4 ms·
Matt Levine writes about this in his newsletter: https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-09-06/fed-rejects-bank-for-being-too-safe
by konschubert 8y ago
Matt Levine writes about this in his newsletter: https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-09-06/fed-rejects-bank-for-being-too-safe https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/artic...
BTW, it's a really great newsletter, always entertaining and has been teaching me a lot about the world of finance. His take on the Tesla scandal is hilarious.
- donavanm 8y agoStraying pretty far of off topic, but... in the trading house story why not just act as a market maker or counter party? Ignoring the fee structure and leverage the complaint appears to be that they simply took the deposits and did not actually make trades on behalf of the client. In a private exchange or trading house would it not be as effective for the house, or a “partner”, to selective meet the bid/ask based on the client account? Being generally ignorant Ill assume leaking counterparty information would also fall afoul of regulators?
- sah2ed 8y ago> His take on the Tesla scandal is hilarious. If you are curious as I was, here is the link: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-13/funding-for-elon-musk-s-tesla-buyout-wasn-t-so-secure https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-13/funding-f...
- konschubert 8y agoThat's not the one I meant, he's also talking about Tesla in his newsletter. Probably still worth reading.