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 …
-
Show this thread
-
Like given the fund went from $10-15bn to ~$0 in like a week, without a major event or liquidity crisis, I would probably say it was overly levered?
3 replies 0 retweets 43 likesShow this thread -
There is a *massive* difference between a quant equity book (carefully hedged to sector, country and factor exposures) which can run 10-15x leverage and still be pretty low volatility vs. levered 5x long in concentrated shitcos "hedged" with index futures
2 replies 3 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
This is particularly awful. If you have a concentrated long book in stocks which are broadly all in the same sector, and you hedge that with index futures ... that is a bad hedge! You are taking a fuckload of risk if you do that!pic.twitter.com/zeyB2xxGKE
4 replies 3 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
Don't worry though they have "sophisticated quantitative models"pic.twitter.com/nDZmS66cTv
3 replies 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread
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!
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.