Home Economics Archegos Debacle - No, Greater Regulation Won't Help

Archegos Debacle – No, Greater Regulation Won’t Help



In the aftermath of the Archegos implosion we’re seeing a revival of that old mistake about markets. If only there were more regulation then things would be better. Here it’s that hedge funds won;t blow up if only there’s more openness about positions:

The blowup of Archegos Capital Management is spurring calls for tougher regulation of the shadowy swap trades that fueled billions of dollars of losses at global investment banks.

Former regulators and financial-reform advocates say one rule change, in particular, could have prevented the debacle: requiring greater disclosures of the bets that investors such as Archegos place on companies using swaps.

What killed Archegos wasn’t secrecy so openness wouldn’t have saved it. Taking large – and bad – bets with leverage is what killed it. As the proposal isn’t to restrict leverage – nor, of course, bad bets – then this suggested more regulation wouldn’t have changed things.

Total return swaps are brokered by Wall Street banks. They provide investors with exposure to the profits or losses of stocks or other assets, without the investor actually holding the underlying shares. Archegos’s strategy backfired in recent weeks after ViacomCBS and other stocks sold off. Mr. Hwang’s firm was unable to meet its obligations to its banking partners, which in turn liquidated large chunks of stock they had amassed to underpin the trades. Among the banks now facing steep losses are Credit Suisse Group AG and Nomura Holdings Inc.

By using swaps, sophisticated investors can sidestep requirements to disclose big stakes in companies.

So? The bankers to Archegos already knew that they were making such large and leveraged bets. They were financing them after all. Further, if swaps can’t be used the futures can be, plain old trading on margin can be. I can probably get 5 times leverage just on Robin Hood and no one seems to be saying that Archegos was much more leveraged than that.

What we’re really seeing here is that old delusion that regulation can make markets either perfect or less volatile. You know, especially if we put the right people in charge.

Doesn’t work that way, just doesn’t.



  1. Don’t know the background, but what “societal harm” are they worried about here? If the people investing in/running Archegos lost big money, why FFS do we need to do anything at all?

    Is there some supposed third party harm here?

  2. Is there some supposed third party harm here?
    On the contrary surely there must have been some third party benefit? The billions lost presumably don’t just disappear into thin air so somebody has made a killing hoovering up those billions.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

Big Meat Is The Next Enemy After Big Oil

We would, perhaps, hope for a little more logical ability among those who write the newspapers and news sites for us. Take this example...

In Praise Of Benign, Even Helpful, Beneficial, Tax Competition

Richard Murphy tells us that it is not possible for there to be anything other than harmful tax competition. All such competition must, by...

If Women Working Causes Inflation Then Women Must Be Less Productive Workers Than Men

Over at Politico there is the assertion that one reason for past inflation was that women joined the workforce. If there are more people...

The Point Of Inventions Is To Be Able To Use Them, Not Sell Them

This is a common complaint about the British economy, that we can invent things but don;t then go on to make fortunes out of...

An Interesting Method Of Avoiding Tax Rises – Just Borrow

Those progressives over at American Prospect, it is possible to wonder whether they've quite got the basics of how the economy works at times. So,...

Recent comments