Yes. Almost anyone who has enough capital to consider owning MBSen (or interest in entities that transitively own MBSen) would be in the top 20%ile of wealth, at least. And in terms of exposure, naturally, as you have more wealth, you're more exposed to wealth destruction. So the big losers were mostly members of the top 1%.

But it is my contention that the top 1% are doing quite well. You do not need to feel bad that a handful of their bets paid off poorly, any more than you should feel bad upon hearing that the eventual winner of a poker tournament lost a hand at the first table.

There is no evidence of who lost money, and it very well could have been taxpayers through the various bailouts. There is also a significant societal loss when trust is no long assumed in transactions. In the US, you are fortunate that you can trust the money you get is not counterfeit, the documents you sign are legal and have force in court, the court’s officers are not bribeable, etc.

But if you start chipping away at this trust, it’s 10x harder to earn it back, and in my opinion, once it reaches a tipping point, enough people figure out its every man for himself and gaming the system snowballs irreversibly.

Then you have a system like many poor countries, where you have no idea when you could be dragged into court and bled dry because someone disputes your claims and you don’t have the political (bribes/connections) clout to defend yourself.

> There is no evidence of who lost money, and it very well could have been taxpayers through the various bailouts.

The taxpayers did not lose money in the bailouts . . . they didn't get acceptable risk-adjusted returns, but they didn't lose money.

It's the same thing. Warren Buffett got a great deal, Blackstone got great deals, anyone with cash at the time got better returns (equity) than taxpayers. Why shouldn't the taxpayers have been similarly rewarded?