First of all, I’m only on season 2, so please, NO SPOILERS!
I love this show. Two great characters in the hands of two outstanding actors; the supporting cast is solid and the writing is fantastic. In fact, the writing is so good that I don’t even have to understand the particulars of the business (which I often don’t) to know what’s going on in the show.
A couple of examples: S1, E4, “Short Squeeze.” I don’t know the mechanics involved in shorting a stock, other than the general idea that you’re betting on it going down instead of up. Axe shorted the trucking company stock, but Chuck Sr. bought in heavy and somehow caused the stock to rise, thus hurting Axe. Yes, that’s a very simplistic view of it, but it’s all I really needed to get the gist and follow the plot.
S2, E5, “Currency.” Axe needs his rivals to go in with him on a move that will hasten and capitalize on the devaluation of Nigerian currency. Again, it so well-written that I knew enough about what was happening to be invested and enjoy the episode, despite having absolutely know idea how global currency markets work in real life.
So, a two-part question:
How accurate is the portrayal of these situations? Is it dumbed-down for viewers like me to the point of being unbelievable to those who understand more? Is it pretty much how this stuff would go down in real life? Or at what point in between?
Part two: The general culture of the alpha-male, hard-partying, dick-measuring atmosphere of Axe Capital is almost a cliché. How close is the depiction of Axe Capital to a real high-end hedge fund office? I am so far removed from this world I have no idea.
Bonus question: Regarding the episode “Short Squeeze” mentioned above, Chuck pressures his father to take a loss on the stock because manipulating the market and then selling for profit would have been illegal. But Axe caused the stock to tank by pulling his snack cake company’s trucking contract, thereby profiting on the short. Isn’t that just as illegal? Why didn’t Chuck go after him for that?