[turingcompeteme]

But there are laws preventing a broker from lending you that money. The hearing cites the SEC net capital rules which Rentech and DB worked together to bypass. There are pages dedicated to how RenTech DB and Barclays knowingly and purposefully circumvented rules with some changing of terminology. Starts on page 79 [0].

I definitely should have been more clear with my original statements. Maybe something more along the lines of: at rentech's scale, using a margin account at a prime broker, you cannot leverage your firm 16x.

[0] https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/REPORT-Abuse%20of...

[JumpCrisscross]

I understand where you’re coming from. Let me, too, be more clear.

The Senate report is crap. Yes, Reg T and FINRA rules limit the loans B-Ds can provide clients. But leverage, for Reg T’s purposes, is constrained to lending. I can buy a 3x leveraged ETF [1] as a retail trader without violating Reg T. (With options, I could easily increase that leverage without borrowing.) All of this is not only permitted, but common.

Reg T does not exist to protect investors. It exists to keep broker-dealers from going bust from dud margin loans. (And thereby prompting a systemic crisis.)

The leverage RenTech took is in the non-lending and non-systemic (legal) category. The exposure that most closely puts RenTech in the lending bucket is the exposure Deutsche Bank carried on its balance sheet for tax purposes. (This tax avoidance was the core of the scandal.)

Long story short, unless you’re a politician, it doesn’t make sense to talk about RenTech’s illegal leverage. Lots of other market participants, by regular practice, are levered far more.

[1] https://etfdb.com/etf/TQQQ/

[turingcompeteme]

If a senate report causes issues for you, I don't think it's exactly crap. But I understand your point :) It also keeps mentioning Reg T which I agree is not relevant here. I was wrong to say that RenTech used illegal amounts of leverage, thanks for explaining that. I'm still not convinced it's wrong to say that RenTech worked with BDs to bypass rules that would have stopped them from using the leverage they did in the manner they did.

Was the leverage in the non-lending category though? Isn't that like saying their gains were long-term? That's the whole point of this, no? They used some different terminology to reclassify loans and taxes, in order to use more leverage and pay less tax than they normally would have.

I guess another way to put it: would there have been a way for RenTech to hold the same portfolio, using the same leverage, with the same payout characteristics, that no government agency would have issues with? Maybe the answer is yes, but I doubt it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> would there have been a way for RenTech to hold the same portfolio, using the same leverage, with the same payout characteristics, that no government agency would have issues with?

Yes, quite easily. In fact, highly-leveraged portfolios like the one RenTech held are an essential feature of market making, which was historically done using banks’ balance sheets. RenTech’s shenanigans were around tax. Everything else is commentary.

(On the Senate report, the whole thing isn’t crap. But that section is crap as in it’s written for political purposes and has limited bearing with respect to the law.)