Yes, but....

But the resulting uproar, in Washington and on Wall Street, has largely obscured a simple truth of the marketplace. Yes, Morgan lost big — but, as Mitt Romney has pointed out, someone else won. And that someone or, rather, those someones, turn out to be Boaz Weinstein and a wolf pack of like-minded hedge fund managers.

But the "resulting uproar" was not over the fact that there were winners and losers, but over the fact that (1) a systemically important institution had lost a couple billion (more? less?), and that accordingly there are consequences for the financial system and for the real economy that are are considerably magnified, (2) that the loss revealed that JP Morgan did not have control over its derivatives book, which again, is a magnified problem with the company in question is a systemically important one, and (3) that they had made these losses because they had turned their CIO, responsible for hedging investments and thereby reducing risk, into a high-stakes gambling shop.

The "simple truth of the marketplace" was not "largely obscured," but almost wholly irrelevant to the "resulting uproar." If Azam Ahmed does not realize this,[1] he should be on a different beat.

[1] The thing is, he probably does realize it. The line just sits there irritating me, a sloppy entry into his main feature: an obsequious piece of fluff on hedge fund managers.