Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Short note on moral compass
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Eight years ago, the world economy crashed. Jobs were lost, families misplaced, hundreds of thousands of people left shocked and confused as they watched the security of their world fall to pieces around them. In, “The Big Short,” a film directed by Adam McKay and based on the book written by Michael Lewis, viewers get an inside perspective on how the financial crisis of 2008 really happened. Viewers learn the truth about the unethical actions and irrational justifications made by those who unwittingly set the world up for failure. Two main ethically tied decisions are brought into question when watching the film: how could anyone conscionably make the decision to mislead investors by misrepresenting mortgage backed securities (MBS), and why …show more content…
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
The PBS Frontline Documentary The Untouchables shined light on the claim that wealthier people in today’s society get off easier when they break the law. During the financial crisis of 2008, it was said that fraud was committed when many mortgage bankers and high-end executives on Wall Street knowingly bought loan portfolios that didn’t meet their policy credit standards. Even with the evidence in place, no one was arrested and held responsible for a stock crash that nearly destroyed the entire financial system of the United States. With a powerful justice system and justifiable evidence in place, no was prosecuted. Did the justice system not take the necessary steps to ensure that justice was served
Moncrief Company agreed to pay Jim Lester 20% of the gross profit made from the 2013 sales of the Zelenex. Between January 1, 2013 and December 28, 2013, Moncrief’s total available units for sale were, 50,000 units of Zelenex for $30.00 per unit ($1,500,000). Also in addition to the former activities, Moncrief sold 35,000 units for $60.00 per unit ($2,100,000). Moncrief Company uses periodic LIFO inventory method as a result, Jim Lester was to receive $210,000. (Textbook pg.469)
There is no space for argument when saying that agencies, mortgage agents, and various big organisations are to be blamed for this disaster, but they're not the only ones to be blamed for the entire issue. More than half of the blame, according to Lewis, goes to American citizens. In reality, most Americans are blinded by their lack of satisfaction and greed. They desire the luxurious way of life, Americans tend to look beyond their financial capabilities and power in search of unnecessary materialistic objects, such as overly large houses.
Jake Clawson Ethical Communication Assignment 2/13/2014. JPMorgan Chase, Bailouts, and Ethics “Too big to fail” is a theory that suggests some financial institutions are so large and so powerful that their failure would be disastrous to the local and global economy, and therefore must be assisted by the government when struggles arise. Supporters of this idea argue that there are some institutions that are so important that they should be the recipients of beneficial financial and economic policies from government. On the other hand, opponents express that one of the main problems that may arise is moral hazard, where a firm that receives gains from these advantageous policies will seek to profit by it, purposely taking positions that are high-risk, high-return, because they are able to leverage these risks based on their given policy. Critics see the theory as counter-productive, and that banks and financial institutions should be left to fail if their risk management is not effective.
In “The Big Short”, this movie about the economic collapse of 2008 in America highlights how Americans of all racial backgrounds were hit hard when the housing market collapsed. The film provides a very compelling argument and describes how the market crashed because banks began to give out more unstable loans out to people in order to sell more properties, which eventually led to the housing market to be built upon millions of risky loans. This practice grew until the housing market became too unstable because of all the risky loans and resulted in an economic crash. The housing market collapse led to millions of Americans to lose their homes because of foreclosures and led to massive amount of homelessness and unemployment since the Great
First, the causes of the foreclosure crisis must be examined. I don’t think that the causes are all that complicated. In the end, the cause is twofold: First, people were buying houses they couldn’t afford, and banks were lending money to these people. Second, banks were engaging in unscrupulous lending practices. They were charging people money that these people neither were expecting to pay nor were able to pay. They were advertising one interest rate and actually putting another in the contract. I’m not sure what the law says about this last bit, but that sounds a lot like ‘fraud’ to me. If my reader disagrees, then I ask him to imagine the following:
Mackay, Tim. "The Ethics Of The Wolf Of Wall Street." Charter 85.2 (2014): 67.Web. 23 Mar. 2014.
After successfully purchasing more swap bonds, Charlie and Jamie are celebrating their imminent wealth, when Ben asks them if they understand ramifications. The scene occurs in a casino, and Ben reminds them that they “just bet against the American economy”, as if it was a game of roulette. They bet that the American economy would fail - willed it even, so they could ‘win big’. However, the consequences of their victory are unprecedented increases in unemployment, homelessness and poverty in the US. An integral aspect of trading “reduces people to numbers”, which is an ethical issue as traders bet against people and their livelihoods.
...company workers being affected by the financial crisis. We don’t want to point fingers here only assess the ethical dilemmas that these companies face. Subjective human judgment opens up for the possibility of undesirable human biases and manipulation. However, with or without human judgment, financial models of credit risk are subject to manipulation, both legally and fraudulently.
The stock market is an enigma to the average individual, as they cannot fathom or predict what the stock market will do. Due to this lack of knowledge, investors typically rely on a knowledgeable individual who inspires the confidence that they can turn their investments into a profit. This trust allowed Jordan Belfort to convince individuals to buy inferior stocks with the belief that they were going to make a fortune, all while he became wealthy instead. Jordan Belfort, the self-titled “Wolf of Wall Street”, at the helm of Stratton Oakmont was investigated and subsequently indicted with twenty-two counts of securities fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering and obstruction of justice. He went to prison at the age of 36 for defrauding an estimated 100 million dollars from investors through his company (Belfort, 2009). Analyzing his history of offences, how individual and environmental factors influenced his decision-making, and why he desisted from crime following his prison sentence can be explained through rational choice theory.
Mortgage loans are a substantial form of revenue for the financial industry. Mortgage loans generate billions of dollars in the financial industry. It is no secret that companies have the ability to make a lot of money by offering a variety of mortgage loan products. The problem was not mortgage loans but that mortgage companies were using unethical behavior to get consumer mortgage loans approved. Unfortunately, the Countrywide Financial case was not an isolated case. Many top name mortgage companies have been guilty of unethical behavior. Just as the American housing market was starting to recover from its worst battering since the Great Depression, a new scandal, an epidemic of flawed or fraudulent mortgage documents, threatens to send not just the housing market but the entire economy back into a tailspin (Nation, 2010).
During the 1920s, approximately 20 million Americans took advantage of post-war prosperity by purchasing shares of stock in various securities exchanges. When the stock market crashed in 1929, the fortunes of many investors were lost. In addition, banks lost great sums of money in the Crash because they had invested heavily in the markets. When people feared their banks might not be able to pay back the money that depositors had in their accounts, a “run” on the banking system caused many bank failures. After the crash, public confidence in the market and the economy fell sharply. In response, Congress held hearings to identify the problems and look for solutions; the answer was found in the new SEC. The Commission was established in 1934 to enforce new securities laws that were passed with the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The two new laws stated that “Companies publicly offering securities must tell the public the truth about their businesses, the securities they are selling and the risks involved in the investing.” Secondly, “People who sell and trade securities must treat investors fairly and honestly, putting investors’ interests first.”2
The film the Big Short, a film adaption of a book by the same name, explains the events leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. It presents the complex economic mechanisms behind the crisis in layman’s terms by using analogies and metaphors to explain to the audience what the big banks were doing to destroy the global economy. While the primary focus of the film is about how relatively few organizations could have such a profound effect on the global economy, I came to the realization that it was much more than that. By the end of the movie I had come to the conclusion that society as a whole had become apathetic, cynical, and firm adherents to the adage that ignorance is bliss.
The housing market crash was a response to a chain of businesses and people who believed that the old laws of banking were no longer important. Banks were no longer required to hold on to mortgages for 30 years which gave them the ability to sell off to other companies, without concern for the mortgage holders. David Harvey, a renowned geographer, warned us of this problem, stating that “labor markets and consumption function more as an outcome of search for financial solutions to the crisis-tendencies of capitalism, rather than the other way around. This would imply that the financial system has achieved a degree of autonomy from real production unprecedented in capitalism’s history, carrying capitalism into an era of equally unprecedented dangers” (Coe, Kelly, and Yeung, 2013)
In the movie The Proposal starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds, an ethical dilemma is shown by Sandra Bullock’s character, Margaret Tate. Margaret is the executive editor in chief of a book publishing company and Andrew Paxton is her assistant. Margaret’s visa is soon to be revoked as she violated some of the terms in her work visa. Andrew has worked his way up at the book publishing company and dreams of being an editor at the company. With Margaret on the verge of deportation, she expresses to Andrew that this could also set back all of his accomplishments and he would have to start back at the bottom if he didn’t have her to help him.