I'm not seeing the market manipulation unless it's some quirk of the formal definition rather than the informal meaning of the term?<p>I was under the impression that he had an old fashioned value play, levered up to the moon using total return swap (these do have real uses) which blew up on him.<p>Unless he deliberately mislead his brokers should was it illegal?
I'd like to meet Bill Hwang and ask, "What the heck were you thinking?"<p>All those paper profits would have to be converted into real money at some point, and the massive sales would have dampened the share prices, negating the point in the first place.<p>He was trading like a WSB subscriber but with actual billions in capital. From what is known publicly, the guy lived frugally and wasn't a status or prestige chaser. He seems more like someone with an excessive risk appetite who got in over his head.<p>I also find it interesting that Bill Hwang amassed over $30 billion, and no one would have known if his family office hadn't fallen apart. This makes me wonder how many Wall Street billionaires are hiding in plain sight, only known by industry peers.
I know it's an irrelevant aside, but can I just say, since the article decides to lead with it, that the painting created from his vision is utterly underwhelming. How you could take such a vision and turn it into something so mundane is beyond me. I almost wonder if it's just the classic money laundering through painting valuatiom shtick.