That’s collateral.
You want to buy a house.
You take a loan from the bank.
The bank asks you, “what if you don’t pay back?”
You say, “take my home and sell it”.
(Thread)
That’s collateral.
So a loan where the bank has collateral is considered safer for the bank.
The economy had just recovered from the tech bubble in 2000 where many banks had given out loans to businesses that had shut down.
They did so.
Banks made good money by selling these loans. There was a demand for it.
So they started giving out even more loans to supply the high demand.
Banks give out money to borrowers to buy a house.
Then, banks sell this mortgage to institutional investors.
So they again have money.
This money they lend out again.
Again, they sell this new mortgage to institutional investors.
And so does the price of houses.
But towards the end of 2007, many people start defaulting on their loans.
No big deal.
They start putting these houses up for sale.
More people default on their loans.
More houses come on sale.
Supply and demand kick in.
There are so many houses on sale and not enough buyers.
So house prices start falling.
More borrowers start defaulting on their loans. More houses come on sale. Houses continue to become so cheap, borrowers cannot recover their money.
Banks run out of money to lend.
With some industries slowing down, the economic cycle starts getting affected.
With that, comes job losses.
With job losses, comes reduced spending.
With reduced spending, comes a slowdown.
Right after the 2000 tech bubble, investors and the entire economic system was determined to avoid another tech bubble.
The US being such a major economy, this recession affected the entire globe.
The impact of such massive events is that people’s focus is on making sure the same doesn’t repeat.
That continued right from 2012 to 2020.
In 2020, the markets fell just as sharply.
It was caused by a pandemic - a threat nobody quite expected or saw coming.
The lesson for the investor is the same be it the tech bubble of 2000, the Great Recession of 2008, or the pandemic of 2020.
More from All
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?