Lewis on his book on 60 Minutes

March 15, 2010

As Felix points out, Michael Lewis has done well in his new book “The Big Short” to describe how the subprime crisis was aided and abetted at the highest levels of finance. And in profiling some of the traders that made money in the process, he puts a human face on the short side of the trade. But Lewis pulls one crucial punch, in my view, undermining the value of the book.

First the good. Lewis breaks news by naming the guy behind the losses that nearly brought down Morgan Stanley. A bond trader named Howie Hubler, who escaped with a rich exit package despite nearly bankrupting his employer, thought it wise to short low-rated tranches of CDOs against higher-rated tranches. He didn’t realize the CDOs were entirely worthless, including the AAA tranches, because they were simply repackaged subprime detritus. A pile of garbage repackaged as AAA-rated garbage is still, well, garbage.

What Lewis doesn’t do as well is make the connection for readers that his protagonists, i.e. the guys who spotted the subprime crisis early and shorted it via CDS, actually harmed society. Felix puts it well in his review:

What these men did was not “socially useless,” to quote the chairman of the UK’s Financial Services Authority, Lord Turner. It was worse than that: it was actively harmful, since they provided the fuel which kept the subprime mortgage furnace burning even when the country was running out of new junk mortgages to write. In most financial markets, bearish bets act as a dampener; in this one, they were a necessary part of the subprime-mortgage machine, and a Deutsche Bank mortgage trader named Greg Lippmann ended up making billions of dollars for his employer — not to mention a $50 million bonus for himself — by aggressively going out and finding fund managers to put on the short bets needed to keep the market ticking.

Smart readers can make the connection, but Lewis fails to criticize them directly as, ultimately, they provided the source material for his book.

One of these guys, Michael Burry is featured in the 60 Minutes piece on Lewis’s book last night. He seems a nice enough guy, but he’s surely a smart enough guy to know that in making his killing betting on CDS, he was helping to destabilize the financial system. As Lewis describes in detail, the shorts provided the liquidity necessary to keep the market going.

I’ve read the book and, overall, it is very good. Lewis is a great writer capable of making abstruse material accessible to a broad audience. But he should have gone farther. He should have criticized his subjects for perpetuating a market that they knew (or should have known) was harming the economy.

Here’s Part 1 of 60 Minutes’ piece:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

And Part 2:

Watch CBS News Videos Online


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

I suppose it is just as well that 3 columnists write and multimedia about the same topic as it is so critical to understand. Let me therefore take the liberty to quote Hardy Green ex the Great Debate:

“There is Steve Eisman, the former Oppenheimer analyst who regularly demonstrated a prodigious “talent for offending people,” notably in a tendency to trash sub prime originators as early as 1997″ – that will teach people to ignore the (ex-) advisor of a family that trashed and stripped out (Southern) African gold and diamond mines and left an environmental legacy of note…Avatars unite !

The World is run by the brightest, shrewdest and most greedy traders and portfolio managers.

There must have been other contributing factors to the ‘meltdown’. Banks could simply have provided for the decrease in market values of properties, sometimes to below book value, against their massive and untouched (‘dividended’) (sic) earnings. These provisions would have smoothed out, let’s say during the 5 years up to 2013.

Or am I conjuring and missing something ?

Posted by Ghandiolfini | Report as abusive

What? I don’t understand what your proposal means.

Posted by Beezlebufo | Report as abusive