What really went wrong with Jon Corzine and MF Global?

The news reports tell us that Jon Corzine made a "reckless $6.3 billion bet on the credit quality of a few European nations", but I am wondering exactly what really went wrong. I mean, this guy has been around the block more than a few times and knows his way around the markets and global financial system as well as anybody (or so we thought), but still he somehow managed to screw the pooch, big time. How could that happen? Sure, maybe ego and arrogance had a role, as they always do, but I do wonder how much more there is to it. I mean, something doesn't smell right here. Or, maybe he's just getting too old for this. Or maybe he delegated too much responsibility for analysis and execution of the trade and was not on top of it personally. Or, maybe it wasn't really his own personal trade and he just rubber stamped it and put his name on it without thoroughly vetting it. SOMETHING is not smelling right here.

 

Specifically, I'd like to know the details of what the bets were. I'd like answers to questions like:

1. Was he simply directionally wrong?
2. Was he wrong simply on magnitude?
3. Did he bet on the wrong combination of countries?
4. Did he bet that things would be better or that they would be worse or the same or just different without a directional bet?
5. Did he just pick the wrong timeframe, expecting results in a shorter or longer period of time?
6. Were his bets still viable and likely to work but he lacked capital for collateral calls due to his extreme leverage?
7. Did he bet on a bigger bail out or a smaller one or none?
8. Did he bet on a higher or lower premium for sovereign CDS?
9. Did he bet wrong on European politics?
10. Did he bet wrong about whether the U.S. Federal Reserve would take a more active or less active role?

Overall, what was the theory of the trade? What events had to happen by when for it to pay off as he expected?

 

-- Jack Krupansky