ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
67% Positive
Analyzed from 247 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#sharks#market#street#trading#assets#citadel#correct#leverage#position#stock

Discussion (5 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
The theory being is that SA not only had 4x leverage, but telegraphed their position, and the real sharks smelled the chum in the water, and then got their fill?
I think the truth is really that being 4x leverage in the long term is just bad decision making as the stock market is volatile and the "sharks" (Citadel) know this and know that you didn't hedge the volatility (you showed them your books previously) and decided just to wait for you to finish hanging yourself. The difference being a lack of active action by the shark.
Just being 4x leveraged on risky bets is enough for even uncoordinated market factors to eat you, correct?
Is it fair to say that SA was in r/wsb territory, with a lot more of other people's money?
Now Jane Street has a $15B loss, thanks to SA by an ex-FTX employee.
Here we go again.
> The secretive Wall Street trading firm, however, has generated trading revenue of more than $40 billion year to date, one of the sources said, easily outstripping trading revenue at the largest banks and other market-making rivals