Someone Must Have Benefitted from Societe Generale's Trading Loss

Jrme Kerviel was a rogue trader at Societe Generale (SG). His trades cost the firm about $7.2B. However, there must have been a myriad of companies that profited from these trades. I would think
that there were, let's say for argument's sake, that 1000 companies saved about $7,200 (or increased their earnings by this same amount). If my hypothesis is correct, than which companies profited? It seems that the markets punished share prices when *ONE* company lost billions of dollars, but they did *NOT* reward as much the shares of the many companies that profited by a few millions here and there. Another words: The reduction in market capitalization of SG < The aggregate gains of all the companies which profited from these rogue dealings. Please clarify and enrich us with questions/comments.
Another words, I'm trying to figure out if, overall, the economic ecosystem neither profited or suffered from this big fiasco (is there a conservation of economic benefits)? Did all those companies earn a bit from that $7.2B at the expense of SG? If so, was their earnings greater than the losses suffered by SG?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not necessarily.
Consider what what has happened with the big drop in the DOW or S&P lately. There has been a massive loss in value for almost everyone of trillions of bucks. A few may have profited, most obvious short sellers, but that doesnt affect the nett loss of trillions of bucks overall. That loss didnt end up in anyone's pocket.

You'd be wrong. You're ignoring the nett loss in the value of the market.

It isnt.

In theory those who shorted the market. But that doesnt mean that they made a nett profit themselves, most of them just didnt lose as much as the worst losers did.

That isnt what happened either. What actually happened is that it became clear that the market had dropped so substantially that it was possible for SG to lose that much money when it did, and that made plenty wonder how many other operations had lost even more money, but just hadnt fessed up to losing that yet.

Many of the operations that did make some money out of SG's fiasco arent even listed companys.

Because there was a massive nett loss in value of listed securitys.

Just how many of you are there between those ears ?

Corse there was a nett loss in the value of listed securitys.

Nope, because there was a massive nett loss in the value of listed securitys.

Nope, just not as great as what SG lost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You made a good point. However, even a stock trader can trade a share of some DOW FUTURES for $5000, which implies that she/he feels that the value of the Dow would be 5000 at some point in the future. Let's assume that the "point in the future" is actually 1 business day. Intuitively, you and I know that there is no way that our Dow Jones, currently at over 8,000 will crash to 5,000.
Therefore, I'd buy the hell out of this FUTURES CONTRACT AND SELL TOMORROW, AND I'D PROFIT THE DIFFERENCE OF OVER $3,000.
If you fill your car's tank of gas with 15 gallons of gas, and the proprietor of that gas station only charged you $0.30, as opposed to $30.00, *YOU* - the CAR OWNER - has profited to the detriment of the gas station.


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Particularly if short selling is banned as it is in some markets, there arent necessarily any that make a profit at all, everyone loses, some more than others.

Yes. But if no one chose to do that, there isnt necessarily anyone who profited form the SG loss.

Yes, but in practice futures arent bought like that, so its just an academic possibility.

Futures dont work like that.

Yes, but thats irrelevant to your SG question.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.