I believe it was very simple.
-
kai-farwind — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 12:40 PM)
The writers probably got the picture during the financial crisis, however, it doesn't sound right to me that they didn't go for short position when they figured what was going on in the market. Becausethose are the moments you can make a fortune when you know what will happen in the market.
Too bad the movie didn't offer us much about what kind of business are they runningsimilar scenarios won't happen in a asset-managing company because according to the IPS(investment policy statement) of asset management strategy, short-term volatilities will be ignored. For example, like those famous endowment funds such as the fund Harvard was runningthey did nothing at the moment, which paid them back when the market recovered after 4 years.
Though Tuld pointed out one thing fundamentally true which is the same percentage of rich peoplethey are always there, same 5% who control more than 80% of everything. -
Bozohead — 10 years ago(June 08, 2015 12:29 AM)
Theres two types of young guys. Those who think they know everything and those who think everyone else knows everything. Obviously the former are more obnoxious but the latter can be just as wrong. The intelligent kids come to realise that some people know some things and success is about matching the right position and situation to the right person.
Was Bill Gates the best programmer? Do you think Steve Ballmer when he was boss of Microsoft understood all the technical products Microsoft had? Not even close.
Of course there was Steve Jobs. A guy whose technical knowledge was only what it needed to be. Unlike Gates he wasn't even a programmer nor was he an engineer.
Why should the finance industry be any different to the tech industry where top bosses and managers quite often dont have technical knowledge?
If you had lots of Apple stock who would you rather having running Apple? Jobs or Wozniak? Jobs or course. Who had the much much much greater technical knowledge? Wozniak by a mile. -
DendelionBlu — 10 years ago(October 28, 2015 04:01 AM)
In reply to all the people who think that "explain it like you would to a golden retriever" is a trick to dumb it down for the audience: it ISN'T.
Sure it serves that purpose too and in that way it's clever.
But if you worked in any corporation for a minute you know the top floor has no idea what's going on on the floors.
They only intervene when necessary, as in the movie, and yes, they do need a simpler effective explanation to make a quick decision upon.
Also, the way Irons snarls when he says "I can assure it isn't brains that got me here" says a lot.
It's not a trick for the audience: it tells us what the characters know and don't know, understand and don't understand. -
JurijFedorov — 10 years ago(October 30, 2015 10:34 AM)
I think you misunderstood the point. There were a few characters they had to make stupid. Firstly, the terrible trading practices had to be explained to 2 bosses in full, and a few more but only in short terms. First the middle manager and then the CEO. For the viewers sake they had to simplify both of these explanations. Therefore at least these 2 bosses have to be stupid, which they were. It has nothing to do with politics. This is a very known trope. Get one stupid guy in there so that all the geniuses have to slow down a bit for the stupid viewer - us. As the explanation had to be told several times they could not just have 1 guy. Maybe they could but I don't know how.
-
goosh69 — 10 years ago(January 09, 2016 11:03 AM)
TOP is TOTALLY IGNORANT! Read "Too Big to Fail." LOTS of heads of big banks were ignorant about what was going on. And many top guys Jeremy Irons age came up as clerks on the trading floor with NO COLLEGE let alone CFA or MBA! And lots of guys in the C suite have no CFA or MBA but might have liberal arts degrees or humanities.
Defender of the weak, and enemy of the weak minded. -
anand-perala — 10 years ago(January 16, 2016 07:37 AM)
I think some of the initial replies were trying to convey a message that I agree with.
Once you are out of school and join the real world, you will find that the people at the top are NOT the smartest or most knowledgeable. You may be disappointed to learn that people in management get there because of the their social skills, strength of their personality and even physical attractiveness.
Management often asks STEM people to explain what they mean "in plain English." It's not creative license, it's just reality.
Also, with the 2007-2008 financial collapse, it was indeed very arcane to many financial managers, which is exactly why they didn't see it coming.
On top of that, traders are ultimately sales people, NOT analysts. Their strength is in convincing people to make trades. Taking reports from analysts and taking out the bits that can be used to convince people to trade is what they do. They are not scientists or mathematicians, they are hustlers. -
SammyOrb — 9 years ago(April 13, 2016 03:58 AM)
As a professional couch potato with years of experience, I just have to say this might be my favorite thread at IMDB, ever. I'd like to buy all of you a drink.
For the sake of argument (from someone who's made all their money the old fashioned way-inheritance) imho Jeremy Iron's character did not strike me as someone who'd risen through the ranks hardscrabble, he seemed as though he was someone who'd inherited family assets and had gotten very good at making the pile bigger. I'm not saying he wasn't schooled and/or trained at the craft, btw. It just didn't seem as though he'd had to hold any of those other jobs. -
somesunnyday — 9 years ago(December 14, 2016 01:25 AM)
Coming from experience and an industry completely unrelated, I think you're a little naive in your cut and dry assumption that those at the top know the details of their trade. Quite often the skills or scruples required to get to the top have little to do with the details, it has to do with the ability to get the right people on board to feed you the information so you can make the cut throat decisions that need to be made to make money. This is a skill in itself that requires a certain level of sociopathic tendencies which most people at the top possess.
-
kaskait — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 06:12 PM)
shrug I thought it was the most realistic part of the film.
The Wall Street firms hire young (very young) math whiz kids in order for them to "create" financial instruments that are so byzantine that only the creators can understand them. To a certain extent.
Most of these male math wizards do their best work before they are 30. Most of these creators aren't really over 40. So the top dogs are outclassed, but they are no longer in positions that require them to understand the ins and outs of what their kids are creating. Their jobs are to sell it, to make sure they are just on the side of legal and to manage the kids.
The fact that Stanley Tucci's character had a bit of a handle on what was going on actually reflected well on his business and math acumen. He was well past the age of BIG math.