Boring and misleading

Rating: 3/10 (2 April 2016)

This movie was incredibly boring. It also left out some rather important details regarding what fueled the housing crisis, including government backed loans, low interest rates and WHY there was a lack of financial oversight. The scene with the SEC character is misleading because the SEC doesn't regulate mortgage underwriting of commercial banks. It doesn't now and it never has. While the SEC regulated mortgage backed securities, it was primarily from a consumer protection standpoint.
The most misleading part was when the movie claimed that little has changed since the financial crisis in terms of regulatory oversight. Financial regulation has since changed significantly. Banks have to hold much more capital and are prohibited from many activities that were allowed during the financial crisis. I could spend an hour writing about what has changed since the financial crisis.
Also the banks didn't receive blank checks like many Americans tend to believe and this movie insinuates something similar. The bailout was in the forms of collateralized loans. As in the government took ownership of something the bank previously owned and gave the bank cash. Why? The assets that banks previously used for liquidity were tied up in a market that stopped functioning practically overnight. Over time the market started functioning again, banks repaid their loans and banks received their collateral back from the government.
That being said the movie was boring, especially from someone familiar with the products and industry.