4 ms·
This distinction between hedge fund and family office is of no use here. His fund was only a family office in that it didn't take money from investors. It opera
by dopamean 5y ago
This distinction between hedge fund and family office is of no use here. His fund was only a family office in that it didn't take money from investors. It operated just like a hedge fund and was not free of any rules that would have prevented this loss from happening had it been officially recognized as a hedge fund.
- valuearb 5y agoBy your definition a retail investor is no different than a hedge fund.
- grey-area 5y agoThere is less oversight for family offices isn't there? The SEC is thinking of introducing more regulation as a result of this on both HFs and FOs. Perhaps you are saying swaps or other instruments he used are not regulated anyway even for HFs, but perhaps they should be? I find it suspicious that he went from fraud in a hedge fund Tiger Asia involving manipulated prices and insider trading (for which he was convicted) to a less regulated family office using things like swaps which avoid oversight, and which he then proceeded to blow up with excessive leverage (and possibly other illegal shenanigans to manipulate prices), using instruments which avoid oversight on stock positions, most likely using leverage he obtained by lying to banks about his exposure - I sincerely doubt the multiple brokers were aware of just how much exposure he had and how concentrated it was, and they all raced to call it in when they found out. I'd be very surprised if there were no illegal activity there which would not have been caught by increased oversight, though of course it is now in nobody's interest to look into that too closely.