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 gist of the article is basically right -- the reg framework seems to have held up and losses are going to be confined to maybe 2-5 banks. But it makes some pretty appalling mistakes on the way to that conclusion!
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
really giving a lot of credit to the banks here...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Footnote: model is run in excel and the guy who made left the bank 5 years ago and no one working there really knows how it works anymore
-
person 1: uh, the macro started crashing when I tried to run it and I get an output person 2: try making some random changes to get it to output something, we need a number by 3pm
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.