3 ms·
Indeed, I'm saying it's not the cost of if they do a bailout, it's the cost if they don't. Maybe I've overestimated the impact of a ~13bn fund evaporating and b
by motohagiography 6y ago
Indeed, I'm saying it's not the cost of if they do a bailout, it's the cost if they don't. Maybe I've overestimated the impact of a ~13bn fund evaporating and breaking a clearing house and the liquidity crunch from all their leverage and the linked derivatives. Not sure what hedge fund leverage is these days. Surely it can't be at 2008 levels. We know about Melvin, not sure about others in there.
As I interpret it, it's not clear what institutions have exposure to these at-risk funds and their leverage who are still short GME, and this is what causes liquidity problems. Not 2008 level, but could be Fed intervention level.
The admin can bail out those funds for a trivial line item by taking on the RH user shares. If they don't intervene, I'm suggesting this is the domino for a crunch.
- mathattack 6y agoThe Fed won’t step in if it’s 15 billion of one way bets. They care when the bets are leveraged and there’s a trillion dollar counterparty problem.