Compare that with the NINJA loans handed out by every other major financial institution, where the motivation was not to serve the community but to make as much money as possible and leave others holding the bag. It seems to me that, the crux of the difference between what Abacus did and what big banks did is that Abacus' clients were Chinese immigrants who lived and work in a cash economy, and so fudging on loan docs was not to reap a profit - as demonstrated by the fact that the loans are still performing, at least according to the post-script in the film. It feels like it would help the argument to have omitted this question of ethics.Really well-done and engaging documentary. While this is also true, it places a question if there was some knowledge (plus additional pushing of the different perspective on banks by the Chinese people Abacus serves). The bank (according to the filmmakers) followed the correct procedures and reported the fraud when they learned of it, but through the telling of the movie, this unintentionally gets muddied a little into “no one got harmed and the loans actually had a lower level of default”. The debate of the film comes under who knew what and if the bank was intentionally defrauding the government (especially involving Sallie Mae). The prosecutors aren’t portrayed in the best light and the better portrayal is by the female juror who presents both why she felt the Sungs were guilty in some aspects and why she voted not guilty to the charges…a telling interview with the prosecutors however shows an extreme misunderstanding of the law in that she says they aren’t voted “innocent”…as the law stands, they are and that needs to be remembered. It is a very pro-Sung family documentary and helps vindicate them, so it can’t be argued that it is an entirely balanced documentary as a result. The movie shows how the family interacts with a community that doesn’t trust banks and how that influences the loaning aspect of the story. The movie is about a bank but it is largely about the Sung family who own and run the bank. Abacus: Small Enough to Jail (a play on the saying “Too large to fail” when used to describe the banking system at the time) is a nice flip side and tells the bank’s story. In the post credits, it is mentioned that only one bank was charged…this is that bank. It was scary and funny at the same time and showed what went wrong with the financial crisis. The Big Short was an interesting look at the crisis in 2008. The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. It was aired on PBS on Frontline on September 12, 2017. The documentary premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and was received positively. As the court battle rages on, Abacus must prove its innocence and failure to do that could destroy a family and the bank’s clients.ĭirected by Steve James, Abacus: Small Enough to Jail is a documentary focusing on a court case following the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. The Sung family discovers that they are fighting a war that could not only determine they’re bank’s future but the future of their clients and the community. The small family owned Abacus Federal Savings Bank located in Manhattan’s Chinatown finds itself charged with fraud and other criminal actions. The loan system leads to the financial crisis of 2008, and one bank is charged.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |