If they bought in at 10 and sold between 50-100 if they owned 14% of the free float they would have lost 0.5-1bn. That assumes they didn't increase exposure as the price went up and it ignores the borrow cost.
They then lost a bunch of money on options the exact amount of which we don't know. They also lost a whole bunch of money on other positions going against them which we don't know but can guess at.
To get to a 3bn loss (which btw is just a guessed number based on how much new capital they took)you probably only need to assume they are down around 10% on the rest of the short book (ex GME) which under the circumstances is entirely plausible. That assumes they run something like 200% gross exposure with an evenly balanced book with 12.5bn aum.
I'm not sure where the conspiracy is here. 3bn is a huge number to lose in a week but it looks roughly right given what happened and it's not exactly unprecedented either.
They then lost a bunch of money on options the exact amount of which we don't know. They also lost a whole bunch of money on other positions going against them which we don't know but can guess at.
To get to a 3bn loss (which btw is just a guessed number based on how much new capital they took)you probably only need to assume they are down around 10% on the rest of the short book (ex GME) which under the circumstances is entirely plausible. That assumes they run something like 200% gross exposure with an evenly balanced book with 12.5bn aum.
I'm not sure where the conspiracy is here. 3bn is a huge number to lose in a week but it looks roughly right given what happened and it's not exactly unprecedented either.