CLOSE
Original image

The Financial Crisis: Who's to Blame?

Original image

The Federal Reserve plans to spend $700 billion (adding to our current $10.6 trillion deficit) to buy up mortgage-related debt from our ailing banks so the banks will be able to lend again. Credit is, after all, what America runs on. As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke put it, this plan is "the last wrench in the toolbox" to fix our financial crisis. But how did we get here? Here's where the blame game leads us"¦

Alan Greenspan
He had interest rates too low for too long, which resulted in the housing bubble. But what is too low too long? I don't blame Greenspan, though he did push subprime lending, lauding the "innovation and structural change in the financial services industry "¦ critical in providing expanded access to credit for the vast majority of consumers, including those of limited means."


Consolidated Supervised Entities Program
In 2004 the SEC changed the rules under which banks with at least $5 billion of capital calculate their gross leverage ratios. It basically raised the leverage ratio to 30, from about half that. A leverage ratio measures the amount of debt a company has compared to its total capital. A leverage ratio of 30 means that 30% of a bank's total capital is debt. The banks could take on more debt, which was good when times were good because it allowed them to make more transactions. However, high levels of debt means it takes only a small decline in the value of the firm for the bank to go bankrupt.
Five investment banks fell under the program: Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear, and Morgan Stanley. It is noted that at the time of decline, Merrill had a leverage ratio of about 40, Lehman of 36.

Goodbye, Uptick Rule
In 2007, the SEC eliminated the "uptick rule," which prohibited sellers from shorting a share when the stock was selling for lower than the previous trade. This rule was instituted after the Crash of 1929, as shorting was alleged to be the culprit of the crash. After research and assessment of the rule, the SEC suggested the uptick didn't matter and lifted the ban. Now, shorting has been blamed for today's crisis and has been put on a temporary ban.

Hedge Funds
Hedge funds aren't as highly levered as investment banks, but they do a lot of shorting. Perhaps their ubiquity spurred the financial decline. They'll pay whether or not that is the case. About 90% of hedge funds are currently losing money and that's sure to increase with the advent of the short selling ban.

Ratings Agencies
It's not the Fed's job to allocate or assess risk, so we can't truly blame Greenspan. But the job is someone's responsibility. Whose? The ratings agencies, these government sanction oligopolies like Moody's, S&P, and Fitch. See, the ratings agencies slapped high ratings on all of the Mortgage Backed Securities. An MBS is a bundle of a bunch of loans, some dodgy, some not, that are all rolled into one tradable security, like a stock. The Ratings Agencies rate all securities based on their level of risk. Again, the ratings are a lot like school grades: A good, B okay/bad, C junk. The Ratings Agencies aren't regulated by the SEC, and so were not really watched throughout this whole game. So they were able to slap high ratings on risky MBS' last year, and then downgrade AIG last week, putting the onus of bailing them out on you and me.

sec.jpgThe SEC
The SEC was created in 1933 to protect small investors against securities fraud. It doesn't have robust oversight over all financial entities, ratings agencies included, and is not really equipped for our financial world.


The Deregulatory Financial Modernization Act of 1999
In 1933, Congress established a set of banking regulations under the Glass Steagall Act. Thinking commercial banks (ones that take deposits from everyday citizens) caused the Crash of 1929, the act separated the commercial banks and the investment banks. This way investment banks would take on risky investments, and commercial banks could protect its members by not doing that. Before 1933, there were few investment banks and the Glass Steagall Act spurred Wall Street as we know (ahem, I mean knew) it.

The Glass Steagall Act was repealed, however, in 1999 under the Deregulatory Financial Modernization (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) Act. This allowed the commercial banks to take on the same risky bets that investment banks did. A commercial bank (one that sells to you and me, like Citigroup or WaMU) could trade Mortgage Backed Securities, Collateralized Debt Obligations, and other Structured Investment Vehicles. So basically, it allowed the guys that are usually safe and who hold my life savings to take on risky investments and get all mixed up in the mess too.

The Glass Steagall Act of 1933
Or you could blame the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 (mentioned above) itself, for really creating the stand alone investment bank in the US.

Be sure to read more of what Diana learned today here.

Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva
technology
arrow
Man Buys Two Metric Tons of LEGO Bricks; Sorts Them Via Machine Learning
May 21, 2017
Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva

Jacques Mattheij made a small, but awesome, mistake. He went on eBay one evening and bid on a bunch of bulk LEGO brick auctions, then went to sleep. Upon waking, he discovered that he was the high bidder on many, and was now the proud owner of two tons of LEGO bricks. (This is about 4400 pounds.) He wrote, "[L]esson 1: if you win almost all bids you are bidding too high."

Mattheij had noticed that bulk, unsorted bricks sell for something like €10/kilogram, whereas sets are roughly €40/kg and rare parts go for up to €100/kg. Much of the value of the bricks is in their sorting. If he could reduce the entropy of these bins of unsorted bricks, he could make a tidy profit. While many people do this work by hand, the problem is enormous—just the kind of challenge for a computer. Mattheij writes:

There are 38000+ shapes and there are 100+ possible shades of color (you can roughly tell how old someone is by asking them what lego colors they remember from their youth).

In the following months, Mattheij built a proof-of-concept sorting system using, of course, LEGO. He broke the problem down into a series of sub-problems (including "feeding LEGO reliably from a hopper is surprisingly hard," one of those facts of nature that will stymie even the best system design). After tinkering with the prototype at length, he expanded the system to a surprisingly complex system of conveyer belts (powered by a home treadmill), various pieces of cabinetry, and "copious quantities of crazy glue."

Here's a video showing the current system running at low speed:

The key part of the system was running the bricks past a camera paired with a computer running a neural net-based image classifier. That allows the computer (when sufficiently trained on brick images) to recognize bricks and thus categorize them by color, shape, or other parameters. Remember that as bricks pass by, they can be in any orientation, can be dirty, can even be stuck to other pieces. So having a flexible software system is key to recognizing—in a fraction of a second—what a given brick is, in order to sort it out. When a match is found, a jet of compressed air pops the piece off the conveyer belt and into a waiting bin.

After much experimentation, Mattheij rewrote the software (several times in fact) to accomplish a variety of basic tasks. At its core, the system takes images from a webcam and feeds them to a neural network to do the classification. Of course, the neural net needs to be "trained" by showing it lots of images, and telling it what those images represent. Mattheij's breakthrough was allowing the machine to effectively train itself, with guidance: Running pieces through allows the system to take its own photos, make a guess, and build on that guess. As long as Mattheij corrects the incorrect guesses, he ends up with a decent (and self-reinforcing) corpus of training data. As the machine continues running, it can rack up more training, allowing it to recognize a broad variety of pieces on the fly.

Here's another video, focusing on how the pieces move on conveyer belts (running at slow speed so puny humans can follow). You can also see the air jets in action:

In an email interview, Mattheij told Mental Floss that the system currently sorts LEGO bricks into more than 50 categories. It can also be run in a color-sorting mode to bin the parts across 12 color groups. (Thus at present you'd likely do a two-pass sort on the bricks: once for shape, then a separate pass for color.) He continues to refine the system, with a focus on making its recognition abilities faster. At some point down the line, he plans to make the software portion open source. You're on your own as far as building conveyer belts, bins, and so forth.

Check out Mattheij's writeup in two parts for more information. It starts with an overview of the story, followed up with a deep dive on the software. He's also tweeting about the project (among other things). And if you look around a bit, you'll find bulk LEGO brick auctions online—it's definitely a thing!

Original image
Nick Briggs/Comic Relief
entertainment
arrow
What Happened to Jamie and Aurelia From Love Actually?
May 26, 2017
Original image
Nick Briggs/Comic Relief

Fans of the romantic-comedy Love Actually recently got a bonus reunion in the form of Red Nose Day Actually, a short charity special that gave audiences a peek at where their favorite characters ended up almost 15 years later.

One of the most improbable pairings from the original film was between Jamie (Colin Firth) and Aurelia (Lúcia Moniz), who fell in love despite almost no shared vocabulary. Jamie is English, and Aurelia is Portuguese, and they know just enough of each other’s native tongues for Jamie to propose and Aurelia to accept.

A decade and a half on, they have both improved their knowledge of each other’s languages—if not perfectly, in Jamie’s case. But apparently, their love is much stronger than his grasp on Portuguese grammar, because they’ve got three bilingual kids and another on the way. (And still enjoy having important romantic moments in the car.)

In 2015, Love Actually script editor Emma Freud revealed via Twitter what happened between Karen and Harry (Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, who passed away last year). Most of the other couples get happy endings in the short—even if Hugh Grant's character hasn't gotten any better at dancing.

[h/t TV Guide]

SECTIONS
BIG QUESTIONS
BIG QUESTIONS
WEATHER WATCH
BE THE CHANGE
JOB SECRETS
QUIZZES
WORLD WAR 1
SMART SHOPPING
STONES, BONES, & WRECKS
#TBT
THE PRESIDENTS
WORDS
RETROBITUARIES