Posted by tylerdane 7 hours ago
I did not know this! Thank you for posting!
Boesky was born to a Jewish family in Detroit. His family owned several delicatessens and taverns in the city. Although he lacked an undergraduate degree, he was admitted to Detroit College of Law (now Michigan State University College of Law) and graduated in 1965. In the 1980s, Boesky served as an adjunct professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business and at New York University's Graduate School of Business.
Time magazine ran a December 1, 1986, cover story about his "scam," dubbing him "Ivan the Terrible."[11]
Per a plea bargain, he received a prison sentence of 3+1⁄2 years and was fined US$100 million. Although he was released after serving only 20 months, he was permanently prohibited from working with securities. He served his sentence at Lompoc Federal Prison Camp near Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
Boesky smoked Marlboro cigarettes and lived till 87 yrs.
Boesky was also featured in Titans The Rise of Wall Street on Amazon Prime
The guy is the antagonist in the movie so you're not supposed to like him and he's written that way. He's a strawman and his whole speech is how the real version of him would sound filtered through the ears of someone who disagreed with him.
So you end up with people holding him up as an example that disagree and agree with him but the both of those groups are choosing the sides of a caricature that doesn't understand the point he's trying to make. It's weird.
The directors always try to avoid this criticism by saying, "Well he goes to jail in the end," but I think it's a bit of a cop out.
I tend to agree with the idea that art should try to embody some moral values, which goes against a lot of contemporary thoughts on aesthetics. But I think it’s a basic fact that people look toward fictional characters as role models, directly or indirectly. Avoiding that responsibility is not good.
I think it's closer to "monkey see, monkey do".
After the Fast and The Furious movies, young men would street race home from the movie.
After watching the movie The Program, young men laid down in the street at night hoping not to get hit by traffic (copying the risky stunt the characters in the movie did).
The art simply shows what is, not what should be.
The Sopranos was interesting because it showed a mob boss doing the typical mob boss things (dodging FBI surveillance, dealing with rival crime families and street thugs, organizing new business ventures, burying evidence deep in the woods / dumping in the river). But it also showed a man with momma issues, with panic attacks, processing (well mostly rejecting) therapy, a wife who spends too much, a son as dumb as a box of rocks, etc. It wasn't the broad morality of western societies, but it was approachable because the character was eminently human.
Similarly, Dexter was a serial murderer, but he had "a code" (to only murder other serial murderers). His code doesn't necessarily match up with the morals of you or I, but like any fiction, it allows you to suspect your disbelief and inhabit the moral choices / predicaments of the character for a few minutes / hours.
they aspired to appear more civilized after seeing how they were portrayed on film - wearing tailored suits and swearing less I guess.
It isn't the effect I would have expected.
I don’t know which directors you’re referring to, but I doubt you receieved such a simplistic response from Scorcese. Worth reading him in his own words on this, below is what he said regarding Jordan Belfort’s character in The Wolf of Wall Street,
“That's something that I've always been attracted to and is interesting to me. Someone like Jordan or Jake Lamotta or Tommy, Joe Pesci’s character in Goodfellas, and people say well that type of person that sort but… I guess what that means is that they try to distance themselves from them. It's someone else it's not me but in actuality I feel it's not someone else, it's us. It's you and me and maybe if we'd been born under different circumstances, maybe we would have wound up making the same, exactly the same mistakes and choices and doing exactly the same things. I really think … when people say “that kind,” it’s not a matter of equalizing everyone and saying we're all responsible, I think it's a matter of facing and recognizing and acknowledging that part of us which is a part of our common humanity. And we have to deal with it.”
“He [Jordan Belfort] thought that he could bypass morality or surpass morality with a combination of money and drugs. I don't know maybe he still does, I really don't know. There's another way of answering the question; he was different from Madoff and Skilling in that they weren't crashing helicopters or throwing little people (or maybe they were but if they did they kept it pretty quiet) but in that sense Jordan's experiences are more entertaining and that brings you closer to him because you look at these guys and think this seems to be a lot of fun. Well, it doesn't just look that way they really did have a lot of fun. In fact that's really all they could do is have fun and more fun and more on top of that, until it wasn't so much fun anymore. But what they couldn't do was just be. They just couldn't face that. So the challenge is to show that honestly without tipping the scales into judgment and taking you outside of the world these characters and the particular ways that they live their lives which was to obliterate all obstacles, all troubles, all difficulties, by taking more drugs, more money.”
I'm convinced that a lot of people--probably even some of my own neighbors--wear a mask of civility only because we live in a society and have rules that are enforced. If the opportunity ever arrived and we entered some kind of Mad Max lawlessness, they would instantly start to murder and plunder just like barbarians out of fiction.
This is mostly a prepper fantasy that justifies things like buying a bunch of guns and canned beans instead of investing in more difficult things like community building. From the (IMO, naive) POV that human behavior is strictly selfish, it would rarely occurs that this kind of behavior would be beneficial to an individual's self-interest. Even in the worst-case, entirely imaginary SHTF complete destruction of society scenario, sociable behavior is more beneficial than any kind of anti-social Wasteland Raider behavior.
Maybe some aberrant individuals, but they would quickly fail without community support.
The problem is that you have to include people's self-justifications to tell a meaningful story. If Gordon Gekko were an uncharismatic sleazeball who tells everyone "I'm greedy because the misery of others pleases me, haha!", the film wouldn't work as a criticism of Wall Street, because real Wall Street tycoons are usually charismatic and don't say such things in public.
Yes, and there's the scene with Hal Holbrook, I think he lectures Bud Fox just before or after he's arrested? Holbrook made a career of playing moral authority figures.
I think the seductive appeal of Gordon Gekko is meant to illustrate something fundamental about the human condition. We are all susceptible to temptation, whether it involves pleasure, money, status, or power. Success doesn't necessarily satisfy desire, if anything, it intensifies it. Can you eat just one potato chip? Would you return a found wallet full of cash? If you made a million dollars, would that be enough? Gekko is an example of an ordinary human predicament: the difficulty of knowing when we have enough, and the ease with which we rationalize getting more.
---
On another note, it's too late to edit my earlier post in this topic.
"delivered in 1986 at The speaker? Ivan Boesky"
should be
"delivered in 1986 at what is now the Haas School of Business of the University of California at Berkeley. The speaker? Ivan Boesky"
The erroneous question mark is in the PDF, but I inadvertently omitted the location clause. Carelessness is another aspect of the human condition.
It is a classical hollywood trope to preset a “bad guy” protagonist as cool, charming, and resourceful and with a glamorous life.
Hollywood know how to make you like a character and how to make you dislike one.
His apparent reasonableness obscures the fact that he's appealing to the rapacious or covetous nature of the shareholders. He wants to override any moral objection to the fact that he's buying the company, in part, to strip the overfunded employee pensions, and by accepting his offer, shareholders get a cut. (IIRC, it's been decades since I saw the movie.)
The moral failure is treating a retirement fund, and the people whose livelihoods depend on it, primarily as an opportunity for personal enrichment. Pension assets do not belong to the company in the ordinary sense. They are held in trust for the benefit of employees and retirees. The employer generally cannot withdraw funds while the plan is operating.
Wall Street was released in 1987, and the law regarding pensions has changed since then, in part to address employers reverting pension assets. As I understand it, there is a now a 50% excise tax on reversions, which are only allowed in specific circumstances. I imagine this tax is intended to discourage reversions.
Personally, I don't understand why any of the money I put away for retirement belongs to anyone but me. Usually such funds are managed by finance companies, not the employer, and the finance companies are already getting their cut, any lucky excess should come to me.
(The substance of the issue with overfunded pensions is itself a complicated separate topic, which I don't mean to oversimplify.)
I have a running joke with my closest friends that we are in a post-satire world because real news today is frequently indistinguishable from satire from 10-20 years ago. Sometimes The Onion headlines just bleed into the monotony of the news cycle, but it's not because they are any less satirical.
The Corleone family is also who viewers identify with in The Godfather.
Contrast with an Eastwood western, where he is the good guy or a guy better than the rest or at least with consistent morals.
1) Michael Douglas is extremely attractive and charismatic, so people like him even if they're not supposed to. Gekko seduces the viewer to the dark side like he seduced Bud Fox.
2) The movie never shows Gekko in jail, so you never see the true consequences.
The fake self promotional bullshit is so tiring. I quit as a result of this. It's the same as big tech, not any different.
Jane Street SUPPOSEDLY follows a flat hierarchy which has less of these games. I'm not sure how true it is.
The way I think about it: you hire people who are literally self driven and then you constrain them for no reason just to make other people feel in control.
Or maybe I'm just not a good employee. My first job ever told me I'm a horrible employee.
This paper is mostly about risk associated with debt. That's the Fed's job, after all. The current AI bubble is more on the equity side, although, when it pops, we'll see who's been leveraging their equity positions with debt. Historically, up until the 1980s. corporate debt was supposed to be low-risk. If a company went bust, that usually took down the top executives, who were unlikely to get good jobs ever again. As a result, the bond market was boring. Not much trading. Buy and hold.
Then came "high yield bonds" - debt instruments with high returns but a significant risk. The concept was that a broad portfolio of high yield bonds became, statistically, a low-risk loan. Risk management and the Black-Sholes model became a major part of Wall Street activity. That's the background of the paper. The audience to which that paper is addressed knows that, so they only hint at it.
This tends to break down when there's some across the board change. The 2008 US housing crisis is the big modern example. Housing prices went down nationally. The assumption of many Wall Street risk management models was that the risk of independent debt instruments was largely uncorrelated. Sometimes, it's not. The Big Short (2015) is the movie version of this, and it explains all this in an entertaining way. (That's quite an achievement for Hollywood - making an entertaining movie about mortgage risk correlation. It's not about bad people. It's about bad risk models.)
That's the underlying basis of the culture problem. Once investors start accepting that some debt instruments will routinely go bust, perverse incentives appear. Then you get Milken, Boesky, LTCM, and Enron. (Not Madoff; Madoff was a straight Ponzi scheme.) The paper tries to tie this to financial culture. That's not wrong. But it's not the basis of "postmodern capitalism".
All this is to some extent a result of tax policy. Interest received is taxed much more favorably than stock dividends. That encourages debt financing, equity to debt conversion, high-risk lending, and leveraged buyouts. ("Private equity" is mostly leveraged buyouts. Usually the private buyer doesn't have the funds for an all-cash deal.) The line between debt and equity has been blurred. Both are ways to pay for money, but with different tax treatment. There are instruments such as convertible bonds which combine aspects of debt and equity. This effect is so strong that the number of publicly traded companies in the US is down, while the number of tradable financial instruments is way up.
So, the paper is incomplete in that it fails to identify how tax policy increased Wall Street's appetite for risk.
Debt always carries a default risk. This is a fact and has since the beginning of time. I don't see how anything fundamentally changes in the 80s.
You are wrong about the tax treatment of dividends vs interest received. In fact, dividends have the superior tax treatment to investors because of the qualified dividend rule. What you are looking for is the tax shield effect at the level of the company. Interest is deducted from taxable income, so if you have a company with no leverage earning $5 million a year in pre-tax profit, you pay $2 million in tax, with $3 million left to distribute. If the company takes on debt with $2.5 million in interest, now taxable income is $2.5 million with $1.5 left over after tax. This means now you have income distributable to investors (debt and equity) of $4 million vs the $3 million unlevered.