Article seems to be wrong on several major points? • "The fund was not overly levered" • "Its risk was not hidden" • "Hwang typically ran dollar-neutral portfolios" • "Analysts had full insight into Archegos’ ... position sizes"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-30/wall-street-archegos-collapse-is-business-as-usual-not-a-disaster …
-
-
The article reads like a “dont worry, nothing to see here” when there is clearly something to see here. Huge one day drops in liquid large cap stocks shouldnt warrant merely a “meh”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think the results speak for themselves
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
phew I thought I was taking crazy pills reading that last night Like can you imagine what an insane position they'd have to have for risk staff to even consider approaching management about cutting them (the client) off? It's non existent (unless it's in the contract)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.