Inside Job - People's opinions

So I just finished watching Inside Job again last night and wanted to see what people's opinions were on it. I thought it was incredible. Granted, I might be biased because I think all documentaries made about the crisis are fascinating, but this one was special.

There were some BIG name interviews in this movie. Many of which they made look like complete frauds. This was also the first doc I've seen that highlighted the huge influence Wall Street has on the economics departments at major schools. Glenn Hubbard (Dean of Columbia Business School), Frederic Mishkin (Professor at Columbia), and John Campbell (Head of Econ Dept at Harvard) looked like fools.

I was a little bit worried this was going to turn into another Michael Moore propaganda piece when they introduced Obama at the end promising financial reform, but it quickly showed that Obama hasn't really done anything significant in terms of regulation.

Anyone want to dispute the facts made in the movie? Think it was too liberal?

 

I had to return a textbook the other day... coincidentally it was authored by Mishkin. I would not have wanted to teach class the day after the movie came out. All the academia interviewees got killed.

 
Military_MBA_Banker:
The problem with Wall Street and DC and Academia is that they are forced to recruit from the human race.
Agreed. You can go to any organization and find shitheads. They say 'power corrupts' and that may be true, but corrupt people often seek power. Personally, I like the idea of the good guy coming out on top in the big picture, so although I used to be embarrassed about it, I'm kind of glad I got my start in the compliance department. I look at my generation as the ones who will set things right.

And yes, I came to NYC to get fucking paid, don't worry, I don't think I'm saving the world. I just like the idea of making an honest million dollars

Get busy living
 

I just finished watching it online. While the documentary makes some good points, does it bother anybody else that the movie's two most central testimonies come from Barney Frank and Elliot Spitzer? Barney Frank shares as much responsibility for the credit crisis as anybody else. Elliot Spitzer condemns Wall Street for its immoral ways yet never mentions his well known immorality.

 
Seth Davis:
I just finished watching it online. While the documentary makes some good points, does it bother anybody else that the movie's two most central testimonies come from Barney Frank and Elliot Spitzer? Barney Frank shares as much responsibility for the credit crisis as anybody else. Elliot Spitzer condemns Wall Street for its immoral ways yet never mentions his well known immorality.

While I agree they should have mentioned Frank's Freddie/Fannie connection, he was by no means a "central testimony" in the film. He had

 
JeffSkilling][quote=Seth Davis:
I just finished watching it online. While the documentary makes some good points, does it bother anybody else that the movie's two most central testimonies come from Barney Frank and Elliot Spitzer? Barney Frank shares as much responsibility for the credit crisis as anybody else. Elliot Spitzer condemns Wall Street for its immoral ways yet never mentions his well known immorality.

While I agree they should have mentioned Frank's Freddie/Fannie connection, he was by no means a "central testimony" in the film. He had

Get busy living
 

I don't have a timer but I am pretty sure Barney Frank was featured longer than 30 seconds. I consider his testimony "central" because he is one of the few recognizable names that bashes Wall Street in the film. Most of those who bash Wall Street in the film are relative nobodies. It seems that director chose to include Barney Frank and Elliot Spitzer to add legitimacy to their claims. To be fair, Wall Street has no one to blame but themselves but the "Inside Job" could have done a much better job displaying both sides. I.e. Barney Frank refusing to regulate Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

Elliot Spitzer never once mentions his hookers. The documentary does it for him after the audience hears all of his testimony. For anyone who has followed the rise and fall of Spitzer, it is obvious that he is just as slimy and crooked as anyone else on Wall Street.

 
Seth Davis:
I don't have a timer but I am pretty sure Barney Frank was featured longer than 30 seconds. I consider his testimony "central" because he is one of the few recognizable names that bashes Wall Street in the film. Most of those who bash Wall Street in the film are relative nobodies. It seems that director chose to include Barney Frank and Elliot Spitzer to add legitimacy to their claims. To be fair, Wall Street has no one to blame but themselves but the "Inside Job" could have done a much better job displaying both sides. I.e. Barney Frank refusing to regulate Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

Elliot Spitzer never once mentions his hookers. The documentary does it for him after the audience hears all of his testimony. For anyone who has followed the rise and fall of Spitzer, it is obvious that he is just as slimy and crooked as anyone else on Wall Street.

He was talking about using prostitutes to flip johns and then said something to the effect of, "clearly I'm not the one to do that." I don't know if you want him to cut his dick off on camera or what, but it's not like everyone doesn't already know he stuck his paw in the honey jar.

 
Best Response
monkeysama:
Seth Davis:
I don't have a timer but I am pretty sure Barney Frank was featured longer than 30 seconds. I consider his testimony "central" because he is one of the few recognizable names that bashes Wall Street in the film. Most of those who bash Wall Street in the film are relative nobodies. It seems that director chose to include Barney Frank and Elliot Spitzer to add legitimacy to their claims. To be fair, Wall Street has no one to blame but themselves but the "Inside Job" could have done a much better job displaying both sides. I.e. Barney Frank refusing to regulate Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

Elliot Spitzer never once mentions his hookers. The documentary does it for him after the audience hears all of his testimony. For anyone who has followed the rise and fall of Spitzer, it is obvious that he is just as slimy and crooked as anyone else on Wall Street.

He was talking about using prostitutes to flip johns and then said something to the effect of, "clearly I'm not the one to do that." I don't know if you want him to cut his dick off on camera or what, but it's not like everyone doesn't already know he stuck his paw in the honey jar.

The issue is his qualifications to discuss 'right' vs 'wrong'. Few things piss me off more than hypocrisy.
Get busy living
 
monkeysama:
Also for the record, Mishkin has corrected his CV on his website and posted all of his potential conflicts. So maybe he's not a total dick.

After he was outed by an oscar winning documentary....

 

Definitely one sided. Sets up tee ball questions for the people proving his point and slams the ones against his point. I thought there was some very interesting things brought up that definitely make me want to work very ethically throughout my career. It felt like there was just enough information given to hang the audience. Obviously statistical magic was used for shock and awe. What I took away is an increased wariness of the pervasive "revolving door" situation although, I don't think it should be regulated away. That being said there is obviously a lot of back scratching going on and it starts in DC.

 

Clearly the intent of the film was to point fingers at the government and wall street executives. But just like Michael Moore's financial crisis movie, who does it forget? The consumers. Not sympathizing with anyone that got slammed in the documentary (although it did seem like heavy editing and well-timed questioning construed the circumstances), but what about the consumers that borrowed money for their house and couldn't pay it back? And not to be a dick, but that scene where the Mexican couple that moved to California and got their home foreclosed may have been one of the funniest things ever. The couple don't speak English and I highly doubt the terms and conditions of their mortgage was provided in Spanish by their bank.

This actually brings up another question: yes consumers are retarded for taking on baloon rate mortgages and other debt that they for sure know they can't pay back; but how about the financiers that knowingly do this? At first glance, it may seem like the whole burden of guilt would be on the banks, but don't the consumers, as legally binding parties of these agreements, have an obligation to be educated on these matters that they are about to get into?

I don't know man, just seems like the masses are being guided by the media and not taking initiatives to learn what's really going on. But then again, what's new? Either way, back to the topic at hand , great movie.

 

Who has actually met the cocaine and prostitute abusing traders? Most guys Ive met are pretty good people. Its no longer the 80's.

The film mixes banker/trader/broker etc into the same pile making the assumption everyone on wall st does the same job and partakes in the moral degradation.

 
the_red_baron:
The part about the prostitutes and the cocaine made me think that if they caught a wall street guy going to the bathroom without flushing the toilet, they'd mention that as well just to make wall street people look bad.
Funny part is how many A list actors in Hollywood have a stockbroker parent that financed them until they made it. Rebellious little twats. I mean no disrespect, but the can go fuck themselves.

Like the entertainment industry isn't the sleaziest group of operators out there? pa-LEASE, spare me the moralizing. Let's give Hollywood what they want for a day and put Charlie [the crackhead] Sheen in charge of industry oversight, and see how much things improve.

Love you Charlie no homo but you're a crackhead

Get busy living
 
JeffSkilling:
So I just finished watching Inside Job again last night and wanted to see what people's opinions were on it. I thought it was incredible. Granted, I might be biased because I think all documentaries made about the crisis are fascinating, but this one was special.

There were some BIG name interviews in this movie. Many of which they made look like complete frauds. This was also the first doc I've seen that highlighted the huge influence Wall Street has on the economics departments at major schools. Glenn Hubbard (Dean of Columbia Business School), Frederic Mishkin (Professor at Columbia), and John Campbell (Head of Econ Dept at Harvard) looked like fools.

I was a little bit worried this was going to turn into another Michael Moore propaganda piece when they introduced Obama at the end promising financial reform, but it quickly showed that Obama hasn't really done anything significant in terms of regulation.

Anyone want to dispute the facts made in the movie? Think it was too liberal?

Saw it in a transatlantic flight last week. Well documentated. Mishkin looks like the biggest fraud ever in it. To an almost shocking point actually... esp. the part where he mentions how he resigned from the SEC advisory board to "get some courses materials updated" in the middle of the financial crisis...

 

I just saw this movie and I have to say it does make the academia seem like idiots lol.

Does anyone care to dispute the facts in the movie (other than consumer responsibility), like the op said?

 

Enim fuga amet et facilis consequatur aspernatur. Occaecati et est veritatis id libero quos eos. Qui voluptates voluptatibus reiciendis. Sint similique explicabo cupiditate asperiores iure consequatur iste. Assumenda laboriosam velit deleniti quod dolorum provident aspernatur qui.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”