[cmiles8]

You’re missing the core story which is that they don’t have a returns crisis they have a liquidity crisis. Finds don’t blow up because they have bad returns. Funds implode because they have no cash to cover their calls and other needs for cash.

[asats]

Nothing I wrote implies that I don't understand that distinction. What I'm saying is that despite this implosion he is still up ytd, so this liquidity crisis shouldn't be interpreted as him/his fund going bankrupt as many seem to want to read it.

[windexh8er]

But that's not what they want to see. They want to see that AI is a savior for all. The psychosis of what AI is, especially in these comment walls, is unfortunately and spectacularly real.

Anyone who's done any amount of investment can see this through the lens of history and I'm right there with you. This is the Lehman Brothers stage of the game and SA could be that "one". But Bro, we're still up 80%! - even WSB isn't filled with this level of ignorance.

[alyeska2]

I don't understand what you're arguing here.

A fund went up 400% by making a few highly leveraged, concentrated bets. The market moved against its leveraged positions and it was forced to quickly sell to a rival fund, at only an 80% profit.

Nothing about that is meaningfully the same as Lehman Brothers other than the most superficial aspect of "A financial thing went down fast"

[windexh8er]

You made an account and this is your first comment? C'mon.

[asats]

Honestly I have no idea what you are even replying to. My comment was essentially "The fund bet big and lost, but don't read it as him going bankrupt" as I saw many people interpret it that way.

I find the emotional charge in your message quite strange, and the "psychosis" might be you projecting something.