
http://www.tpbjc.gov.cn/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=44936
不讲信托责任导致金融危机
著名经济学家、香港中文大学首席教授郎咸平昨日在成都进行演讲,他指出“美国金融危机的原因是不讲信托责任”,同时向中国企业家建议搞好“6+1”产业链整合,做好“越冬”的准备。
郎咸平开宗明义地说:“美国金融危机的真正原因,是一批市场参与者,尤其是美国的投资银行,只看钱不讲信托责任。”“资本主义的灵魂叫做信托责任,只有在信托责任的基础上,搞市场化,才可以创造价值。这次金融危机的真正原因,是违背了资本主义的灵魂,不讲信托责任所造成的,而不是缺乏监管。”“病去如抽丝。预计欧美经济要逐渐走向萧条,慢慢才会恢复起来。”
(translate by Google
Well-known economist and professor of the University of Hong Kong Chinese Lang give a speech yesterday in Chengdu, he pointed out that "the U.S. financial crisis is a fiduciary duty do not speak," while Chinese entrepreneurs are recommended to do a good job "6 +1" Industry Chain Integration do a good job, "winter" preparation.
Lang started by saying: "The U.S. financial crisis, the real reason is that a number of market participants, especially the United States investment bank, a look at the money do not speak fiduciary duty." "The soul of capitalism, known as fiduciary duty, and only in the trust responsibility, based on a market-oriented before they can create value. the financial crisis, the real reason for this is contrary to the spirit of capitalism, do not speak as a result of fiduciary responsibility, rather than lack of supervision. "" sick to go, such as snag . Europe and the United States economy is expected to gradually move toward recession, will recover slowly. ")
This is the Chinese comments from Chinese economist about the reason of this crysis.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/10/what-caused-the.html
An article in the NY Times, "Pressured to Take on Risk, Fannie Hit a Tipping Point," is causing many people to wonder if Fannie and Freddie caused the financial crisis.
First, let me clarify the question. We are asking what caused the housing bubble, and, by definition, the cause cannot be explained by changes in an underlying market fundamental. I don't mean that we can't point to, say, a rumor that led to a rapid increase in the price of some good as speculators rush in, just that bubbles - by definition - are divorced from market fundamentals.
I think a more interesting question is what sets the stage for a bubble to emerge - what allows the rumor, irrational exuberance, etc., to express itself as a bubble? One thing that is needed is liquidity and credit, some way of substantially increasing demand. This is the air that inflates the bubble. Even if all the other conditions for a bubble to emerge are present, if there is no way to inflate the bubble - no way for speculators to rush in and drive up the price - then it won't inflate.
We already know that there was enough available liquidity to inflate a housing bubble. So something went wrong in these markets that allowed the bubble to emerge and then pop, and this is causing us immense problems right now, but what was it?
I think the most important factors are agency problems, the mis-pricing of risk, and the failure of securitization to distribute risks across the financial system.
The mis-pricing and mal-distribution of risk played a key role here (along with poor management decisions in cases where alarms were raised). The agency issues above, and the consequences of the failure to predict and distribute risk are much more important than any moral hazard issues arising from the implicit government guarantee granted to Fannie and Freddie.
Institutions in the shadow banking sector were willing to take large volumes of risky loans as they came up through the system. Why?
The people at the top of this complex chain did not fully understand the risks the were assuming when they took on the subprime business, or, rather, when they took on the complex securities derived from the subprime business. When the bubble popped, it shouldn't have been a big problem if the risk assessment models they relied upon had been correct, and if securitization had distributed the risk as promised. As Brad DeLong notes:
Fundamentally, then, it was the agency problems and the failure of risk prediction and distribution models that allowed the bubble to inflate and then cause big problems after it popped. But back to Fannie and Freddie. The willingness of the non-traditional banking sector - the shadow banking system - to take on these risky assets and still pay investors a relatively high return put tremendous pressure on Fannie and Freddie to follow suit. And their response was unwise - Fannie and Freddie followed the shadow banking sector downward. There is lots to fault in the behavior of Fannie and Freddie and in government oversight of them - the decisions of management, the lobbying efforts that were funded by their ability to extract a premium from the implicit government guarantee - all of this was a big problem. The bubble, and later the financial crisis expressed itself in these institutions, and they may have also contributed to it to some extent as they took on more risky securities when their business began to go elsewhere. But the agency issues and the failures of risk models and securitization would have created problems in the largely unregulated shadow banking sector even if these two institutions had taken on nothing but the safest of mortgages. The bubble still would have inflated in the shadow banking system - maybe it's a little smaller, I don't know - but it still would have been large enough to cause big problems when it burst. The best behavior of Fannie and Freddie would not have been enough to stop the bubble from inflating in other parts of the financial sector, and then turning into a full fledged financial crisis as housing prices plunged.
The problems we are having were caused when lots of available liquidity rushed past the checks and balances that proper agency provides in pursuit of promises that risk models and complex securities did not deliver. The unexpected losses alone might not have caused a crisis had the losses been widely distributed, but, the losses were concentrated and hidden in ways that created widespread fear and threatened the entire system. Getting rid of that fear is not going to be easy.
this is the English edition about reason of crysis by the famous magazine "The economist"
Compare whit two .
The main different is first article indicate the greedy and lace of trust responseblity is root reason of this crysis.
second one analyze the risk management system is the problem cause in lots of huge mistake which could not make up any more before the crysis erupted.