Sung Kook “Bill” Hwang, once a prominent figure in the financial world, received an 18-year prison sentence on Wednesday for his role in the spectacular collapse of Archegos Capital Management.

The implosion sent shockwaves through Wall Street, leaving major banks reeling from over $10 billion in losses.

US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan delivered the sentence after a jury found Hwang guilty on 10 criminal charges in July, including wire fraud, securities fraud, and market manipulation.

A financial calamity of unprecedented scale

Judge Hellerstein underscored the gravity of Hwang’s actions, stating, “The amount of losses that were caused by your conduct are larger than any other losses I have dealt with.”

Prosecutor Andrew Thomas echoed this sentiment during the sentencing hearing, describing the Archegos collapse as “a national calamity.”

The prosecution had sought a 21-year prison term for Hwang—an unusually lengthy sentence for a white-collar crime—along with $12.35 billion in forfeiture and restitution to victims.

A decision on these financial penalties is expected to be reached on Thursday.

Comparing Hwang’s case to the FTX debacle

Before handing down the sentence, Judge Hellerstein drew a parallel between Hwang’s case and that of Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange.

Bankman-Fried received a 25-year sentence in March for stealing $8 billion from FTX users.

Hwang’s lawyer, Dani James, argued that the two cases were fundamentally different, stating, “Mr. Bankman-Fried was literally stealing from his customers. I don’t think that’s what’s happened here.”

Hwang’s plea for leniency and the prosecution’s counterarguments

Hwang’s legal team had requested no prison time, forfeiture, or restitution, arguing for his release on bail pending appeal.

They emphasized his low risk of reoffending and the positive impact of his philanthropic endeavors through the Grace and Mercy Foundation.

James asserted, “The notion that he would commit a crime in the future, it’s just not so.”

However, the prosecution’s push for a substantial sentence reflects the devastating financial consequences of Hwang’s actions.

From Tiger Asia to Archegos: a history of financial maneuvering

Hwang’s career began under the mentorship of hedge-fund legend Julian Robertson.

After his previous hedge fund, Tiger Asia Management, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in an insider trading case in 2012, Hwang established Archegos as a family office in 2013.

Prosecutors alleged that Hwang deceived banks about Archegos’s portfolio to secure excessive loans, which he then used to make highly concentrated bets on media and technology stocks.

The implosion: margin calls and a $100 billion wipeout

Although Archegos managed $36 billion, Hwang’s leveraged positions exposed him to a staggering $160 billion in stock market risk.

When the prices of his favored stocks began to decline, he was unable to meet margin calls.

Banks, scrambling to mitigate their losses, began unloading the stocks backing Hwang’s total return swaps, leading to a market value wipeout of more than $100 billion.

Credit Suisse suffered a $5.5 billion loss, and Nomura Holdings also incurred significant losses.

Credit Suisse is now a part of UBS.

Awaiting the final chapter

While Hwang expressed remorse and a desire to make amends in his statement to the court, the judge’s decision on forfeiture and restitution will determine the full extent of the financial consequences he faces.

Hwang’s lawyers have stated that his net worth has dwindled to “at most” $55.3 million.

His co-defendant, former Archegos CFO Patrick Halligan, who was also convicted at trial, awaits sentencing scheduled for January 27.

The post From riches to ruin: Bill Hwang’s 18-year sentence for Archegos disaster appeared first on Invezz

Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT) is likely to face significant challenges in regaining the market share it has lost in recent quarters, according to retail industry veteran Jan Kniffen.

Despite lowering prices and launching an early holiday sale last month to drive traffic, the big-box retailer still fell well short of analysts’ expectations for its fiscal third-quarter results.

Target’s stock plummeted more than 20%, hitting a year-to-date low of $121 this morning, largely due to the company lowering its full-year guidance, which dampened hopes for a quick recovery.

Why is the US consumer choosing Walmart over Target?

Target was once known for its exceptional in-store experience.

But Walmart Inc (NYSE: WMT) has invested rather aggressively to play catch up in recent years. In fact, it now “looks just as good” as a Target store, Jan Kniffen told CNBC on Wednesday.   

Plus, the stuff is “cheaper and the selection is better”. That’s why WMT is finding success in stealing the $100,000+ household customer from Target, he added.

Walmart attributed much of the strength in its recently reported quarter to that segment.

A more than 5.0% year-on-year increase in Walmart’s comparable-store sales suggests “somebody gave up a lot of market share – and it looks to me like part of that is coming out of Target,” as per Jan Kniffen.

Smaller footprint in grocery is a disadvantage for Target

Walmart has a huge advantage over Target as it drives 60% of its business from grocery.

That’s what Americans are prioritizing in terms of spending right now.

A full grocery shopping experience also means “you go [to a Walmart] every week”.

That’s a “real disadvantage” for Target since it makes a customer that much more likely to get the other stuff from Walmart as well instead of driving again to a nearby Target, Kniffen argued on “Squawk Box” today.

Additionally, WMT has made significant investments in technology to drive customers to their stores.

Kniffen dubbed Walmart the best retailer in the world as it’s “adopting AI faster than any other retailer and that’s making their distribution system more efficient” as well.

Should you buy the dip in Target stock?

While Target stock is a bit more attractive following today’s sell-off, “they’re still having a very tough time,” according to Jan Kniffen.

On the other hand, Walmart is recording solid results quarter after quarter and is growing “twice as fast” in e-commerce as Target.

Plus, it has advertising to supercharge its gross margin and overall growth rate in 2025.

All in all, the industry mogul dubbed WMT a tough competitor to beat as it has “the most money, the lowest cost of capital, and is doing everything that Amazon does.”

The retailer’s ambition to “be just like Amazon” only with 5,000 stores as well may just be reason enough to pick it over TGT, Kniffen concluded.  

The post Why is Target losing to Walmart, and will it ever catch up? appeared first on Invezz

Adani Group stocks experienced a sharp and widespread selloff on Thursday after US prosecutors announced bribery and fraud charges against Gautam Adani and seven associates.

The charges, unveiled late Wednesday, allege that Adani and his executives engaged in a multibillion-dollar scheme involving bribery to secure solar energy contracts in India.

Adani Energy Solutions bore the brunt of the market reaction, with shares plummeting 20%.

Adani Green Energy followed closely, dropping 18%. Adani Total Gas and Adani Power fell by 13-14%, while flagship companies such as Adani Enterprises, Ambuja Cements, ACC, and Adani Ports were locked in at their 10% lower circuit limits.

Other subsidiaries, including NDTV (-11%), Adani Wilmar (-8%), and Sanghi Industries (-6%), also faced significant losses, reflecting the ripple effect across the conglomerate.

Adani Green bond offering scrapped amid fallout

Amid the legal and market turbulence, Adani Green Energy cancelled plans of a $600 million bond issuance scheduled for Thursday.

Adani Green Energy’s dollar bonds issued in March dropped a record 15 cents, hitting a low of 80 cents, as per Bloomberg data.

Bonds from other Adani Group entities also saw significant declines, with some falling to as low as 74 cents—their steepest drop since the 2023 Hindenburg Research report.

“While Adani has demonstrated resilience in handling previous allegations, including those from Hindenburg, this incident highlights the ongoing risks tied to emerging markets, particularly regarding governance, transparency, and regulatory oversight,” said Mohit Mirpuri, a fund manager at Singapore-based SGMC Capital Pte in a Bloomberg report.

Bribery allegations against Adani and nephew explained

The indictment filed by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) outlines serious accusations against Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani, and other executives.

They are charged with conspiring to defraud US investors and global financial institutions through false representations.

According to the indictment, the group paid $265 million in bribes to Indian officials to secure state solar energy contracts.

The prosecutors claim these contracts were projected to generate $2 billion in profits over 20 years.

Some participants in the scheme allegedly referred to Gautam Adani by code names such as “Numero uno” and “the big man.”

The bribes were reportedly concealed from lenders and investors to secure over $3 billion in loans and bonds for Adani Green Energy.

The charges fall under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which targets corruption and bribery in international business dealings.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lisa H. Miller called the allegations a “massive fraud,” stating, “This indictment alleges schemes to pay over $250 million in bribes, lie to investors and banks to raise billions of dollars, and obstruct justice.”

A second major blow for Adani Group

This development marks another significant setback for Gautam Adani, whose business empire has been under fire since the January 2023 Hindenburg Research report accused the group of financial misconduct.

That report led to a staggering $150 billion loss in market capitalization across Adani’s companies.

Gautam Adani, ranked by Forbes as the 22nd richest person globally with a net worth of $69.8 billion, now faces not only financial challenges but also potential legal consequences.

Reports indicate that arrest warrants have been issued for Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani, compounding the group’s troubles.

What’s next for Adani Group?

The allegations have cast a long shadow over Adani Group’s global operations and its access to international capital markets.

It could also intensify foreign fund withdrawals, which have already reached record levels since October.

“Foreign investor sentiment could be affected if the investigation escalates,” Manish Bhargava, CEO of Straits Investment Management told Bloomberg, adding that the case heightens reputational risks for the group.

The charges came on the heels of Adani announcing a fresh investment in green energy and congratulating US President-elect Donald Trump on his election victory.

Trump, known for his pro-energy deregulation stance, has pledged to simplify rules for energy companies, including those operating in renewable sectors.

As the case progresses, its trajectory will likely depend on the incoming Trump administration.

Breon Peace, the Brooklyn US attorney appointed under Biden, is expected to step down.

“It’s unusual for charges like this to emerge during a transition of power,” said Gary Dugan, CEO of Global CIO Office. “The hope is that Donald Trump dismisses it once in office.”

The Adani Group has not yet issued a statement in response to the charges, but analysts predict extended volatility for its stocks and bonds as the legal process unfolds.

The post Adani stocks plummet, bond offering pulled as Gautam Adani faces US bribery allegations: what’s next? appeared first on Invezz

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is intensifying its antitrust battle against Google, urging the tech giant to divest its Chrome browser.

This bold move follows an August ruling that affirmed Google’s monopoly in the search market, a landscape the DOJ aims to reshape.

Launched in 2008, Chrome has become a key data source for Google, fueling its targeted advertising machinery.

The DOJ argues that separating Chrome from Google would level the playing field, offering competitors a fairer chance in the search arena.

“To remedy these harms, the [Initial Proposed Final Judgment] requires Google to divest Chrome, which will permanently stop Google’s control of this critical search access point and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet,” states the DOJ’s 23-page filing.

Beyond Chrome

The DOJ’s proposed remedies extend beyond Chrome, aiming to dismantle Google’s intricate web of influence.

The department advocates for preventing Google from forging exclusionary agreements with giants like Apple and Samsung.

Furthermore, it seeks to prohibit Google from prioritizing its own search service within its product ecosystem.

This multifaceted approach underscores the DOJ’s commitment to dismantling what it perceives as anti-competitive practices.

“The proposed remedies are designed to end Google’s unlawful practices and open up the market for rivals and new entrants to emerge,” the filing emphasizes.

The DOJ’s proposed remedies envision a decade of oversight, requiring Google to submit monthly reports to a technical committee detailing any changes to its search text ads auction.

This transparency measure aims to ensure ongoing compliance and prevent future manipulation of the search advertising landscape, a sector that generated a staggering $49.4 billion for Alphabet, Google’s parent company, in the third quarter, representing three-quarters of its total ad sales.

Echoes of Microsoft

This aggressive push by the DOJ marks its most significant attempt to dismantle a tech behemoth since its landmark case against Microsoft, which culminated in a 2001 settlement.

The DOJ’s pursuit of Google carries similar weight, signaling a potential turning point in the regulation of Big Tech.

Android divestiture: a looming possibility?

While Chrome divestiture is the primary focus, the DOJ also hinted at the possibility of Google divesting its Android mobile operating system.

Recognizing potential resistance, the department suggested alternative remedies to curb Google’s influence within the Android ecosystem.

However, the DOJ left the door open for revisiting Android divestiture if these measures prove insufficient. “…but Plaintiffs recognize that such divestiture may draw significant objections from Google or other market participants.”

The filing continues, stating that if the initial remedies “ultimately fail to achieve the high standards for meaningful relief in these critical markets, the Court could require return to” the Android divestiture suggestion.

Challenging Google’s stronghold

In addition to divestiture, the DOJ proposed limiting or prohibiting default agreements and revenue-sharing arrangements related to search and search-related products.

This includes Google’s lucrative search arrangements with Apple and Samsung, deals worth billions of dollars annually.

These agreements are seen as reinforcing Google’s dominance, and their potential curtailment could significantly impact the company’s bottom line.

Last month, the DOJ indicated it was considering a breakup of Google businesses, including potentially breaking up its Chrome, Play or Android divisions.

Additionally, the DOJ suggested limiting or prohibiting default agreements and “other revenue-sharing arrangements related to search and search-related products.”

That would include Google’s search arrangements with Apple on the iPhone and Samsung on its mobiles devices, deals that cost the company billions of dollars a year in payouts.

A protracted legal battle ahead

Google has vowed to appeal the monopoly ruling, potentially delaying any final remedy decisions.

Legal experts predict that the court may ultimately require Google to dissolve certain exclusive agreements, such as its deal with Apple.

While a full-scale breakup is deemed unlikely, the court could mandate easier access to alternative search engines, empowering users and fostering greater competition.

Google has said it will appeal the monopoly ruling, which would draw out any final remedy decisions.

However, the most likely outcome, according to some legal experts, is that the court will ask Google to do away with certain exclusive agreements, like its deal with Apple.

While a breakup is an unlikely outcome, the experts said, the court may ask Google to make it easier for users to access other search engines. In August, a federal judge ruled that Google holds a monopoly in the search market.

The ruling came after the government in 2020 filed its landmark case, alleging that Google controlled the general search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance.

The court found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which outlaws monopolies.

The post Can Google keep Chrome? DOJ pushes for browser divestiture appeared first on Invezz

Australia has unveiled a bold new policy to curb social media access for children under 16, introducing some of the toughest controls globally.

A new bill proposed in parliament seeks to enforce an age-verification system, backed by fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million) for platforms that fail to comply.

This legislation targets major players like Meta’s Instagram and Facebook, Bytedance’s TikTok, and Elon Musk’s X.

The proposed measures are part of a broader initiative to address concerns over the mental and physical health risks posed by social media to young users.

Age-verification system

Australia’s policy includes an age-verification system that may use biometrics or government-issued identification, a first of its kind globally.

The initiative stands out for its stringent measures, as it makes no exceptions for parental consent or existing accounts.

If implemented, this system will place the onus on social media companies to verify user ages and block underage access.

Platforms will be required to safeguard privacy by destroying any information collected for verification purposes.

The government believes this ensures compliance while addressing concerns about data security.

Strong bipartisan support, but opposition raises concerns

The bill has garnered support from the opposition Liberal party, while independent lawmakers and the Greens have requested more details before backing the proposal.

Although the Albanese-led Labor government is optimistic about passing the legislation, critics argue that the specifics of enforcement and the protection of user privacy need further clarity.

The law’s robust privacy provisions could make it a model for future global efforts, but its stringency may face challenges from tech companies and advocacy groups.

For now, the bipartisan support strengthens the likelihood of the bill’s passage.

No exemptions

Unlike similar policies in other countries, Australia’s proposed rules would not allow children to circumvent the ban with parental consent.

France, for example, introduced a similar policy last year for users under 15 but included a parental consent clause.

In contrast, Australia aims to establish an unequivocal age limit, setting a new standard in the global push to regulate social media use among minors.

The United States requires parental consent for data access of children under 13, but its approach lacks the enforcement power proposed in Australia’s law, which directly targets platforms for accountability.

How is Australia addressing mental health risks?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland have framed the reform as a critical step to protect children’s well-being.

Reports suggest that almost two-thirds of Australian teens aged 14 to 17 have encountered harmful content online, including depictions of drug abuse, self-harm, and suicide.

The government believes excessive social media use exacerbates mental health issues, with girls particularly affected by body image concerns and boys exposed to misogynistic content.

Rowland emphasised the social responsibility of platforms, stating that this legislation is about holding companies accountable for ensuring user safety.

Exemptions

Despite the proposed restrictions, children will still have access to vital online services, including youth mental health platforms like Headspace, educational tools such as Google Classroom, and communication platforms used for online gaming and messaging.

The government aims to strike a balance between reducing harmful social media exposure and ensuring access to essential digital resources.

Australia’s proposed social media policy could serve as a blueprint for other nations.

While several countries have initiated efforts to regulate social media for children, none have proposed measures as comprehensive as Australia’s.

By enforcing strict penalties and robust age-verification systems, the legislation demonstrates an aggressive approach to mitigating risks to young users.

Its success will depend on effective implementation and cooperation from social media companies.

The post Australia’s groundbreaking bill seeks to ban under-16s from social media appeared first on Invezz