Posts Tagged ‘books of the financial crisis’

The Great Read-cession, Part V

House of CardsThe Great Read-cession is back! Today John S looks at two books that focus on banks that are no longer with us. Pour one out for Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, then read this…

House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street

by William D. Cohan, 2010

 

William D. Cohan* is a banker-turned-writer who has by now written three histories of different Wall Street firms: His first book was about Lazard Freres, his former employer, and his latest is about Goldman Sachs. House of Cards, though, is the tale of Bear Stearns, the first investment bank that was taken down by the crisis.

*Duke alum!

Bears Stearns’s collapse occupies an odd place in the narrative of the 2008 crash, having occurred in March, six months before the fall of Lehman Brothers, the subsequent panic, and the passage of TARP. At that time, nobody quite knew the enormity of the problem facing Wall Street, and there was hope that Bear Stearns’s collapse would be the nadir of the problem. The firm was the smallest of the major Wall Street investment banks—if there was going to be a casualty, it would make sense for it to be Bear Stearns.

So how does a Wall Street bank go bankrupt? Well, the same way Mike Campbell did: Gradually, then suddenly. The seeds of Bear Stearns’s collapse go back several years—and possibly, Cohan implies, several decades—but the proximate cause was the sudden grip of panic that seized the firm in March of 2008.

Continue reading

Advertisements

The Great Read-cession, Part IV

On the BrinkWelcome to Part IV of our eleven-part breakdown of the books of the financial crisis. Having trouble keeping up? Then check out this page for all previous and future posts in the series.

On the Brink: Inside the Race to Stop the Collapse of the Global Financial System

by Henry Paulson 2010

 

The unifying element of the first four books was pessimism: Whether it was Ritholtz’s scorn for those in power, Morgenson’s search for someone to blame, Lewis’s tragic tale, or Sorkin’s narrative of disaster, all four books had decidedly bleak outlooks on the events. Since there is only so much despair one person can read about, I wanted to read the account of someone who would be sympathetic to the policy-makers and CEOs who everyone else blamed.

Henry Paulson was perfect. If the financial panic of 2008 has a face, it’s Paulson’s. As Treasury Secretary during the collapse, he was the one who told Congress of the dangers of Fannie and Freddie (in his infamous squirt gun analogy), who proposed TARP, and who ultimately dispensed the bailouts. And unlike the other figures prominently involved—Geithner, Bernanke—he faded from public view almost immediately after the disaster passed.

Reading Paulson’s book, though, it is hard to dislike him. His prose is straightforward and he comes across as an upstanding, diligent worker with integrity. He’s honest, but polite and gracious to a fault—despite presiding over what many would describe as a complete disaster, he has nothing but kind words for almost everyone involved.* He worked for Presidents Nixon and Bush—two of the least popular Presidents of the last 50 years, if not ever—but says nothing negative about either. He clashed with another prominent public figure, Jon Corzine, for the top spot at Goldman Sachs, but all he says about that is “frankly, the pairing was never right.” Continue reading

The Great Read-cession: Books of the Financial Crisis

It's been five years since Lehman's demise

Introduction

 

Sometime during 2011, essentially on a whim, I decided that I wanted to read every book written on the subject of the financial crisis of 2007-08.

What would motivate someone to undertake such a project? Eh, who knows why people do the things they do? As far as I can remember, I had two main motives: one general and one specific.

Generally, I’ve always had a vague desire to pick one subject and just read everything I could about it. Whenever I read a work of nonfiction, no matter how good or thorough it is, I have this feeling that I’m only getting some of the story. I’m only seeing reality as filtered through the author. The stories told are the ones the author found interesting; the opinions featured are the ones of this writer’s sources; the quotes are the ones he happened to write down. Even the most evenhanded and objective writer retains some biases, if only due to the natural limitations on research and reporting. When I read nonfiction, I always feel keenly aware of this. As a result, a book that’s supposed to inform me often ends up highlighting what I still don’t know.

This problem doesn’t really have a solution—nobody can be a firsthand witness to everything—but reading the same story multiple times is at least a better approximation of reality than reading it just once. After all, the police don’t stop the investigation after interviewing one witness. Of course, there’s a reason most people don’t read this way: It is, by design, very, very repetitive. You’d end up reading slightly different versions of the same story over and over again, intentionally making a leisure activity less fun.

Nevertheless, the cumulative nagging of years of nonfiction motivated me to at least try this method once. No matter the subject, I felt like the experiment would at least give me a better sense of the systemic biases of nonfiction.

Which brings me to the specific reason of why this subject. Continue reading