5 ms·
FWIW that apartment in Oslo probably costs around $5M by itself. He also has several other properties around the country in the same price range. I would not be
by semi-extrinsic 8y ago
FWIW that apartment in Oslo probably costs around $5M by itself. He also has several other properties around the country in the same price range. I would not be surprised if he owns real estate worth $20M+. Official numbers say close to $100M taxable income in 2017.
- kzrdude 8y agoAnd still, personal bankruptcy is waiting for him now. I'm curious what kind of impairment (none? or tilt or insomnia or worse?) lead him to be this reckless, that he could lose more than what he invested.
- user5994461 8y agoIt's leveraged. The gain or loss is a multiple of the difference, not necessarily linked to the initial sum. He was probably betting a few millions on what appeared to be a relatively safe trade, then a rare succession of events lead to a 1:100 ratio in the other way.
- kzrdude 8y agoThat's not an excuse for engaging in a trade where one can lose that much. Both the investor and market should ensure there is an upper limit for what can be lost. The market to protect itself (since it or the the insurance mechanism lost > $100 million in this case).
- mortehu 8y agoYou can't set an upper limit for what can be lost unless you force other traders to buy what a short seller is covering. Non-deliverable futures markets with no shorts are not possible, and it isn't practical to make every futures contract deliverable.
- Dylan16807 8y agoThe price of electricity is only going to go so high, though. Without leverage, it's vastly harder to lose all your money on a short, because the asset has to double in price. In this case, the spread peaked at about 38:56. Without leverage he'd be down 10 or 20 percent.