I'm not sure that is really underlining too many "sleezy" things happening, though? Honestly reads more of "regional bank caters heavily to region it is in" to me.
And some of the numbers are high looking in this, but it literally states "its $9.5 billion fund," when the article here is talking about how it had 100+ billion in bonds. Which were deemed safe.
Let that sink in. Yes, they had 9 billion they were investing. But they had over 120 billion sunk in "safe" bonds. That is, the 9 billion was /supposed/ to be the risky part of their portfolio. Yes, they probably took some excess risk there. But that is definitively not the risk that tanked them. And any complaints in that direction is a side show that has virtually nothing to do with what happened. Unless you want to say they weren't doing it enough.
And some of the numbers are high looking in this, but it literally states "its $9.5 billion fund," when the article here is talking about how it had 100+ billion in bonds. Which were deemed safe.
Let that sink in. Yes, they had 9 billion they were investing. But they had over 120 billion sunk in "safe" bonds. That is, the 9 billion was /supposed/ to be the risky part of their portfolio. Yes, they probably took some excess risk there. But that is definitively not the risk that tanked them. And any complaints in that direction is a side show that has virtually nothing to do with what happened. Unless you want to say they weren't doing it enough.