Really? I thought that the salient point is the fact that he blew up before and the possibility that he blew up again. That largely tells me most of what I need to know. He quite possibly got in over his head -- again. For a market veteran to do so, that suggests to me that he is arrogant and egotistical. The finer details added by a team of forensic financial investigators won't add all that much value in my opinion. Of course, it would be good to know.
To each his own I guess. I learn nothing from the fact that he blew up twice. If it turns out that he blew up from arrogance and ego, and not [mis]management of risk, that will mean zero to me. FWIW, I know of some extraordinarily successful traders that have blown out two, three times, e.g., Bob Bright. It is not indicative of eventual success. nitro
Did he do so after he had become a profitable trader? (I really don't know, I'm asking.) And if so, then what, exactly, did you learn from that?
I see you're continuing the unfounded personal attacks when you see statements that call into question your fixed opinion. It's not a very nice trait. For your edification, "casting dispersion" is derived from the ancient spanish phrase "Castio Dispersionio " and it remains exactly what you are doing---metaphorically, of course I agree, its slang, but properly used, nonetheless. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Casting+Dispersions surf
Read your own link. It is "casting aspersions." Aspersions. Your reference is erroneous, Mr. Journalist. "Cast dispersions is an excellent example of a malapropism: using the wrong word through ignorance." http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cas2.htm Sounds like they know you.
have you considered that things may have changed or the information itself was provided in error?? hence the post was deleted...... surf
i don't agree. casting dispersions is used and is proper in this context--although creative--something you don't understand. you certainly are not casting aspersions.