I agree they shifted to avoid the reporting requirement but I don't believe they did that cynically to manipulate prices, mainly because it's unclear to me that

I agree they shifted to avoid the reporting requirement but I don't believe they did that cynically to manipulate prices, mainly because it's unclear to me that anyone has suggested a possible exit from their positions that made them any money. Archegos is a family office, so it's not fees. It's not generally possible to make a profit pushing the price up by buying as the price will collapse faster than you pushed it up. (Absent external demand as in a pump and dump.) I suspect the intent behind the position disclosure is so control is disclosed, not economic exposure. The design of the regulatory system in the US is that you're either regulated and thus have a lot of responsibility and reporting requirements, but you get better access to the market (Archegos's brokers); or you're 'unregulated' and have less (but access the market through a regulated company). Also you don't usually get different margin treatment through TRS than you would through normal ownership. If you do, your prime broker is doing something stupid. Your TRS is a contract with them, they tend to just go buy the shares to hedge so it's usually exactly the same as buying your long through them (except you can't vote your shares, you don't get dividends and you can't lend your shares).