總在奇怪 政客們是不是閑得發慌 還是尋找一切出風頭的機會? 過去二天 關於遊戲驛站(今天收市$40.68)股票事件國會聽證會 覺得政客們不了解來龍去脈, 也敢正義凜然的問罪責難. 遊戲驛站股票的大起大落和 (折扣券商)羅賓漢沒啥關係. 政客們沒有搞清楚 羅賓漢 為啥停牌 (其他券商也有停牌) 就興師問罪. 當特內夫說羅賓漢Robinhood限製了一些客戶交易,是因為票據交換所要求他的公司提供更多抵押品時, 紐約民主黨人亞曆山大·奧卡西奧·科爾特斯(Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)做出反擊, 責問罪經紀公司可能無法管理自身的資本風險.廢話 人家這麽做就是為了減少風險. 不出聲是怕被選民忘記, 但是也不能自現醜吧?! 倒是覺得 羅賓漢CEO弗拉德·特內夫(Vlad Tenev) 應該解釋一下他為什麽停牌. (見下 1.30 文)
昨天和前天國會聽證會 關於遊戲驛站股票事件 紐約時報的報道：
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.
紐約時報 星期三: (折扣券商)羅賓漢回答了馬薩諸塞州民主黨參議員伊麗莎白·沃倫的一長串問題,涉及其商業慣例以及所謂的“模因股票狂熱”高峰期出了什麽問題. DealBook新聞稿於周三首次出現在經紀人的195頁回應中.
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.
紐約時報 星期四: 擁有50多名成員的眾議院委員會舉行了為時5個小時的聽證會,聽取了GameStop 遊戲驛站和模因股票狂熱的討論,其中有六名目擊者. 最終,一切都與羅賓漢CEO弗拉德·特內夫(Vlad Tenev) 收到了最多的問題,這常常使他成為這次GME傳奇的反派人物.
下麵是我一月三十號在一個論壇寫的 (以英文為準)：
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
等與大型對衝基金之間沒有陰謀:在交易遊戲驛站 GME 和其股票時,沒有將散戶拒之門外.
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.
實際上,所有經紀公司都必須是存款信托公司(DTC)的成員.該中心是便利各方買賣股票的中央倉庫.可以將其視為一本電子書,它每天監控經紀公司轉移和持有的庫存.要成為DTC成員,Robinhood必須張提供押品以支付結算的固有風險,即,雙方之間買賣股票的交付和接收.在過去幾天的某個時候,GME和其他的交易是如此之大和多變,以至於抵押要求將Robinhood推向了紅色風險區.這些交易的風險敞口可能大於整個公司的資產負債表.如果一些交易未能解決,整個公司可能會承擔責任並破產.因此,為了自己的生存,他們感到有必要停止交易.當然,像摩根士丹利 Morgan Stanley 和高盛 Goldman Sachs 這樣的大公司可能不會遇到這種情況,但是較小的折扣券商肯定會這樣做.
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.
在過去的實物股票證書中,如果您購買了價值$10,000美元的股票並向賣方付款,但是由於某種原因,賣方未能將證書交付給您 (郵件丟失,欺詐等), 那麽您丟失了$10,000美元. DTC為了諸如此類的情形集中提供了解決方案,但是那些“股東持有的毫無價值的股票”的風險仍然存在,盡管形式不同,而且每個經紀行都必須向DTC抵押,以支付日常風險.
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和對衝基金之間在道德上是對還是錯的是另一個故事. 我認為雙方都沒有任何違法行為. 我覺得,這隻是一場完美的風暴,這些事件共同導致了這一切. 這是為數不多 人們夢寐以求的時刻.
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.
當然,市場效率是天上掉餡餅,但是您如何跟上常春藤盟軍的頑固派和精明的Redditers尋找在我們的交易中利用固有缺陷和低效率的方法呢? 無論他們是否願意,任何數量的SEC監管都無法完全覆蓋所有可能的漏洞(無論如何,大型銀行和對衝基金的遊說機構總會對此發表意見). 美國證券交易委員會的預算有限,無法跟上對其進行監管所需的金融技術(fintech)的要求. 他們總是在追趕 亡羊補牢. 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.
我想從道德的角度來看,您可以說對衝基金們是掠奪性的,因為它們在將Gametop縮短到第n級時所做的是掠奪性的. 我的意思是,您怎麽甚至賣掉所有已發行的GME股票的140％？ 聽起來不可能. 這是兩次浸泡. 您當然無法購買所有流通股的140％. 但這不是違法的. 下文對如何實現這種可能性給出了一個很好的想法 鏈: 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囂聲掩蓋了,那就是當Chewy.com的創始人決定介入並試圖通過將Gametop從純磚塊變成在線零售商來拯救遊戲驛站時,GME價格上漲的火花就開始了. ... 因此,對於Reddit 網民 開始囤積GME股票並參加短擠 並不是 空穴來風 毫無道理的. 追隨賣空者隻是其中的一部分,但它卻迅速膨脹為其他事物……瘋狂的社會運動/集會呼喊,正如我們現在所看到的.
