82,892
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[ | In the months leading up to March 2021, [[Archegos|Archegos Capital Management]] took [[Synthetic equity swap|synthetic]] positions [[Margin loan|on margin]] on a handful of comparatively [[Illiquidity|illiquid]] stocks — ViacomCBS, Tencent Music, Baidu and Vipshop — in sizes that, across multiple [[prime broker]]s, were big enough to move the market sharply up. As the stocks appreciated, so did Archegos’ profit, and thus the [[net equity]] it held with its [[prime broker]]s. [[Archegos]] used that [[net equity]] to double down, buying the same stocks, pushing them up yet ''further''. The higher they went, the thinner their trading volume, and the more of the market [[Archegos]] represented. | ||
Now, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but really there was only one way this was ever going to turn out. | |||
On 22 March, [[Archegos]]’ position in Viacom had a gross [[market value]] of US$5.1bn.<ref>{{credit suisse archegos report}}</ref> In a cruel irony, Viacom interpreted this to mean market sentiment was so strong that it should take the opportunity to raise capital.<ref>As it was a [[Synthetic equity swap|synthetic]] position, Viacom may not have realised that Archegos was the only buyer in town: if it had, it may never have tried to raise capital in the first place.</ref> Alas, no one was buying. Not even Archegos, since it was tapped out of equity with its [[prime broker]]s. | |||
Viacom’s capital raising therefore failed, and [[Archegos|all hell broke loose]]. |