I think it’s a big deal to learn from the experience of others. Also clarify that I am not an expert in the American financial system crisis (or should I say world ) And does not pretend to be either. The first question we must ask is whether these institutions had a clear understanding of the risks of your business and when I say I say institutions not only companies but also regulators, because the regulator is in the case of the financial industry (banking, insurance , pension funds, etc.) and health has to provide for measures to stop being profitable businesses assuming a reasonable level of risk. Say you should allow it to move in a bounded range of options that are not harmful to the economy overall. The truth is, I think that is the fundamental problem.In my humble opinion, neither regulators nor the financial institutions understand the risk they ran, because otherwise we would not have fallen into the same 150 years companies like Lehman Brothers. To get an idea on Lehman’s leverage was 34 to 1, meaning that if its business portfolio was devalued by more than 3 only, as he ate the whole capital. However, in a normal situation with a diversified portfolio that was not critical because not everybody would deny credit (Lehman was financed with short-term loans). In a market where creditors do not want to renew the credit and portfolio value plummets, then there is no solution or salvation. That issue is the fault of the regulator should not allow leverage size. Besides obviously reckless administration that paid above their CEO 80 million a year for the past two years and 500 million in his 10 years with the company.The truth is that I think blended for less than 10 million and did I settled in just one year later to devote myself to enjoy, but unfortunately I was not in the short list for the post ) If any reader of the blog makes me a serious proposal in this regard, I am willing to consider it ) and if the number indicated you can count on my approval, you see, if I have the easy ) I think another problem in this aspect is to some extent the fault of those who work in competitive intelligence and executives obviously. Why do I say this because the problem is systemic, ie covering a good number of banks. If it were only one or save it or let it melt and ready, all quiet. Now, if we think why is systemic, I think that has to do with benchmarking, one of the favorite techniques of IC analysts.We all like to win easy money on Wall Street and further suppose that, then seeing that the mortgage was good money, surely the banks began to copy each others via benchmarking and enter the mortgage business. Moreover, some Europeans and Asians saw the same vein, and probably thought if these Americans are doing so much money at it why not us And so they built the biggest problem because it became global. When systemic solution must also be systemic and have a fairly high cost. New York Lehman had an early warning department headed by Jami Miscik, a former head of the CIA. For a detailed CV is available http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune archive/2007/07/23/100134938/index.htm who had had failures in 11/09 / and weapons of Iraqi WMD.And he was looking the other way, and which was devoted to assess geopolitical risks.