[threedots]

If they bought in at 10 and sold between 50-100 if they owned 14% of the free float they would have lost 0.5-1bn. That assumes they didn't increase exposure as the price went up and it ignores the borrow cost.

They then lost a bunch of money on options the exact amount of which we don't know. They also lost a whole bunch of money on other positions going against them which we don't know but can guess at.

To get to a 3bn loss (which btw is just a guessed number based on how much new capital they took)you probably only need to assume they are down around 10% on the rest of the short book (ex GME) which under the circumstances is entirely plausible. That assumes they run something like 200% gross exposure with an evenly balanced book with 12.5bn aum.

I'm not sure where the conspiracy is here. 3bn is a huge number to lose in a week but it looks roughly right given what happened and it's not exactly unprecedented either.

[adriancr]

This is what I don't get, they are a hedge fund, even balanced book as you say, 200% gross exposure.

By your calculations they lost 0.5-1b from GME. That means 2b from somewhere else in the market.

Questions I'd have:

- even balanced book in my mind means they hedge risk and shouldn't lose across the board 30% in a week otherwise they are incompetent... and they seem far from that.

- with that in mind, how would they lose 2b in the rest of the market?, that means they dont hedge properly.

- As for GME, they didnt do proper risk management but that seems the only place they got blindsided. (Still surprising they had no insurance for a short squeeze...)

- Overall the stated losses were 30% of portfolio in a week... with only GME moving... you can see why I assume it was more then 14% and your logic seems flawed.