Template:Archegos goldman: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:Archegos goldman (view source)

Revision as of 09:30, 12 November 2021

3 bytes added , 12 November 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 “What kind of second sight, what extra-sensory perception, what gift, what compromising photographs of the Almighty must Goldman have to lead such a honeyed life? What does the [[Vampire Squid]] ''have'' over the Fates that we other mortal dealers do not?”
-Perhaps, I gingerly venture, ''nothing''? Perhaps it is as simple as this: ''Goldman didn’t have much risk on in the first place''. This may be prudent business selection; it may be that Goldman didn’t have much of a relationship with Archegos at all. According CS’s credit risk team in April 2020, “Archegos had disclosed that its long positions with CS were “representative” of the positions Archegos held with its six other prime brokers at the time (namely Morgan Stanley, Jefferies, Nomura, Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, and UBS).”
+Perhaps, I gingerly venture, ''nothing''? Perhaps it is as simple as this: ''Goldman didn’t have much risk on in the first place''. This may be prudent business selection; it may be that Goldman didn’t have much of a relationship with Archegos at all. According CS’s credit risk team in April 2020 — ten months before apocalypse — “Archegos had disclosed that its long positions with CS were “representative” of the positions Archegos held with its six other prime brokers at the time.”
-Notice anyone ''missing''?
+Those six brokers, listed in the report, ''do not include Goldman''.
-If this is right, then less than 12 months before ''Götterdämmerung'', Archegos ''wasn’t on Goldman’s books at all''. If, as it claimed, Archegos preferred to “leg into” positions ''pro rata'' across its [[prime broker]]s, then a very-late-to-the-party Goldman may not have had much Archegos risk on its book. And with little risk, similarly few revenues to forfeit. Without that long, deep, fearful, profitable client relationship, Goldman had less skin in the game, may have treated Archegos with less reverence than its peers, may have declined to put positions on in such a cavalier fashion, and then been less bothered about upsetting its customer by closing it out at the first sign of trouble. This is consistent with how, by all accounts, Goldman conducted its book during Archegos’ end game.
+If this is right, then less than a year before ''Götterdämmerung'', Archegos ''wasn’t on Goldman’s books at all''. If, as it claimed, Archegos preferred to “leg into” positions ''pro rata'' across its [[prime broker]]s, then a very-late-to-the-party prime broker would not have had much Archegos risk on its book. And with little risk, similarly few revenues to forfeit.
+Without a long, deep, fearful, profitable client relationship, a broker had less skin in the game, may have treated Archegos with less reverence than its peers, may have declined to put positions on in such a cavalier fashion, and then been less bothered about upsetting its customer by closing it out at the first sign of trouble. This is consistent with how, by all accounts, Goldman conducted its book during Archegos’ end game.