Why won't they correct course? How stubborn is Asness? Do their managing partners have any say? Amazing.
AQR losses deepen
-
This is what happens when a firm deleverages: they have losses across many/all of their trading books. Funny how most firms love it when they are getting into trades and they effectively mark their own positions up -- but are shocked (shocked!) to learn that price impact cuts both ways.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
-
AQR needs to create a Super PAC for Warren to salvage their shorts
Huh? The stock market is doing great- record highs. How can you not be making money in this environment.
They have been shorting the market again and again and again. Still short.
AQR needs to create a SuperPAC for Warren then
-
Couldn’t understand this comment. Are you saying that because they are leveraged, their losses are higher compared to if they were not leveraged?
This is what happens when a firm deleverages: they have losses across many/all of their trading books. Funny how most firms love it when they are getting into trades and they effectively mark their own positions up -- but are shocked (shocked!) to learn that price impact cuts both ways.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving person. -
Couldn’t understand this comment. Are you saying that because they are leveraged, their losses are higher compared to if they were not leveraged?
This is what happens when a firm deleverages: they have losses across many/all of their trading books. Funny how most firms love it when they are getting into trades and they effectively mark their own positions up -- but are shocked (shocked!) to learn that price impact cuts both ways.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
Not exactly. Many firms have some leverage whether though repo, swaps, or their prime broker. That's not what the term means, exactly. Deleveraging is when a firm reduces risk and moves to cash. Their trading depresses prices of what they still own (either because they haven't sold completely or because of correlations). That may trigger them to hold more capital, post more margin, or sell further. (Worse: it can cause other firms to also do these things.)
Now, if the firm uses leverage, then yes the losses are worse than if they do not use leverage. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a firm that isn't leveraged in some way, especially if they have any short positions or repo securities out to keep more cash on hand. (Ostensibly, they need that cash.) Nonetheless, "deleveraging" is just a not-so-well-named term for reducing risk.
-
I still don’t get it...
Couldn’t understand this comment. Are you saying that because they are leveraged, their losses are higher compared to if they were not leveraged?
This is what happens when a firm deleverages: they have losses across many/all of their trading books. Funny how most firms love it when they are getting into trades and they effectively mark their own positions up -- but are shocked (shocked!) to learn that price impact cuts both ways.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
Not exactly. Many firms have some leverage whether though repo, swaps, or their prime broker. That's not what the term means, exactly. Deleveraging is when a firm reduces risk and moves to cash. Their trading depresses prices of what they still own (either because they haven't sold completely or because of correlations). That may trigger them to hold more capital, post more margin, or sell further. (Worse: it can cause other firms to also do these things.)
Now, if the firm uses leverage, then yes the losses are worse than if they do not use leverage. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a firm that isn't leveraged in some way, especially if they have any short positions or repo securities out to keep more cash on hand. (Ostensibly, they need that cash.) Nonetheless, "deleveraging" is just a not-so-well-named term for reducing risk. -
Not exactly. Many firms have some leverage whether though repo, swaps, or their prime broker. That's not what the term means, exactly. Deleveraging is when a firm reduces risk and moves to cash. Their trading depresses prices of what they still own (either because they haven't sold completely or because of correlations). That may trigger them to hold more capital, post more margin, or sell further. (Worse: it can cause other firms to also do these things.)
Now, if the firm uses leverage, then yes the losses are worse than if they do not use leverage. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a firm that isn't leveraged in some way, especially if they have any short positions or repo securities out to keep more cash on hand. (Ostensibly, they need that cash.) Nonetheless, "deleveraging" is just a not-so-well-named term for reducing risk.What's so difficult to understand about this logic? Perhaps you should stick with reg y x, robust empirical corp fin reg monkey bro.
-
Did you consider the possibility that your deleveraging argument doesn’t make sense at all or you are entirely incomprehensible?
Not exactly. Many firms have some leverage whether though repo, swaps, or their prime broker. That's not what the term means, exactly. Deleveraging is when a firm reduces risk and moves to cash. Their trading depresses prices of what they still own (either because they haven't sold completely or because of correlations). That may trigger them to hold more capital, post more margin, or sell further. (Worse: it can cause other firms to also do these things.)
Now, if the firm uses leverage, then yes the losses are worse than if they do not use leverage. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a firm that isn't leveraged in some way, especially if they have any short positions or repo securities out to keep more cash on hand. (Ostensibly, they need that cash.) Nonetheless, "deleveraging" is just a not-so-well-named term for reducing risk.What's so difficult to understand about this logic? Perhaps you should stick with reg y x, robust empirical corp fin reg monkey bro.