90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Here and Now with Robin Young
Public radio's live
midday news program
With sponsorship from
Mathworks - Accelerating the pace of engineering and science
Accelerating the pace
of engineering and science
Thursday, November 3, 2011

‘Margin Call’ Lifts Veil On A Wall Street Meltdown

Zachary Quinto, left, and Penn Badgley are shown in a scene from "Margin Call." (AP/Roadside Attractions)

Zachary Quinto, left, and Penn Badgley are shown in a scene from "Margin Call." (AP/Roadside Attractions)

The New Yorker’s David Denby calls the new movie “Margin Call” “easily the best Wall Street film ever made.”

NPR critic David Edelstein calls the timing “almost too good.”

The film opens amid massive layoffs at a high-flying Wall Street firm, and events go downhill from there. One of the firm’s analysts, played by Zachary Quinto, discovers that, because of some past risky investing, the firm’s demise is imminent.

Over the next 24 hours, executives decide to unload investment holdings with the full knowledge that the move will severely damage the market and thousands of the company’s investors.

Writer and director J.C. Chandor is familiar with this world– his father was an investment banker with Merrill Lynch for over thirty years.

Chandor told Here & Now‘s Robin Young that in his film there are no heroes, and there are no villains– his characters are all doing what they need to be doing in order to survive.

“What I wanted to do… is to actually look at what it felt like to be at that place at that time and then hopefully you actually understand the decision-making process of the characters,” he said.

Chandor depicts analysts who are hesitant to report questionable practices, out of fear of losing their paychecks that keep their fast and expensive lifestyles afloat– something the banks in his films count on.

“They pay you just enough to feel rich and not so much that you can ever quite walk away. They want you to be there on a tether,” Chandor said.

Guest:

  • J.C. Chandor, “Margin Call” writer and director

Listener Andrew Oram of Vermont responded to J.C. Chandor’s comment that buying on the margin is extremely dangerous.

Oram writes:

“Margin in a brokerage account is merely a financial instrument. Inherently the average mortgage is far riskier than any use of margin. The rule on margin is that you can borrow up to ½ of the value of your holdings to buy more.(sometimes when the markets have been roiled the margin % is reduced to 40% of equity.) By definition then the highest debt to equity ratio one can have on margin is 50%. The average house is probably close to 70% leveraged and many new purchases are 95 or even 100% leveraged. In terms of the proportion of capital at risk a house is far risker.

To do a full analysis however we must look at the volatility of the housing market relative to the stock market. Because the stock market usually varies in price more regularly than the housing market (2009 not withstanding) the value of the underlying assets changes more dramatically in stocks than in homes. If you are maxing out your margin capability and the market drops the value of your equity falls and your margin % thereby increases over 50%. The margin call is your broker saying you have until tomorrow to send us cash to bring the ratio to over 50% or we start selling your holdings to bring you back to that proportion.
Let me tell you about my last use of margin. I was managing a modest family portfolio of 200K . One of my brothers was in the process of selling one house and buying another and for a short amount of time he owned two houses and he was in a cash bind. He needed 20K to get by for the 1 to 2 month period until the old house closed and he would have the capital from that house at that time. Our choices were 1) he could borrow 20K on credit cards at 14 to 20% 2) we could sell holdings in the account to raise 20K cask for him but we are selling investments we want to keep into a down market,3) Home equity loan, complicated and potentially expensive because he has two houses each of which have mortgaged value. Lots of headache for a loan that he will have for a term of 2 months on, Like he doesn’t already have enough stress with two mortgages. 4) borrow 20K on margin against the 200K brokerage account at 6.5% interest (annual rate) for two months. In order for us to get a “margin call” the underlying equities would have to fall in value from 200K to $39,999 a 60% drop in the market and even then I’d only need a dollar to make the margin call. This would be the equivalent of the DJIA falling to 4800 from its current 12,001. Is there any doubt that the most prudent selection between these 4 options is the “extremely dangerous” use of margin. The reality is that Margin is a solid financial tool in the hands of a prudent person. Can imprudent use of it lead to financial ruin? You bet just like imprudent choices in buying houses or taking on credit card debt.”


Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • http://profiles.google.com/caleb.b.king X X

    Will anyone buy a 100 dollar bill of  Monopoly money for $100 USD?  No. They must first be DECEIVED into thinking the Monopoly bill is worth $100 USD.  Knowingly selling something that you know does not have the attributes that you claim it does is FRAUD.  Fraud is illegal – and for good reason: it is the cancer of markets insomuch as it prevents them from performing their 2 major functions: 1) valuation of assets reflective to supply and to utility, 2) self-correction of values that assigned in sharp distinction from demand levels.

    Funny that the author of this tepid “historical” fiction – which tames down the degree of collusion and conscious awareness of the chief architects of the infaltionary bubble economy of the 1980s-2010s  – says that the fictional CEO of his investment was “right” about the instructions he gave to his subordinates, both strategically – in relation to this interest of his shareholders – and legally – in relation to the provisions of the law.

    J.C. CHANDOR IS WRONG.  SELLING WORTHLESS BUNDLED DEBT OBLIGATIONS WAS & WILL ALWAYS BE FRAUD. IT IS ILLEGAL AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED ACCORDINGLY.

    Will anyone buy a 100 dollar bill of  Monopoly money for $100 USD?
    No – unless you are a performance artist making some kind of symbolic point.
    It has been proven that Goldman Sachs, among many other deviants, **intentionally and knowingly** sold worthless debt packages (bundled mortgages – and other IOUs – which were never going to be payed back at all, let along at their face value) to several key firms as well as to the Greek government.  But – as with their criminal friends – their executives and high-level employees have never been prosecuted – and they never will be.

    Instead, they chose a pathetic, unrelated fall-guy  – Bernie Madoff – much like Oliver North was the appointed fall-guy for a much larger, far more nefarious (and still ongoing – think Operation Fast & Furious) activity of far more powerful figures than himself.

  • PaulDNorthJR

    For an example of an actual “margin call”, see the closing scenes of the 1983 Eddie Murphy – Dan Ackroyd – Jamie Lee Curtis comedy/ drama film, “Trading Places”:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/ 

  • Ammon50

    I have a question.   How was this movie allowed to be made knowing an eclectic many corporate tendrils put their grip on all?  The funding certainly did not come from personal wealth or fund raising by the mobility.  Perhaps the funding for the money squeaked by under the radar.  Perhaps the typical corporation is relatively omnipotent and cares not.  Perhaps the corporation considers it a half measure that fulfills the “circus” part of the eternal “bread and circuses” contract ruler overlords hold over their masses.  Are there forces at work that undermine the corporation by producing such a film? Or most likely one film corporation sees an opportunity to make some profit and cares not about the effect on other corporations.  They must either be obscure or have the power to defend themselves if so.  

    A response from a person personally involved would be highly appreciated. 

  • J Frog

    Selling worthless bundled debt should be illegal and should be prosecuted?   You mean like Greece?

  • Dave T

    Andrew’s comparison to a home mortgage is inappropriate. By focusing on leverage, Andrew misses the point that volatitily of price of the margined asset is what makes margin investing in stocks so much more risky than a home mortgage. Furthermore, in a investment business such as MF Financial, when the value of the assets go down, the investors can and did demand their investment back which lead to the collapse in a very sh0rt period of time. Yes, your house may decline in value, and recently probably very significantly, which means you won’t be able to refinance, but as long as you make your monthly payments, nothing else will happen.

Robin and Jeremy

Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson host Here & Now, a live two-hour production of NPR and WBUR Boston.

July 30 Comment

As War And Conflicts Proliferate, Children Become Unwary Victims And Targets

Kids have always suffered during war and crisis, but there's a sense the burden of instability is being increasingly borne by children.

July 30 3 Comments

California Drought: A Central Valley Farmer’s Experience

Last month was the hottest June on Earth since records began in 1880, making the West Coast drought even harder for farmers.

July 29 13 Comments

U.S. ‘Border Crisis’ In A Global Context

Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch says what the U.S. is seeing is dwarfed by the massive flow of refugees into other countries, such as Italy.

July 29 4 Comments

Iraq War Vet Returns To A Broken Country

Roy Scranton says what he found in Baghdad "shows the evidence of the truth of what we'd actually done."