> debt is highly explosive (see GE during the GFC) whereas equity is not.

Not as explosive as debt but I'd venture to say that nowadays equity is a lot more "inflamable" compared to 2008-2010, as in a lot more debt-like (which I think partly explains the current equity bubble in the US).

As in, there are lots and lots of investment funds/pension funds/other such like financial entities which are very heavily tied to the "performance" of equity, and I'm talking about trillions (at this point) of dollars, and if that equity were to get a, let's say, 20 or 30% hair-cut in a matter of two-three months (at most), then we'll for sure be back in October 2008 mode.

▲

littlestymaar 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> As in, there are lots and lots of investment funds/pension funds/other such like financial entities which are very heavily tied to the "performance" of equity, and I'm talking about trillions (at this point) of dollars, and if that equity were to get a, let's say, 20 or 30% hair-cut in a matter of two-three months (at most), then we'll for sure be back in October 2008 mode.

Just curious, can you detail how it would fail exactly?

▲

crowcroft 4 days ago | parent [-]

Anytime there's a massive draw down equities an asset-liability mismatch shows up (margin calls) because someone was borrowing money to spend in the short term against the value of assets that have now disappeared.

It might not be the catastrophic cascading failure of the GFC, but someone somewhere in the pile will get exposed.

	▲	littlestymaar 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ah yes I see. It's the idea that somewhere, somehow, there is debt that's funding all of this, even if it's very indirect.

▲

crowcroft 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Totally agree, it might not blow up in Nvidia's face, but there's a margin call sitting around somewhere in the pile.