "loan" for some eligible borrowers, have you?

    Cheers
    TK
    1 Jul 2011, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • Where do I sign up?
    2 Jul 2011, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • Link: info only - www.fundmymutualfund.c...
    2 Jul 2011, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Checked it out. Unbelievable! I knew I was making a mistake when I paid to build my new house with cash. doh! What a fool I am for saving and not having debt.

    Cheers
    2 Jul 2011, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • Berkshire owned 24 million shares of Moody's last time I checked. They played a key role in the mess. Who the hell is Munger to wag his finger at anyone?
    1 Jul 2011, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Let's not forgive to give credit to the corrupt politicians, including Barney Frank, who said FRE/FNM needed no additional oversight.

    And who wrote the lame excuse for the FINREG bill?
    1 Jul 2011, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • "Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction"

    Do as I say, not as do.

    Berkshire Hathaway
    1 Jul 2011, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • Berkshire didn't allow its insurance companies to play in the credit default insurance market.
    2 Jul 2011, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • AOIP,

    Prhaps not, But Berkshire lobbied heavily foe expemtoins fot itself regarding derivatives.

    They have also contributed much to Berkshires recent poor performance.
    2 Jul 2011, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • Excellent, I said this 5 years ago. I still can't understand how that pompous , arrogant, look down his nose at the little people Allen Greenspan is still walking around like God untouched. Years of double talking those fools on capital hill, and he still acts like he did nothing wrong, off to jail with all the devils on Wallstreet starting with Goldman.
    1 Jul 2011, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • Charlie Munger is coming off like someone's whacky uncle whose wife died and now nobody is around to tell him to shutup. He should look in a mirror as nobody played a more pivotal role than the credit rating agencies of which Berkshire owned a huge stake in Moodys. Then Warren goes in front of Congress and testifies in June of 2010 that Moodys did nothing wrong and the housing crunch could not have been anticipated. That takes a lot of brass. If nothing else we can conclude everyone talks their own book and trashes everyone else.

    People who cannot pay for their home certainly will not be able to maintain it either so they should move out so it can be sold to someone else, recycle it or burn it down. We need less supply which will turn any market around. Even if they can maintain it they should get out anyways and get their life and act together so the rest of us are not carrying their sorry butts. Nothing wrong with having hard times but to sit around and wait for something free is wrong on so many levels.
    2 Jul 2011, 12:32 AM Reply Like
  • Greed is good
    whether it's main street or wall street, we are all guilty of the crime which led to recession
    as long as you can't get rid of greed, eventually the same problem will reappear again in a different form
    there'll always be plenty of blame to go around, you know who you are who want alil bit more than ordinary life, temptation's a bitch
    2 Jul 2011, 06:23 AM Reply Like
  • It was the lobbyists that got the SEC to let them leverage the garbage assets 60X and sell them to pension funds, how else are you going to get that crap off your own book? No, once the ibanks realized that these mortgages were complete shit, they pushed them off on anyone they could find and LEVERAGED them! (60 x 0 value =0 bond value and there it goes).

    They knew this because they then bet against the very securities they were pushing out the door effectively doubling down. They just couldn't do it fast enough and got caught holding too much of the garbage.

    They committed an act of treason, a clear and present danger to the US, ultimately the global economy. That is how they should be measured and prosecuted.
    2 Jul 2011, 08:11 AM Reply Like
  • Hey, It's called hedging ...

    :)
    2 Jul 2011, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • buyit

    So since there are 8,000 banks in the US are you talking about all of them or is your list really IB's that live on Wall Street of which 3 of the top 5 independent firms are gone and they were not banks in first place?

    If you want to get torches and pitchforks you need to know where to go first.
    2 Jul 2011, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • @ Thomas - Okay, the story above referenced Wall Street banks and I specifically typed ibanks (investment banks) that packaged the crap into securities and sold them to pensions. I would say given my specificity that most of those 8,000 would be outside that little old Venn diagram if we were to draw one. So learn to read in context and I will also use smaller words for you....It would be to the corner of Wall and Broad. (those are streets in New York City, where bankers "work".)

    @ AIP - exactly! LOL.
    2 Jul 2011, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • Hilarious............my mistake. You did specify ibank.

    So you have set for the case of the prosecuting attorney. And call it treason no less.

    Defending against these hyped up charges with no evidence is ridiculously easy and is why the government is hesitating to pull the trigger on charges. Emotion is not evidence.

    Merrill Lynch was holding mortgage securities with very little cover. Lehman was arguing valuation until the bitter end. Bear Stearns was so overexposed and so asleep at the wheel nobody but hysterical conspiracy theorists believe they knew what they were doing. And they can all claim stupidity quite easily as does everyone in the mortgage mess up and down the value chain. The only IB that really seemed to have a reasonable grasp of the risk was GS and they did not have the same % of CAR as the rest of these guys.
    2 Jul 2011, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • They were packaging so much crap so fast, that I think they got caught b/c they couldn't move it out the door fast enough, so from that standpoint, yeah, they weren't covered b/c somehow this snuck up on 'em.

    All you need is for one products manager to state, " yes, I knowingly packaged mortgage loans, (or a component thereof) into a security and committed a fraud when I mixed them in with a few legitimate performing notes (or component thereof) and withheld the facts from the rating agencies, and the pension fund buyers and these were the other people involved..." They were smart enough to make sure everyone was in the same boat with them so that if it did go down everyone would, regulators, pension managers, etc.

    But I believe you're right in the end, they'll claim stupid and lie right up until someone puts a gun to their mother's head, and they might even do it then. I'd really recommend a trip to Guantanamo for some of these bastards.

    He he ... "value chain" that made me laugh, did you mean devalue chain? :-)
    3 Jul 2011, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • I use "value chain" as a figure of speech in this case.

    What I have read in various accounts was that the CEO's of Bear and Merrill were absolutely unconcerned that they held anything with the level of risk that could take their firms down until the very last days of their existence. Lehman also seemed more concerned about company valuation than realizing they were worth nothing.
    4 Jul 2011, 12:07 AM Reply Like
  • C Munger should tell us something we dont know but should , not what we all know and can find in the latest issue Britannia Encyclopedia, yeah he really went out on a limb here.

    And the message is? How does this information help me? Anyone for that matter?
    2 Jul 2011, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • If borrowers continued to make their payments we wouldnt have had the collapse. Everyone blaming bankers, re agents, appraisers ect... needs to keep that in mind. Furthermore, had low income high risk borrowers never been given loans, many many millions of people would have never even had a chance to buy a home. Anyone attempting to undermine or discredit these simple facts is only trying to deflect the collective argument away from the real truth. Any arguments beyond these simple facts will only contribute to a solution that does not address the real problem.
    2 Jul 2011, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • PDT

    The real problem is that people who could not afford homes were given loans and now they cannot pay them back and they want the home for free. And many areas of the country have greater supply than demand.
    2 Jul 2011, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • PDT,

    Yes,

    The Bankers got record Bonuses & Bailouts in 2009, while others got layoff notices.

    Unemployment is the biggest reason for people not paying.

    So if you looking for blame, perhaps the cause of the unemployment should be your starting point.

    Can you say "Excess leverage motivated by Greed?"
    2 Jul 2011, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • It is very likely that Berkshire would be sitting with a big fat donut with regards to the worth of its WFC position, if the government did not step in.
    3 Jul 2011, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • There is a reason why so many follow Munger. He is able to discern the distortion of reality when the rest of us are unable. When he speaks, we can then suddenly see reality. Truth is obvious when exposed. Untruth seems true until the truth is spoken, then untruth is obvious. This country needs to start acting like adults and take responsibility for our actions instead of denying our actions like a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
    4 Jul 2011, 11:41 AM Reply Like
Other date
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)