Live data from Hacker News

How a Doctor beat Wall Street

vanityfair.com

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: How a Doctor beat Wall Street

#41
Another superb article from vanity fair. There was another one a week or so ago about a former sniper in Afghanistan.

Reading this reminded me of when I read about Jeff Greene about a year ago - another guy who made a mint from the housing/mortgage bubble collapse. See: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1006/266.html

I love these types of stories - an 'outcast' who spots a trend and is either ignored or heavily critised for their point of view, but ultimately proved right and met with a deafening slience.

It echoes a now infamous incident that happened in Ireland in 2007, when we were at the height of our own property boom. The then Prime Minister (or Taoiseach) Bertie Ahern, said that "that he did not know how people who engaged in moaning about the economy did not commit suicide". http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0704/economy.html Since then, Bertie has left his office in controversial circumstances over alleged corruption, and those who his remarks have been aimed at, such as courageous economists David McWilliams and George Lee, are held up as visionaries who warned about the dangers of excess when everyone else was gorging at the trough. As a result, the Irish taxpayer is to become the single largest owner of real estate in the WORLD, to the tune of €55bn ($75bn), because of the generous nature of the Irish Government bailout of the greedy Irish banks. This is in a country of just 4.5m people, which makes it all the more staggering. The Irish Government has bet the future of our country on the recovery of the Irish real estate market, and the youngest generation currently will end up paying for this stupidity over the next 50 years.

p.s. For all those who reckon it's morally wrong to make a fortune from a slump or crash, how is that different from making money in the good times? People are always borrowing foolishly (when the banks allow them to) and get into trouble even when the economy is doing ok. It's just these stories dont receive a mention when the media, along with everyone else, gets caught up reporting how fabulously brilliant we all are when times are good.

Re: How a Doctor beat Wall Street

#42

what part did credit rating agencies like Moodys have to play in all this? They seem to have escaped from quite a lot of scrutiny in all of this...

It's pretty obvious the role they played. They're expected to be the arbiters of what the risk is. They were setting the risk value for things they had no clue about. It was simply incompetent negligence and no one should be trusting them anymore.

Re: How a Doctor beat Wall Street

#43
post #2

The article was good, but the personal life stuff was a waste of time. The message is clear - don't be afraid to see what others are blind to.

I actually liked the personal life stuff a lot - I can describe myself as someone "happy in my own head" and with few friends too (but with far less money :P ).

I find it fascinating that he married twice, too. Maybe I should move to the US :) .

Of course the personal stuff has been novelized and simplified a bit, but that's to be expected :)

Re: How a Doctor beat Wall Street

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't justify what he did. The right thing to do would have been to let people know of what was happening. Just because the financial system rewards greed/selfishness does not mean people shouldn't act ethically when the consequences of their actions could mean the loss of hard earned money by honest hard working people with families, medical expenses, college loans, etc. Then again the guy has Asperger's synd…

The politicians were warned over and over again. They denied that any problem even existed. Here's what Barney Frank had to say: For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not thi…

That quote is one of many:

"I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out . But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) House Financial Services Committee hearing Sept. 10, 2003

"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) July 14, 2008

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

John McCain May 26, 2006

Here are some additional quotes from the Fannie/Freddie Fraud Investigation in 2004

BAKER (R-LA): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure.

WATERS (D-CA): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.

MEEKS (D-NY): As well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you, I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae! Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that -- that -- that -- that your agency uh, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give -- you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it.

ROYCE (R-CA): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.

CLAY (D-MO): This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.

FALCON (OFHEO Regular to MEEKS (D-NY)): Sir, Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules. Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not fail to manage earnings properly. Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency engaging in improper conduct. It's about Freddie Mac.

SHAYS (R-CT): Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years -- and for OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is, tells me that's got to be the minimum, not the maximum.

FRANK (D-MA): ...etcetera. Uh, I -- This -- You -- you -- you seem to me saying, "Well, these are areas which could raise safety and soundness problems." I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems.

WATERS (D-CA): Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans.

MANZULLO (R-IL): Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is -- what you state on page 11 is nothing less than -- than staggering. The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9.mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny. Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them. If Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year.

RAINES: Because banks don't -- there aren't any banks who only have multifamily and single-family loans. These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%.

CLINTON: The responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Re: How a Doctor beat Wall Street

#45
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you even read the article?

I did; what's the problem with my comment? Just to add: lots of people also bet against bubbles at any point of time of the bubble. But they were forced out of business before the bubbles could even burst( "Market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"). Only a handful survived and we thought that they have special skills or magic formula. You underestimate the element of luck in the world of inves…

Timing is everything, but Burry was careful to find a long-term bet with limited downside. He wasn't shorting stocks - he was buying credit-default swaps which are essentially insurance policies.

"For instance, you might pay $200,000 a year to buy a 10-year credit-default swap on $100 million in General Electric bonds. The most you could lose was $2 million: $200,000 a year for 10 years. The most you could make was $100 million, if General Electric defaulted on its debt anytime in the next 10 years"

Re: How a Doctor beat Wall Street

#46

A lot of people are suggesting that it was immoral of Burry to profit from his insight instead of warning people of the impending calamity, yet what message speaks more forcefully? Saying you think the market is going to implode, vs. paying millions of dollars to insure specifically against that happening? No one would have listened to his warning, and indeed his investors didn't like hearing it. Burry is not the bad…

Also he was not exactly an outsider:

In early 2004 a 32-year-old stock-market investor and hedge-fund manager, Michael Burry

For everyone that lost big in the collapse someone made out like a bandit beforek, durring, or after it.

Re: How a Doctor beat Wall Street

#47

A lot of people are suggesting that it was immoral of Burry to profit from his insight instead of warning people of the impending calamity, yet what message speaks more forcefully? Saying you think the market is going to implode, vs. paying millions of dollars to insure specifically against that happening? No one would have listened to his warning, and indeed his investors didn't like hearing it. Burry is not the bad…

Instead of profiting off people suffering from bad investments in housing, Burry should have stuck with his career in neurology and profited off people suffering from brain cancer.

Re: How a Doctor beat Wall Street

#49
post #42

what part did credit rating agencies like Moodys have to play in all this? They seem to have escaped from quite a lot of scrutiny in all of this...

It's pretty obvious the role they played. They're expected to be the arbiters of what the risk is. They were setting the risk value for things they had no clue about. It was simply incompetent negligence and no one should be trusting them anymore.

I think you're being too kind to them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/congress-mau...

Re: How a Doctor beat Wall Street

#50
post #46

A lot of people are suggesting that it was immoral of Burry to profit from his insight instead of warning people of the impending calamity, yet what message speaks more forcefully? Saying you think the market is going to implode, vs. paying millions of dollars to insure specifically against that happening? No one would have listened to his warning, and indeed his investors didn't like hearing it. Burry is not the bad…

Also he was not exactly an outsider: In early 2004 a 32-year-old stock-market investor and hedge-fund manager, Michael Burry For everyone that lost big in the collapse someone made out like a bandit beforek, durring, or after it.

Not exactly an insider either - raising money for his hedge fund as a doctor with a blog.
Post reply on HN