Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Shit happens and even the smartest people can get fucked, just look at the LTCM blow up. So of course it's possible.

It's impossible to eliminate all risk, regardless of the leverage ratio. I'm just saying that leverage isn't a reasonable proxy for risk. You have to dig deeper.



sort by: page size:

That's what leverage is for (and if it goes wrong you end up like LTCM).

10x leverage is never 1x risk.

More leverage should equal more risk. You shouldn't be saved just because you took too much risk. That's how it's supposed to work!

20x leverage = 20x return, but also 20x risk.

Well, possibly, but if you genuinely think that then you can never achieve anything other than complaining on message boards and hodling US treasury bonds. Everything has risks and it's a question of enumerating them and deciding how and whether to manage them.

It’s not if it leverages the risk.

It is possible but very costly. There is no point in spending that much for tail risks.

Well I think we're in such uncharted territory here that it would be difficult to trust any risk model, so just increasing the margin may be hard to get right.

There’s no such thing, there’s just varying degrees of risk vs leverage.

That really is the key question isn't it? I can see some ways out of that and some sets of companies (not many) where that would be the case but it's going to be hard to turn them around once they reach that stage. Maximum risk = maximum potential gain, it's never been any different.

One needs to be sensible. Purely speculative. Ready to loose, high risk.

If that is meant to be a joke, it’s actually quite funny. Good job.

If you meant that seriously, it’s extremely poor quality advice. Leverage is neither free nor cheap. And taking 100% leverage is obscenely risky. Your characterization of it as ‘risk free’ is the most dangerous part. At 100% leverage, small swings could lead to calls you simply cannot afford.


I think you're missing the point, of course in an ideal situation where risk is minimized that would be a good question. But by focusing on money I think you neglected to address the obvious point that I raised namely what if it blows up.

Leverage by its definition is scary. As you said increased risk/reward...

$X,XXX,XXX - 50% chance of 1.2x, 50% chance of 0.8x - not so scary

$X,XXX,XXX - 1% chance of 50x, 99% chance of $0 - scary

Its only not scary if you have an infinite amount of money and infinite number of rolls of the dice.


There was nothing fundamentally wrong with LTCM's business model, or with writing puts. Where they failed was in their execution - they underestimated the risk of fat-tails, and the level of correlation between different securities.

There are lots of cases where we do things that could potentially be catastrophic, but we do them anyway because the risk-reward justifies it. For example, going on a road trip instead of sitting at home and watching TV. The upside of going on a road trip is bounded (fun holiday) but the downside is catastrophic (deadly car crash). If we avoided every single activity that involved catastrophic risk, our lives would be far worse.


Have you tried that advice at Melvin?

Size of the market doesn't change the risk you carry of wrong assumptions. Have LTCM if you want another spectacular failure of risk management with wrong assumptions like these. There's plenty more when you're done with that one.


Of course it would be easy if operating in the market provided an existential risk to the company.

If you have leverage and don't use it because you're afraid you'll lose leverage... you don't really have any leverage.

This is a very risky move, considering how leveraged the company already is.
next

Legal | privacy