Good question. It's more I just don't know the answer and would have liked a bit more color. This interest rate analysis they are sending around. It's awkward AF if you actually have done this for a living. There are really only a few ways you can do it: bottom-up or top down. With top-down, you go asset by asset doing a VaR on it (the best way and the typical way I'd expect it to be done inside a broker). With top down you use proxies on the biz and the time series associated with those proxies to inform your VaR distribution (The way you might do it at an asset manager or in the CFO office). I can't tell WTF these guys did with some of their answers, TBH, AND I might say - given my specific background - I'm really good at garbled language attempting to describe risk analysis. Hence what I wrote today in a very direct, very clear (hopefully) manner on what would constitute a legit answer to anything related to a question of interest rate sensitivity. Thanks for asking. Sometimes I know folks don't realize where I'm coming from (aka not a troll, someone who really is asking for or requesting a real clarification to an answer that I can tell has been stated in a vague way).

$HOOD... lovelies... this is a very thoughtful analysis, but this is also where I think Vlad is green sometimes. $HOOD's a broker. Brokers are not interest-rate sensitive in this way. The main way folks would ask this question is the idea that folks prefer bonds to stocks as the risk-free rate increases. AKA on the impact of rates and volumes. You can see that across all the brokers and it's the whole point of why you see more IPOs in low rate environments (above and beyond the impact to PE and cost of capital). If Vlad was to do this analysis, he runs into a bit of an issue. He doesn't have enough history as a company to be able to get a sense for rate cyclicality in his biz so what is stated here, is at best an adorbs analysis based on nothing anyone with grey hair would take as a relevant on assumptions. And the rate biz he does have, which is the card receivables biz and PB...? Well, that is why your girl shouted it out as under-clarified in the notes, call, and Q&A... Anywho... hopefully this is helpful... Personally, I think he could use a couple more hires to help him craft how to talk about his company from an IR perspective now that he's an S&P component. Since I'm in this for the cap call on the convert, I'll try to help where I can, even if my specific comments this quarter are likely more critical than positive. Fact is, we all know that given how things went down in the early decade, $HOOD has an asymmetric risk profile.

🚨🇨🇳 A Chinese glass company just turned the RIOTS in France into FREE advertising! Hengxinfeng filmed NOTHING, just posted a video of its unbreakable windows on social media, and went VIRAL. EPIC TROLLING!

I love that you guys are having civilized discourse. I'll interject here to continue to encourage it by saying both of you have a good point. I would mention 2 things, though: 1) My beef with this quarter is that they weren't super clear on the specific spend that did it. They are saying it's R&D, if so, why does it show in operations? Possibly the street analysts can ask this more directly and off-line as that is typically where these types of questions go if they are not clearly discussed on the release. (so yes... @11TakesPhotos 2) I don't have a problem with them becoming a "casino" per se. But I do have a problem with whether or not they are correctly reserving for being a casino (which is why I commented on the credit losses thing). If they are just clipping a transaction coupon then, fine. Ultimately a casino and a brokerage are quite similar. But if what they are doing is coming from the Prime Broker (PB), that is a different thing. If the credit losses are a reserve for "Margin Credit losses," then your girl feels very differently. And if it is margin credit losses, I still might be ok BUT then I'd like to know the following: 1) Are you taking it as reserves in advance b/c the biz is growing into new asset types? Technically an increase in futures volume could do this. 2) Did you have/foresee actual losses due to the volatility behavior that we've been experiencing? Alternatively, it could be from the loans they hold on the credit card receivables. If that's the case, I'd like to know what they are going to do about that b/c the growth of the credit card biz was NOT 3x. Any clarity on that, and I could be good to go. Anywho, I hope that adds to the discussion you two appear to be having.

$SOFI.... This is not directed at those who are bearish for Technical Reasons. But for those making Bear fundamental arguments on $SOFI, I need to get this off my chest. Your arguments are SOOO BAD that they make us all stupider by simply reading them. As such, I am willing to write bear arguments for you that at least are viable and don't violate all manner of logic for how banks, markets, yield curves, or private equity work. Look... I don't even care that I'm bullish and I don't agree. It's gone beyond that. I just want to support the bears now b/c I feel like ya'll just need help. I mean, I'm a shareholder, and if your objective is to get the stock price down so $SOFI can refi those converts in March without any cost to shareholders, aka underneath the cap call, then fine. I'll help. But, come on! You gotta, at some point, realize you are making the world dumber by arguing a thesis that Private equity is going to stop buying short-duration assets because rates are going up. Or at least, just pause in thinking that because deposit funding costs are going up 25 ... or heck, let's just go bonkers and say 100bps. But to argue that deposit costs are going up and this will compress NIM and cause marks for the part of credit that has the MOST control over rate increases! I mean, come on!!! Are you punking the shareholders at this point? Is candid camera about to jump out for all the FinXers who weren't born this century?

Prob less about the rate and more about the commentary around the rate (of which Warsh has - in theory - not been giving much)