Bankers derived 'erotic thrill from credit crunch'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
The bankers who brought the global economy to its knees two years ago may have enjoyed the sensation of losing hundreds of billions of pounds and plunging the world into recession, according to Paul Crosthwaite of Cardiff University.

In an article published in Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, Dr Crosthwaite says that the willingness of banks to deal in subprime loans and related derivatives, which were bound to result in disastrous losses, can only be understood if the bankers unconsciously desired the destruction of their own institutions.

Dr Crosthwaite argues that such catastrophic losses can be sources of masochistic pleasure for those who experience them.

The article – Blood on the Trading Floor: Waste, Sacrifice, and Death in Financial Crises – coincides with the second anniversary of the emergency moves to nationalise stricken banks in the UK, USA and Europe.

Dr Crosthwaite uses psychoanalysis to explain the successive booms and busts that have shaken markets over the last two decades.

He argues that financial crises, such as the 'Black Monday' crash in October 1987, the bursting of the dotcom bubble in the spring of 2000, and the credit crunch that entered into its most intense phase in the autumn of 2008, are expressions of the innate urge for self-destruction which Sigmund Freud termed the 'death drive'.

Dr Crosthwaite, a lecturer in literature and critical and cultural theory, draws on anthropological studies of investor behaviour and an analysis of novels by and about financial professionals.

He points to evidence that there is an element of masochistic satisfaction in the experience of running up losses, and that a full-blown crash is a source of euphoria as much as despair.

Dr Crosthwaite argues that the financial crash is the modern equivalent of the traditional American Indian practice of 'potlatch' – a ritual ceremony in which the chiefs of rival tribes competed to destroy ever greater quantities of their own possessions.

As with chiefs participating in a potlatch, the capacity to generate huge losses, just as much as huge profits, is experienced by investment bankers and financial traders as an expression of their power, prestige, and importance.

Dr Crosthwaite's research challenges conventional economic thinking, which assumes that investors are wholly rational, and always pursue the course of action most likely to increase their own wealth.

This assumption has underpinned the free-market, light-regulation economic policies favoured by British and American governments since the early 1980s.

Dr Crosthwaite said: "Economists and financial policy-makers must recognise that investor psychology is far more complex than their models have allowed up to now.

"They need to take much greater account of psychological factors such as emotion and desire, which affect how market actors behave in profound ways."

Dr Crosthwaite believes his research strengthens the case for tighter restrictions on the risks assumed by financial institutions.

His findings suggest that bankers and other investors take on excessive risks not simply because of an urge for high returns, but also out of an active desire for painful but exhilarating losses.

Rather than being rational, efficient models of equilibrium and stability, as mainstream economists maintain, financial markets are inherently predisposed towards crisis because of their participants' tendency to seek excess both excessive gain and excessive loss.

The damaging consequences of such excess for the wider economy are starkly apparent in the recent recession and the cuts to public services now being imposed to reduce the deficit resulting from the bank bailouts.

Dr Crosthwaite added: "To avoid a repeat of the great recession, it's vital that policy-makers and regulators limit the capacity of financial professionals to engage in excessive practices by curbing the disproportionate levels of risk that we've seen in the financial sector in recent years."

News article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...derived-erotic-thrill-from-credit-crunch.html

Original research paper:
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/articles/blood-on-the-trading-floor.html

Wow, absolutely unbelievable! Not only did these animals/criminals destroy a good part of the world economy but they got off on it! We need to identify these people and punish them (and their handlers). Just a handful of these sadistic idiots have caused untold economic losses for decades.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Dr Crosthwaite's research challenges conventional economic thinking, which assumes that investors are wholly rational, and always pursue the course of action most likely to increase their own wealth.
This absolutely needs to be challenged because human rationality is never a safe assumption to make.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Dr. Crosthwaite posits that this behavior can only be understood by assuming that the bankers subconsciously desired the destruction of their institutions. More sane people would posit that this behavior was caused by the government establishing a demand for home loans to disadvantaged borrowers well in excess of the available supply, government subsequently dropping all sane loan requirements (i.e. "outdated metrics" such as verification of income, past credit history, and even employment itself) in attempting to fill this demand, some bankers and mortgage companies making insane profits due to this demand, other bankers and mortgage companies noting those insane profits and wanting some of their own, and a general feeling that the government would save them if things went south.

The only thing his research challenges is the notion that stupid people can't have PHDs too.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Dr. Crosthwaite posits that this behavior can only be understood by assuming that the bankers subconsciously desired the destruction of their institutions. More sane people would posit that this behavior was caused by the government establishing a demand for home loans to disadvantaged borrowers well in excess of the available supply, government subsequently dropping all sane loan requirements (i.e. "outdated metrics" such as verification of income, past credit history, and even employment itself) in attempting to fill this demand, some bankers and mortgage companies making insane profits due to this demand, other bankers and mortgage companies noting those insane profits and wanting some of their own, and a general feeling that the government would save them if things went south.

The only thing his research challenges is the notion that stupid people can't have PHDs too.

The "government" didn't have an active role in reduction in underwriting standards. Don't use the CRA canard.

Quite frankly, this thesis is just silly. It ignores the basic human behavior that really explains this bubble as with all other bubbles, greed.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The "government" didn't have an active role in reduction in underwriting standards. Don't use the CRA canard.

Quite frankly, this thesis is just silly. It ignores the basic human behavior that really explains this bubble as with all other bubbles, greed.

Don't forget things like ignorance and lies by people to make money and poor systems that don't support correcting problems and more.

A person who is simply greedy might take their rent money to vegas and bet it away - greed overcoming the rational.

This is a lot more complicated, where greed was a factor, but people had a variety of reasons to think their actions would make them money.

On ignorance, I just watched a clip of Ben Bernake a bit before the crash asked, 'what about the chance of a widespread drop in housing prices', and Bernake said he objected to the question's premise, because he did not think there was almost any chance it could happen, as there had never been a nationwide real estate downturn (always regional).

And he should have been one of the less ignorant people with these views.

That wasn't just greed on his part - he wasn't getting rich personally off of his wrong ideology, though he was feeding his own interests telling people what they liked.

Saying it's greed doesn't offer solutions - since greed isn't going away, but systems can be improved to reduce the harm it does, reduce errors, etc.

Regulating/eliminating Credit Default Swaps, reducing leverage, reducing conflict of interests (invest versus banking, ratings agencies incented to rate too high,etc.), transparency, reduction of 'too big to fail' corrupting pressures on bailouts, mortgate regulation - are all things that can have an effect without changing greed.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Don't forget things like ignorance and lies by people to make money and poor systems that don't support correcting problems and more.

A person who is simply greedy might take their rent money to vegas and bet it away - greed overcoming the rational.

This is a lot more complicated, where greed was a factor, but people had a variety of reasons to think their actions would make them money.

On ignorance, I just watched a clip of Ben Bernake a bit before the crash asked, 'what about the chance of a widespread drop in housing prices', and Bernake said he objected to the question's premise, because he did not think there was almost any chance it could happen, as there had never been a nationwide real estate downturn (always regional).

And he should have been one of the less ignorant people with these views.

That wasn't just greed on his part - he wasn't getting rich personally off of his wrong ideology, though he was feeding his own interests telling people what they liked.

Saying it's greed doesn't offer solutions - since greed isn't going away, but systems can be improved to reduce the harm it does, reduce errors, etc.

Regulating/eliminating Credit Default Swaps, reducing leverage, reducing conflict of interests (invest versus banking, ratings agencies incented to rate too high,etc.), transparency, reduction of 'too big to fail' corrupting pressures on bailouts, mortgate regulation - are all things that can have an effect without changing greed.

Personally, I think that the biggest issue is greed, which also incorporates your ignorance factor.

I was working at one company back in 2006 filled with very educated people. I presented them with information on the credit bubble and housing and none of them acknowledged that it could be true. It wasn't because they were dumb or that they were ignorant, it was because they were blinded to both sides of the equation. They simply did not factor everything into their logic and come out with a more balanced perspective.

There are reasons why they don't do that and it isn't because they aren't smart or they are ignorant, I think it's because of greed. Not necessarily greed for money but also greed for intelligence, greed for justification...etc.

Most of these people had houses or large investment portfolios, they didn't want to admit they could possibly be wrong. They controlled a large financial institution and couldn't admit they could be wrong in their estimates or justification for their jobs.

Nobody considered "too big to fail" before the crisis. Nobody thought about failure at all. Failure wasn't in the equation, it wasn't considered. How could you possibly fail if you've thought of everything and there are no problems at all?

That isn't ignorance in my mind, it's just being blind.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
The "government" didn't have an active role in reduction in underwriting standards. Don't use the CRA canard.

Quite frankly, this thesis is just silly. It ignores the basic human behavior that really explains this bubble as with all other bubbles, greed.

True, although I'm sure that, in general, conmen get a psycho-sexual trill out of duping their marks, particularly when it comes to millions of marks and hundreds of millions of dollars...

OH... Squirt!
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,824
6,372
126
An interesting idea and certainly could be an explanation for some people's behaviour, but a whole Industry? I think not.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
The "government" didn't have an active role in reduction in underwriting standards. Don't use the CRA canard.

Quite frankly, this thesis is just silly. It ignores the basic human behavior that really explains this bubble as with all other bubbles, greed.

No, but the government had an active role in fueling that "greed" with cheap and easy credit.

It isn't "greed" that causes bubbles. People are greedy all the time, in good times and bad. This is just silly. In Capitalism, greed is (normally) limited by risk. Of course this wasn't the case, thanks to the Greenspan Put, and of course, those wonderful bailouts. It wasn't greed. It was the removal of risk associated with that greed, then fueled by excessive credit thanks to super low interest rates by Greenspan and Bernanke.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
On ignorance, I just watched a clip of Ben Bernake a bit before the crash asked, 'what about the chance of a widespread drop in housing prices', and Bernake said he objected to the question's premise, because he did not think there was almost any chance it could happen, as there had never been a nationwide real estate downturn (always regional).

And he should have been one of the less ignorant people with these views.

Sounds a lot like your Progressive Boy Barney Frank

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''[/FONT]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.