FT
Franklin Universal Trust Shares of Beneficial Interest
stock NYSE Closed Ended Fund

FT+ Issue .. Pricing not updating in Option Summary Window / Option Chain

A former Deutsche Bank private banker has been charged with embezzling more than €600,000 from wealthy clients.
The banker, who worked at Deutsche Bank’s flagship branch in its Frankfurt headquarters, is accused of transferring money from clients’ accounts to an account held in the name of his mother-in-law for more than a year up to mid-2025.
He then used the money to speculate in derivatives, losing most of it, according to prosecutors.
The alleged victims included a private equity executive, the former chief executive of a listed consumer goods company and a partner at an international law firm.
Prosecutors said the banker targeted wealthy clients in the hope that they would not notice relatively small transfers from their accounts. Individual transactions were worth as much as €81,500.
When some clients questioned the transfers, the banker returned the money and told them they had resulted from an internal bank error, prosecutors said. The total financial loss was €493,000.
[Read the full story here.](https://www.ft.com/content/42323310-3dba-4703-9aa4-77ae40d6c3d0?segmentid=c50c86e4-586b-23ea-1ac1-7601c9c2476f)
Victoria - FT social team

Yea I would take what I said with a grain of salt, I saw someone post they had a 2sig internship into a FT role and posted their offer but maybe the offer wasn’t 2sig and I misunderstood

FT+ Issue .. Pricing not updating in Option Summary Window / Option Chain

A former Deutsche Bank private banker has been charged with embezzling more than €600,000 from wealthy clients.
The banker, who worked at Deutsche Bank’s flagship branch in its Frankfurt headquarters, is accused of transferring money from clients’ accounts to an account held in the name of his mother-in-law for more than a year up to mid-2025.
He then used the money to speculate in derivatives, losing most of it, according to prosecutors.
The alleged victims included a private equity executive, the former chief executive of a listed consumer goods company and a partner at an international law firm.
Prosecutors said the banker targeted wealthy clients in the hope that they would not notice relatively small transfers from their accounts. Individual transactions were worth as much as €81,500.
When some clients questioned the transfers, the banker returned the money and told them they had resulted from an internal bank error, prosecutors said. The total financial loss was €493,000.
[Read the full story here.](https://www.ft.com/content/42323310-3dba-4703-9aa4-77ae40d6c3d0?segmentid=c50c86e4-586b-23ea-1ac1-7601c9c2476f)
Victoria - FT social team

Yea I would take what I said with a grain of salt, I saw someone post they had a 2sig internship into a FT role and posted their offer but maybe the offer wasn’t 2sig and I misunderstood

read an entire FT article just to understand this comment section. worth it

Bessent’e article on FT sounds like an isolated America begging its allies to fall in line. The article reads like he is almost trying to convince himself with weird religious connotations (he is a rich gay man). 

Sure, if 25% start moving out, PPFAS has to sell. They’ll use the debt up first and the arbitrage but beyond that, stocks need to be sold.
Here’s the differentiator: PPFAS holds a lot of largecaps. This space has maximum liquidity, which can absorb the selling pressure easily. Their HDFC bank holding alone is worth close to ₹12,500 Cr. It’s shouldn’t be an issue in a ₹11 lakh crore bank, although it might drop the price a little, but won’t even be close to its LC. Plus there’s usually ₹2k-5k fresh inflows every month in the scheme.
You’re fixated on major redemptions and exit load. The original comment meant for people to exit, but wasn’t at exaggerated values of 25%.
Margin calls are leveraged, so the issue is magnified 3-5x (or even more, based on leverage taken) Here, it’s the cash market.
For FT, you’re talking the effect. The reason they stopped redemptions, was because their underlying holdings were illiquid. They had taken on more risk earlier (in a risk on period) and a lot of these bonds were longer tenures.
They had to freeze redemptions and ask for longer timelines to get the money. Plus SEBI took over because their schemes weren’t liquid enough.
To do an apples to apples comparison, you would be looking at a flexicap scheme which is heavily invested in mid and small caps, with 0-2% cash.
There’s a lot of schemes that hold very little cash, so you should actually be worrying about those first.
Even after the crisis, FT schemes did well. But they didn’t serve their original purpose, which was to provide liquidity in the short term. Imagine an equity fund, which delivers debt like returns in the long term. It pretty much kills its purpose. Plus they didn’t inform their investors about the amount of risk they were taking in their schemes. This kills trust, which means a lot of investors would think twice before investing with them again.
They actually ended up poaching the CIO of ICICI Pru fixed income for their debt team.
Buy you’ll still see them struggling (compared to the size of the AMC they are now)

I’m currently preparing the way to get into commodities, how important in general is learning Python ? (Not on Quant/Risk side, more on the commercial side)
On another note, anyone got a FT subscription they aren’t using ? :/

Tweet Mirror:[FirstSquawk](https://twitter.com/FirstSquawk/status/2091750284506918915)
>Top UK university graduates owe the most in student loans \- FT