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

The Bit That Robert Lighthizer Doesn’t Get

It's right here in the opening sentence of his piece in the New York Times: The Senate recently passed a bill intended to bolster America’s...

Brexit Brings Us Cheap Wine

There's a long way to go on this but this is indeed a start: The U.K. government said it will scrap a piece of planned...

Some At The Post Office Should Be Facing Significant Jail Time

Whether it's just a few or the many still remains to be worked out but there are definitely those at the Post Office who...

Another Beautiful Theory Destroyed By A Mere Fact

Apparently, so we're told, crime is soaring in the United States. But that's OK, we know the reason why. We even know what to...

Idiots – US Life Expectancy Hasn’t Fallen In The Slightest

It's important - actually, vital in both meanings here - to know what is being measured and how in order to understand what the...

Recent comments