The second reason is that unlike most other documentaries it did not simply focus on one specific aspect of the crisis, choosing to explore the world financial crisis from a broad point of view that gave credence to the actual content matter explained in the documentary. The presentation of the idea was also done in a way that made it easy to understand and follow. This is because the presentation of the issue allowed those who may not have been well versed with the financial crisis or financial matters gain a deeper understanding of the subject.
My own personal opinion is that the documentary presented the viewer with a better understanding of the crisis. The focus on interviewing some of those who may be considered to have been at the epicenter of the crisis accords a great amount of credence to the ideas and theories proposed by the documentary. There is also the fact that the presentation is one that builds up on various points of concern as far as the crisis is concerned. Giving the viewer time to actually visualize how the crisis unfolded and how it affected everybody. This includes the domino effect that began on Wall Street and later spread to other parts of the world.
Conceptual mind map In looking at the movie we can basically and broadly classify the players into three large groups, this is instead of looking at the individuals themselves. The idea behind this is because most of the players that have been discussed in the movie have been analyzed in accordance to their roles (read job descriptions) before, during and at the time of the crisis. The three major distinctions in this case will be the regulators, the financial players and the citizens. The citizens here refer to large percentage of the population that may or may not have made bets during the unfolding of events but were still greatly affected by it. The regulators To begin with are the regulators. Their role began with that of Greenspan in the deregulation of the markets. This deregulation was meant to make the markets perform under less strict governmental control. This was to allow for the growth of the industry and also to increase the number of citizens who would get served by the banks. Using the positive accounting theory the regulators main point was to reduce the political costs that are associated in the running of the financial markets (Bruns & Kaplan 1987 75). This would ensure that these companies reported numbers that would match as best as would be their true financial positions. This is by limiting the consideration that was given to the political costs associated with the running of financial companies. Financial players The financial players on the other hand later choose to change the accounting principles on the bonus plan hypothesis that is proposed by positive accounting theory (Bruns & Kaplan 1987 75). This is from the fact that at the turn of the century more and more banks choose to utilize bonuses as a way to pay their employee. This increased the incentive of the employees to actually produce results whether these results were short term or long term. This may have promoted the adoption of mark-to-market accounting that tends to improve the employee’s compensation in an environment where prices of assets are rising. Bank’s interest This may not be in the banks best interest as in the creation of these goals and the determination of the overall sustainability will rest with the financial institutions. This leads to the creation of an environment wh