总在奇怪 政客们是不是闲得发慌 还是寻找一切出风头的机会? 过去二天 关于游戏驿站(今天收市$40.68)股票事件国会听证会 觉得政客们不了解来龙去脉, 也敢正义凛然的问罪责难. 游戏驿站股票的大起大落和 (折扣券商)罗宾汉没啥关系. 政客们没有搞清楚 罗宾汉 为啥停牌 (其他券商也有停牌) 就兴师问罪. 当特内夫说罗宾汉Robinhood限制了一些客户交易,是因为票据交换所要求他的公司提供更多抵押品时, 纽约民主党人亚历山大·奥卡西奥·科尔特斯(Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)做出反击, 责问罪经纪公司可能无法管理自身的资本风险.废话 人家这么做就是为了减少风险. 不出声是怕被选民忘记, 但是也不能自现丑吧?! 倒是觉得 罗宾汉CEO弗拉德·特内夫(Vlad Tenev) 应该解释一下他为什么停牌. (见下 1.30 文)
昨天和前天国会听证会 关于游戏驿站股票事件 纽约时报的报道：
NYT Wednesday: Robinhood has responded to a long list of questions from Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, about its businesses practices, and what went wrong during the height of the so-called meme stock mania. The DealBook newsletter got the first look on Wednesday at the broker’s 195-page response.
纽约时报 星期三: (折扣券商)罗宾汉回答了马萨诸塞州民主党参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦的一长串问题,涉及其商业惯例以及所谓的“模因股票狂热”高峰期出了什么问题. DealBook新闻稿于周三首次出现在经纪人的195页回应中.
NYT Thursday: A House committee with more than 50 members held a hearing about GameStop and the meme-stock mania for five hours, featuring six witnesses. In the end, it was all about Robinhood. Vlad Tenev, the chief of the brokerage app, fielded the most questions, which often cast him as the villain of the saga.
纽约时报 星期四: 拥有50多名成员的众议院委员会举行了为时5个小时的听证会,听取了GameStop 游戏驿站和模因股票狂热的讨论,其中有六名目击者. 最终,一切都与罗宾汉CEO弗拉德·特内夫(Vlad Tenev) 收到了最多的问题,这常常使他成为这次GME传奇的反派人物.
下面是我一月三十号在一个论坛写的 (以英文为准)：
There is no conspiracy between Robinhood, TD Ameritrade etc and the big hedge funds to shut out the small guy from trading GME and other names. Robinhood,TD Ameritrade
等与大型对冲基金之间没有阴谋:在交易游戏驿站 GME 和其股票时,没有将散户拒之门外.
Practically all brokerages must be members of the Depository Trust Company (DTC), the central depot that facilitates the movement of shares bought and sold between parties. Think of it as an electronic book that monitors the inventory transferred and held by the brokerage firms on a daily basis. And to be a DTC member, Robinhood must post collateral to cover the inherent risks of settlement, i.e. the delivery and receipt of shares bought and sold between parties. At some point during the past few days, the trading in GME and other names was so huge and volatile that the collateral requirements pushed Robinhood into a red risk zone. The exposure on those trades was probably larger than the entire firm's balance sheet. If a few trades failed to settle, the entire firm could be held liable and go under. So it was for the sake of their own survival that they felt the need to halt trading. Granted, large firms like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs probably wouldn't run into this, but the smaller discount brokers certainly did.
实际上,所有经纪公司都必须是存款信托公司(DTC)的成员.该中心是便利各方买卖股票的中央仓库.可以将其视为一本电子书,它每天监控经纪公司转移和持有的库存.要成为DTC成员,Robinhood必须张提供押品以支付结算的固有风险,即,双方之间买卖股票的交付和接收.在过去几天的某个时候,GME和其他的交易是如此之大和多变,以至于抵押要求将Robinhood推向了红色风险区.这些交易的风险敞口可能大于整个公司的资产负债表.如果一些交易未能解决,整个公司可能会承担责任并破产.因此,为了自己的生存,他们感到有必要停止交易.当然,像摩根士丹利 Morgan Stanley 和高盛 Goldman Sachs 这样的大公司可能不会遇到这种情况,但是较小的折扣券商肯定会这样做.
In the old days of physical stock certificates, if you bought $10,000 worth of stock and paid the seller for it, but for whatever reason said seller fails to deliver the certificates to you (lost in the mail, fraud, etc), then you just lost 10 G's. DTC became the centralized solution for stuff like that, but those "left holding the bag" risks are still there, albeit in a different form, and each brokerage house must pony up collateral to DTC to cover for that daily exposure.
在过去的实物股票证书中,如果您购买了价值$10,000美元的股票并向卖方付款,但是由于某种原因,卖方未能将证书交付给您 (邮件丢失,欺诈等), 那么您丢失了$10,000美元. DTC为了诸如此类的情形集中提供了解决方案,但是那些“股东持有的毫无价值的股票”的风险仍然存在,尽管形式不同,而且每个经纪行都必须向DTC抵押,以支付日常风险.
The idea of a moral right/wrong between the Redditers and hedge funds is another story. I don't think there was anything illegal done on either side. To me, it's just a perfect storm of events that conspired to bring this all to a head. It's one of those watershed moments that people dream of.
Redditers和对冲基金之间在道德上是对还是错的是另一个故事. 我认为双方都没有任何违法行为. 我觉得,这只是一场完美的风暴,这些事件共同导致了这一切. 这是为数不多 人们梦寐以求的时刻.
Of course, efficiency of markets is pie in the sky, but how do you keep up with an army of Ivy League hedgies and brainiac Redditers scouring for ways to take advantage of inherent flaws and inefficiencies in our exchanges? No amount of SEC regulation can fully cover every possible loophole, whether they wanted to or not (the big bank and hedge fund lobby will always have something to say about that anyway). The limited SEC budget can't keep up with the financial technology (fintech) needed to regulate it all. They are always playing catchup.
当然,市场效率是天上掉馅饼,但是您如何跟上常春藤盟军的顽固派和精明的Redditers寻找在我们的交易中利用固有缺陷和低效率的方法呢? 无论他们是否愿意,任何数量的SEC监管都无法完全覆盖所有可能的漏洞(无论如何,大型银行和对冲基金的游说机构总会对此发表意见). 美国证券交易委员会的预算有限,无法跟上对其进行监管所需的金融技术(fintech)的要求. 他们总是在追赶 亡羊补牢. I guess from a moral standpoint, you could say that the hedgies were predatory in what they did in shorting Gamestop to the nth degree. I mean, how do you even sell short 140% of all GME shares outstanding? It doesn't sound possible. It's double dipping. You certainly can't BUY 140% of all the shares outstanding. But it's not illegal. This article gives a good idea for how that eventuality is even possible.
我想从道德的角度来看,您可以说对冲基金们是掠夺性的,因为它们在将Gametop缩短到第n级时所做的是掠夺性的. 我的意思是,您怎么甚至卖掉所有已发行的GME股票的140％？ 听起来不可能. 这是两次浸泡. 您当然无法购买所有流通股的140％. 但这不是违法的. 下文对如何实现这种可能性给出了一个很好的想法 链: https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-have-short-interest-over-100-heres/
Another note which gets obscured by all the hoopla, is the fact that the spark for GME's price rise began when the founder of Chewy.com decided to step in and try to rescue Gamestop by transforming it from a pure bricks and mortar to an online retailer. So it's not as if there's NO justification for the Redditers jumping on the stock. Going after the short sellers was just part of it, but it ballooned into something else altogether... a crazy social movement/rallying cry, as we are now seeing.
另一件事被所有的喧嚣声掩盖了,那就是当Chewy.com的创始人决定介入并试图通过将Gametop从纯砖块变成在线零售商来拯救游戏驿站时,GME价格上涨的火花就开始了. ... 因此,对于Reddit 网民 开始囤积GME股票并参加短挤 并不是 空穴来风 毫无道理的. 追随卖空者只是其中的一部分,但它却迅速膨胀为其他事物……疯狂的社会运动/集会呼喊,正如我们现在所看到的.
