weixiangshe的个人主页 - 老虎社区

weixiangshe

weixiangshe

暂无个人介绍

IP属地：未知

2关注

1粉丝

0主题

0勋章

2021-06-16

win

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-15

halo

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-14

ya

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-12

//@weixiangshe: Investor

Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>

2021-06-12

Investor

Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>

2021-06-12

with tiger

2021-06-12

wow

AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote>

去老虎APP查看更多动态

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3581487264734524","uuid":"3581487264734524","gmtCreate":1618393240627,"gmtModify":1623492038331,"name":"weixiangshe","pinyin":"weixiangshe","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":1,"headSize":2,"tweetSize":7,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-3","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"偶像虎友","description":"加入老虎社区1500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b40ae7da5bf081a1c84df14bf9e6367","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f160eceddd7c284a8e1136557615cfad","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11792805c468334a9b31c39f95a41c6a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2026.04.24","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37-1","templateUuid":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37","name":"博闻投资者","description":"累计交易超过10只正股","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a-1","templateUuid":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a","name":"实盘交易者","description":"完成一笔实盘交易","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969-1","templateUuid":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969","name":"精英交易员","description":"证券或期货账户累计交易次数达到30次","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab0f87127c854ce3191a752d57b46edc","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9835ce48b8c8743566d344ac7a7ba8c","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76754b53ce7a90019f132c1d2fbc698f","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":"60.91%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0}],"userBadgeCount":4,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":160822471,"gmtCreate":1623782378793,"gmtModify":1634028298305,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"win","listText":"win","text":"win","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160822471","repostId":"1163235288","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1927,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":187279011,"gmtCreate":1623757003033,"gmtModify":1634028922399,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"halo","listText":"halo","text":"halo","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/187279011","repostId":"2143383753","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1575,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":182797437,"gmtCreate":1623606051629,"gmtModify":1634031237322,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"ya","listText":"ya","text":"ya","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/182797437","repostId":"1124998394","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2106,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186616448,"gmtCreate":1623491442384,"gmtModify":1634032404345,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"//<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/U/3581487264734524\">@weixiangshe</a>: Investor","listText":"//<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/U/3581487264734524\">@weixiangshe</a>: Investor","text":"//@weixiangshe: Investor","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186616448","repostId":"1147474880","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1147474880","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470168,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1147474880?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1147474880","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless ris","content":"<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽的风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>《华尔街日报》对金融最基本的区别之一的看法是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你仅仅因为一只股票上涨了很多，而没有做任何研究就买入它，那么你就不是《华尔街日报》及其编辑们奇怪地坚持称你为 “投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，那你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产时，因为你有一只雄鸡只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，而其他人似乎也在购买，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的人。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 等模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在押注或押注股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币是如何运作的，以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依靠外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否愿意支付更多，而不管基本面价值如何。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者一词源于拉丁语 “investire ”，意为打扮自己、包围或包裹自己。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或材质的情况下穿衣服。同样，你也不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，《华尔街日报》及其编辑们长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人都称为 “投资者”。1962 年 7 月 12 日，《华尔街日报》刊登了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明-格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年 6 月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是 “许多小投资者押注股价进一步下跌，卖空奇数手 ”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道： “根据'投资'的什么定义，我们能把'投资者'这个名字称为'投资'呢？”（做空奇数手意味着借入并卖出少于 100 股股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“格雷厄姆问道：”如果这些人是投资者，“我们应该如何定义'投机'和'投机者'？难道目前无法区分投资和投机，不仅会对个人造成严重伤害，还会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗--就像 20 世纪 20 年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个势利小人，他认为市场应该是富人的专属游乐场。他写《聪明的投资者》的明确目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股票市场。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书中写道：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法，也不不道德，（对大多数人来说）也不会中饱私囊。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三个危险： “(1) 当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；(2) 当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地进行投机而不是作为消遣；(3) 在投机中冒的风险超过了你承受的损失”。</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像一张彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多人都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为自己在投机时就是在投资，那么即使是短暂的成功，你也会把技巧归因于技巧，尽管运气是最有可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法在几分钟前专注于未来。接下来你就会知道，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，称交易者和投机者为 “投资者 ”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失。我衷心希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑们最终能停止使用 “投资者 ”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯-福雷尔（Charles Forelle）在回应我的投诉时说：”'投资者'在英语中有着悠久的历史，它是一个包罗万象的术语，指的是那些投入资金并期望获得回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少。“至少可以追溯到 19 世纪中叶，'投资'甚至被用来形容赌马--这种活动与基本面分析的脱节肯定不亚于购买狗狗币”。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是觉得你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场 “投资 ”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为 “投资者 ”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力手段之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的 Instagram 帖子中，一位名叫拉娜-罗德斯（Lana Rhoades）的前色情明星穿着比基尼摆姿势，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据 IMDb.com 报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在她的帖子中宣布，她将推广一种名为 Pawgcoin 的加密货币，该帖子获得了近 180 万人的 “点赞 ”。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为 “那些向发达的后裔致敬的人”准备的。(据我可靠消息，PAWG 代表肥屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站 Poocoin.io 称，自 Rhoades 女士 6 月初开始推广 PAWGcoin 以来，PAWGcoin 已上涨约 900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在推特上写道 “我每天早上也读《华尔街日报》 ”，但记者未能联系到她置评。PAWGcoin 的网站鼓励访问者 “立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗兹女士的 Instagram 帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nInvestor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:56</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽的风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>《华尔街日报》对金融最基本的区别之一的看法是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你仅仅因为一只股票上涨了很多，而没有做任何研究就买入它，那么你就不是《华尔街日报》及其编辑们奇怪地坚持称你为 “投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，那你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产时，因为你有一只雄鸡只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，而其他人似乎也在购买，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的人。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 等模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在押注或押注股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币是如何运作的，以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依靠外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否愿意支付更多，而不管基本面价值如何。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者一词源于拉丁语 “investire ”，意为打扮自己、包围或包裹自己。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或材质的情况下穿衣服。同样，你也不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，《华尔街日报》及其编辑们长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人都称为 “投资者”。1962 年 7 月 12 日，《华尔街日报》刊登了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明-格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年 6 月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是 “许多小投资者押注股价进一步下跌，卖空奇数手 ”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道： “根据'投资'的什么定义，我们能把'投资者'这个名字称为'投资'呢？”（做空奇数手意味着借入并卖出少于 100 股股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“格雷厄姆问道：”如果这些人是投资者，“我们应该如何定义'投机'和'投机者'？难道目前无法区分投资和投机，不仅会对个人造成严重伤害，还会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗--就像 20 世纪 20 年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个势利小人，他认为市场应该是富人的专属游乐场。他写《聪明的投资者》的明确目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股票市场。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书中写道：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法，也不不道德，（对大多数人来说）也不会中饱私囊。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三个危险： “(1) 当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；(2) 当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地进行投机而不是作为消遣；(3) 在投机中冒的风险超过了你承受的损失”。</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像一张彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多人都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为自己在投机时就是在投资，那么即使是短暂的成功，你也会把技巧归因于技巧，尽管运气是最有可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法在几分钟前专注于未来。接下来你就会知道，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，称交易者和投机者为 “投资者 ”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失。我衷心希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑们最终能停止使用 “投资者 ”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯-福雷尔（Charles Forelle）在回应我的投诉时说：”'投资者'在英语中有着悠久的历史，它是一个包罗万象的术语，指的是那些投入资金并期望获得回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少。“至少可以追溯到 19 世纪中叶，'投资'甚至被用来形容赌马--这种活动与基本面分析的脱节肯定不亚于购买狗狗币”。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是觉得你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场 “投资 ”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为 “投资者 ”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力手段之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的 Instagram 帖子中，一位名叫拉娜-罗德斯（Lana Rhoades）的前色情明星穿着比基尼摆姿势，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据 IMDb.com 报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在她的帖子中宣布，她将推广一种名为 Pawgcoin 的加密货币，该帖子获得了近 180 万人的 “点赞 ”。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为 “那些向发达的后裔致敬的人”准备的。(据我可靠消息，PAWG 代表肥屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站 Poocoin.io 称，自 Rhoades 女士 6 月初开始推广 PAWGcoin 以来，PAWGcoin 已上涨约 900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在推特上写道 “我每天早上也读《华尔街日报》 ”，但记者未能联系到她置评。PAWGcoin 的网站鼓励访问者 “立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗兹女士的 Instagram 帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1147474880","content_text":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.\n\nI’ve had it.\nThe Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.\nIf you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.\nWhenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.\nYou’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.\nOf course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%areinvestors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.\nAn investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.\nThe word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.\nNevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”\nHe wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)\n“If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”\nGraham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.\nIn that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”\nHowever, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”\nMost investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.\nIf you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.\nTake speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.\nI think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.\n“ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”\nI hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.\nCalling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.\nIna recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”\nIn her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.\nThe currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)\nPAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.\nMs. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”\nIn Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2844,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186616154,"gmtCreate":1623491355778,"gmtModify":1634032404693,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Investor","listText":"Investor","text":"Investor","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186616154","repostId":"1147474880","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1147474880","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470168,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1147474880?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1147474880","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless ris","content":"<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽的风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>《华尔街日报》对金融最基本的区别之一的看法是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你仅仅因为一只股票上涨了很多，而没有做任何研究就买入它，那么你就不是《华尔街日报》及其编辑们奇怪地坚持称你为 “投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，那你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产时，因为你有一只雄鸡只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，而其他人似乎也在购买，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的人。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 等模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在押注或押注股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币是如何运作的，以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依靠外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否愿意支付更多，而不管基本面价值如何。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者一词源于拉丁语 “investire ”，意为打扮自己、包围或包裹自己。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或材质的情况下穿衣服。同样，你也不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，《华尔街日报》及其编辑们长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人都称为 “投资者”。1962 年 7 月 12 日，《华尔街日报》刊登了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明-格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年 6 月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是 “许多小投资者押注股价进一步下跌，卖空奇数手 ”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道： “根据'投资'的什么定义，我们能把'投资者'这个名字称为'投资'呢？”（做空奇数手意味着借入并卖出少于 100 股股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“格雷厄姆问道：”如果这些人是投资者，“我们应该如何定义'投机'和'投机者'？难道目前无法区分投资和投机，不仅会对个人造成严重伤害，还会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗--就像 20 世纪 20 年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个势利小人，他认为市场应该是富人的专属游乐场。他写《聪明的投资者》的明确目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股票市场。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书中写道：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法，也不不道德，（对大多数人来说）也不会中饱私囊。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三个危险： “(1) 当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；(2) 当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地进行投机而不是作为消遣；(3) 在投机中冒的风险超过了你承受的损失”。</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像一张彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多人都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为自己在投机时就是在投资，那么即使是短暂的成功，你也会把技巧归因于技巧，尽管运气是最有可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法在几分钟前专注于未来。接下来你就会知道，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，称交易者和投机者为 “投资者 ”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失。我衷心希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑们最终能停止使用 “投资者 ”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯-福雷尔（Charles Forelle）在回应我的投诉时说：”'投资者'在英语中有着悠久的历史，它是一个包罗万象的术语，指的是那些投入资金并期望获得回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少。“至少可以追溯到 19 世纪中叶，'投资'甚至被用来形容赌马--这种活动与基本面分析的脱节肯定不亚于购买狗狗币”。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是觉得你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场 “投资 ”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为 “投资者 ”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力手段之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的 Instagram 帖子中，一位名叫拉娜-罗德斯（Lana Rhoades）的前色情明星穿着比基尼摆姿势，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据 IMDb.com 报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在她的帖子中宣布，她将推广一种名为 Pawgcoin 的加密货币，该帖子获得了近 180 万人的 “点赞 ”。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为 “那些向发达的后裔致敬的人”准备的。(据我可靠消息，PAWG 代表肥屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站 Poocoin.io 称，自 Rhoades 女士 6 月初开始推广 PAWGcoin 以来，PAWGcoin 已上涨约 900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在推特上写道 “我每天早上也读《华尔街日报》 ”，但记者未能联系到她置评。PAWGcoin 的网站鼓励访问者 “立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗兹女士的 Instagram 帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nInvestor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:56</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽的风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>《华尔街日报》对金融最基本的区别之一的看法是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你仅仅因为一只股票上涨了很多，而没有做任何研究就买入它，那么你就不是《华尔街日报》及其编辑们奇怪地坚持称你为 “投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，那你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产时，因为你有一只雄鸡只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，而其他人似乎也在购买，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的人。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 等模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在押注或押注股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币是如何运作的，以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依靠外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否愿意支付更多，而不管基本面价值如何。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者一词源于拉丁语 “investire ”，意为打扮自己、包围或包裹自己。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或材质的情况下穿衣服。同样，你也不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，《华尔街日报》及其编辑们长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人都称为 “投资者”。1962 年 7 月 12 日，《华尔街日报》刊登了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明-格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年 6 月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是 “许多小投资者押注股价进一步下跌，卖空奇数手 ”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道： “根据'投资'的什么定义，我们能把'投资者'这个名字称为'投资'呢？”（做空奇数手意味着借入并卖出少于 100 股股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“格雷厄姆问道：”如果这些人是投资者，“我们应该如何定义'投机'和'投机者'？难道目前无法区分投资和投机，不仅会对个人造成严重伤害，还会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗--就像 20 世纪 20 年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个势利小人，他认为市场应该是富人的专属游乐场。他写《聪明的投资者》的明确目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股票市场。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书中写道：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法，也不不道德，（对大多数人来说）也不会中饱私囊。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三个危险： “(1) 当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；(2) 当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地进行投机而不是作为消遣；(3) 在投机中冒的风险超过了你承受的损失”。</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像一张彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多人都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为自己在投机时就是在投资，那么即使是短暂的成功，你也会把技巧归因于技巧，尽管运气是最有可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法在几分钟前专注于未来。接下来你就会知道，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，称交易者和投机者为 “投资者 ”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失。我衷心希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑们最终能停止使用 “投资者 ”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯-福雷尔（Charles Forelle）在回应我的投诉时说：”'投资者'在英语中有着悠久的历史，它是一个包罗万象的术语，指的是那些投入资金并期望获得回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少。“至少可以追溯到 19 世纪中叶，'投资'甚至被用来形容赌马--这种活动与基本面分析的脱节肯定不亚于购买狗狗币”。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是觉得你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场 “投资 ”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为 “投资者 ”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力手段之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的 Instagram 帖子中，一位名叫拉娜-罗德斯（Lana Rhoades）的前色情明星穿着比基尼摆姿势，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据 IMDb.com 报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在她的帖子中宣布，她将推广一种名为 Pawgcoin 的加密货币，该帖子获得了近 180 万人的 “点赞 ”。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为 “那些向发达的后裔致敬的人”准备的。(据我可靠消息，PAWG 代表肥屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站 Poocoin.io 称，自 Rhoades 女士 6 月初开始推广 PAWGcoin 以来，PAWGcoin 已上涨约 900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在推特上写道 “我每天早上也读《华尔街日报》 ”，但记者未能联系到她置评。PAWGcoin 的网站鼓励访问者 “立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗兹女士的 Instagram 帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1147474880","content_text":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.\n\nI’ve had it.\nThe Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.\nIf you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.\nWhenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.\nYou’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.\nOf course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%areinvestors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.\nAn investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.\nThe word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.\nNevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”\nHe wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)\n“If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”\nGraham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.\nIn that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”\nHowever, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”\nMost investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.\nIf you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.\nTake speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.\nI think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.\n“ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”\nI hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.\nCalling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.\nIna recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”\nIn her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.\nThe currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)\nPAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.\nMs. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”\nIn Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2918,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186618918,"gmtCreate":1623491125434,"gmtModify":1634032405733,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"with tiger&nbsp;","listText":"with tiger&nbsp;","text":"with tiger","images":[{"img":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/321299c3a57d1bc11e56145f04575c35","width":"3024","height":"4032"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186618918","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1510,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186635508,"gmtCreate":1623490524604,"gmtModify":1634032411089,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"wow","listText":"wow","text":"wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186635508","repostId":"1104635261","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1104635261","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470020,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1104635261?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1104635261","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Enter","content":"<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital 的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>多管齐下的赌注 onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39% 本月对 Mudrick Capital Management LP 进行了回旋镖，Mudrick Capital Management LP 是最新一家成为日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约 10%，原因是 AMC 股价的飙升意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 和其他股票的价格在 1 月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。穆德里克资本（Mudrick Capital）的亏损凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资风险有多大--甚至会对一家与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的效果。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森-穆德里克（Jason Mudrick）几个月来一直在交易 AMC 的股票、期权和债券，这激发了个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金对 AMC 的风险敞口。这些知情人士说，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以约 40 美元的价格从穆德里克手中购买 AMC 股票的权利，但最近 Reddit 推动的购买活动卷土重来，将 AMC 的股价推向了新纪录，这些衍生品合约却膨胀成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的 AMC 战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital 的高管正在与 AMC 进行谈判，计划于 5 月下旬从该公司购买更多股票。 6 月 1 日，AMC 披露，Mudrick Capital 已同意以每股 27.12 美元的价格直接从该公司购买 2.305 亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了这只股票获利，彭博新闻社报道了这一快速转变，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 1 日，Reddit 华尔街投注论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀.他们搬起石头砸了自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子将穆德里克称为 “失败者”、“人渣袋”和 “一大堆没有未来的 S-T”。论坛成员互相敦促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>在穆德里克内部，随着 AMC 反弹势头的增强，高管们越来越担心。6 月 1 日晚，该公司的风险委员会在股价收于 32 美元后召开会议，决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>已经晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 2 日，AMC 的股价在几个小时内就突破了 40 美元，盘中最高触及 72.62 美元。看涨期权期权价格在穆德里克资本推动的交易狂潮中飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了破产，该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital 出售的债务回报率约为 5%，但在考虑其期权交易后，该基金在 AMC 上净亏损约 5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位人士说，穆德里克先生的基金今年仍上涨了约 12%。与此同时，年初购买 AMC 股票并持有的投资者上涨了约 2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的一个决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发了国会听证会，并引起了美国证券交易委员会的审查。现在，越来越多的对冲基金在社交媒体上追踪个人投资者的情绪，并更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率贷款给陷入困境的公司，或者在破产法庭上将现有债务换成股权。穆德里克管理着全公司约 35 亿美元的投资，并持有电子烟制造商 NJOY Holdings Inc. 和卫星通信公司 GlobalStarInc. 的大量非流动性股份。根据汇丰另类投资集团的数据，该旗舰基金报告称，从2018年到2020年，年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但陷入困境的投资机会让 findas 变得更加困难。美联储提供的宽松资金甚至让陷入困境的公司也可以进入债务市场。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，推出了几家特殊目的收购公司，就 AMC 而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于 AMC，以每美元 20 美分的价格购买债券，在 12 月份借给该公司 1 亿美元，并将部分债券交换为新股。在 Covid-19 大流行封锁期间，本已面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC 股价低至 2 美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将重新对大屏幕娱乐产生兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1 月下旬，日内交易者首次涌入 AMC，在社交媒体上互相敦促#SaveAMC，并短暂地将股价提升至 20 美元左右。AMC 股权价值的上升推高了债券价格--穆德里克资本持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番--很快就回报了穆德里克先生的乐观情绪。AMC 利用其飙升的股价，在 1 月下旬筹集了近 10 亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克出售了 AMC 股票的看涨期权期权，产生了即时收入，以抵消连锁影院确实面临问题时的潜在损失。这些衍生品让买家可以选择以约 40 美元的价格从 Mudrick Capital 购买 AMC 股票——当股价低于 10 美元时，这似乎不太可能。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与 AMC 首席执行官亚当·阿伦 (Adam Aron) 就提供额外资金事宜保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，他将衍生品合约作为保险单保留。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:53</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital 的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>多管齐下的赌注 onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39% 本月对 Mudrick Capital Management LP 进行了回旋镖，Mudrick Capital Management LP 是最新一家成为日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约 10%，原因是 AMC 股价的飙升意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 和其他股票的价格在 1 月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。穆德里克资本（Mudrick Capital）的亏损凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资风险有多大--甚至会对一家与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的效果。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森-穆德里克（Jason Mudrick）几个月来一直在交易 AMC 的股票、期权和债券，这激发了个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金对 AMC 的风险敞口。这些知情人士说，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以约 40 美元的价格从穆德里克手中购买 AMC 股票的权利，但最近 Reddit 推动的购买活动卷土重来，将 AMC 的股价推向了新纪录，这些衍生品合约却膨胀成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的 AMC 战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital 的高管正在与 AMC 进行谈判，计划于 5 月下旬从该公司购买更多股票。 6 月 1 日，AMC 披露，Mudrick Capital 已同意以每股 27.12 美元的价格直接从该公司购买 2.305 亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了这只股票获利，彭博新闻社报道了这一快速转变，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 1 日，Reddit 华尔街投注论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀.他们搬起石头砸了自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子将穆德里克称为 “失败者”、“人渣袋”和 “一大堆没有未来的 S-T”。论坛成员互相敦促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>在穆德里克内部，随着 AMC 反弹势头的增强，高管们越来越担心。6 月 1 日晚，该公司的风险委员会在股价收于 32 美元后召开会议，决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>已经晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 2 日，AMC 的股价在几个小时内就突破了 40 美元，盘中最高触及 72.62 美元。看涨期权期权价格在穆德里克资本推动的交易狂潮中飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了破产，该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital 出售的债务回报率约为 5%，但在考虑其期权交易后，该基金在 AMC 上净亏损约 5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位人士说，穆德里克先生的基金今年仍上涨了约 12%。与此同时，年初购买 AMC 股票并持有的投资者上涨了约 2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的一个决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发了国会听证会，并引起了美国证券交易委员会的审查。现在，越来越多的对冲基金在社交媒体上追踪个人投资者的情绪，并更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率贷款给陷入困境的公司，或者在破产法庭上将现有债务换成股权。穆德里克管理着全公司约 35 亿美元的投资，并持有电子烟制造商 NJOY Holdings Inc. 和卫星通信公司 GlobalStarInc. 的大量非流动性股份。根据汇丰另类投资集团的数据，该旗舰基金报告称，从2018年到2020年，年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但陷入困境的投资机会让 findas 变得更加困难。美联储提供的宽松资金甚至让陷入困境的公司也可以进入债务市场。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，推出了几家特殊目的收购公司，就 AMC 而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于 AMC，以每美元 20 美分的价格购买债券，在 12 月份借给该公司 1 亿美元，并将部分债券交换为新股。在 Covid-19 大流行封锁期间，本已面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC 股价低至 2 美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将重新对大屏幕娱乐产生兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1 月下旬，日内交易者首次涌入 AMC，在社交媒体上互相敦促#SaveAMC，并短暂地将股价提升至 20 美元左右。AMC 股权价值的上升推高了债券价格--穆德里克资本持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番--很快就回报了穆德里克先生的乐观情绪。AMC 利用其飙升的股价，在 1 月下旬筹集了近 10 亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克出售了 AMC 股票的看涨期权期权，产生了即时收入，以抵消连锁影院确实面临问题时的潜在损失。这些衍生品让买家可以选择以约 40 美元的价格从 Mudrick Capital 购买 AMC 股票——当股价低于 10 美元时，这似乎不太可能。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与 AMC 首席执行官亚当·阿伦 (Adam Aron) 就提供额外资金事宜保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，他将衍生品合约作为保险单保留。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1104635261","content_text":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.\nMudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.\nThe setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.\nThe development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.\nJason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.\nAs part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.\nMudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.\n“Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.\nInside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.\nIt was a day too late.\nAMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.\nMr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.\nThe impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.\nMr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.\nBut distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.\nMr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.\nDay traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.\nAround that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.\nMr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2202,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":182797437,"gmtCreate":1623606051629,"gmtModify":1634031237322,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"ya","listText":"ya","text":"ya","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/182797437","repostId":"1124998394","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2106,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186616154,"gmtCreate":1623491355778,"gmtModify":1634032404693,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Investor","listText":"Investor","text":"Investor","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186616154","repostId":"1147474880","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1147474880","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470168,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1147474880?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1147474880","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless ris","content":"<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽的风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>《华尔街日报》对金融最基本的区别之一的看法是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你仅仅因为一只股票上涨了很多，而没有做任何研究就买入它，那么你就不是《华尔街日报》及其编辑们奇怪地坚持称你为 “投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，那你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产时，因为你有一只雄鸡只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，而其他人似乎也在购买，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的人。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 等模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在押注或押注股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币是如何运作的，以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依靠外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否愿意支付更多，而不管基本面价值如何。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者一词源于拉丁语 “investire ”，意为打扮自己、包围或包裹自己。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或材质的情况下穿衣服。同样，你也不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，《华尔街日报》及其编辑们长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人都称为 “投资者”。1962 年 7 月 12 日，《华尔街日报》刊登了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明-格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年 6 月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是 “许多小投资者押注股价进一步下跌，卖空奇数手 ”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道： “根据'投资'的什么定义，我们能把'投资者'这个名字称为'投资'呢？”（做空奇数手意味着借入并卖出少于 100 股股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“格雷厄姆问道：”如果这些人是投资者，“我们应该如何定义'投机'和'投机者'？难道目前无法区分投资和投机，不仅会对个人造成严重伤害，还会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗--就像 20 世纪 20 年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个势利小人，他认为市场应该是富人的专属游乐场。他写《聪明的投资者》的明确目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股票市场。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书中写道：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法，也不不道德，（对大多数人来说）也不会中饱私囊。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三个危险： “(1) 当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；(2) 当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地进行投机而不是作为消遣；(3) 在投机中冒的风险超过了你承受的损失”。</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像一张彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多人都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为自己在投机时就是在投资，那么即使是短暂的成功，你也会把技巧归因于技巧，尽管运气是最有可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法在几分钟前专注于未来。接下来你就会知道，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，称交易者和投机者为 “投资者 ”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失。我衷心希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑们最终能停止使用 “投资者 ”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯-福雷尔（Charles Forelle）在回应我的投诉时说：”'投资者'在英语中有着悠久的历史，它是一个包罗万象的术语，指的是那些投入资金并期望获得回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少。“至少可以追溯到 19 世纪中叶，'投资'甚至被用来形容赌马--这种活动与基本面分析的脱节肯定不亚于购买狗狗币”。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是觉得你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场 “投资 ”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为 “投资者 ”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力手段之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的 Instagram 帖子中，一位名叫拉娜-罗德斯（Lana Rhoades）的前色情明星穿着比基尼摆姿势，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据 IMDb.com 报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在她的帖子中宣布，她将推广一种名为 Pawgcoin 的加密货币，该帖子获得了近 180 万人的 “点赞 ”。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为 “那些向发达的后裔致敬的人”准备的。(据我可靠消息，PAWG 代表肥屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站 Poocoin.io 称，自 Rhoades 女士 6 月初开始推广 PAWGcoin 以来，PAWGcoin 已上涨约 900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在推特上写道 “我每天早上也读《华尔街日报》 ”，但记者未能联系到她置评。PAWGcoin 的网站鼓励访问者 “立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗兹女士的 Instagram 帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nInvestor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:56</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽的风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>《华尔街日报》对金融最基本的区别之一的看法是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你仅仅因为一只股票上涨了很多，而没有做任何研究就买入它，那么你就不是《华尔街日报》及其编辑们奇怪地坚持称你为 “投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，那你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产时，因为你有一只雄鸡只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，而其他人似乎也在购买，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的人。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 等模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在押注或押注股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币是如何运作的，以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依靠外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否愿意支付更多，而不管基本面价值如何。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者一词源于拉丁语 “investire ”，意为打扮自己、包围或包裹自己。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或材质的情况下穿衣服。同样，你也不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，《华尔街日报》及其编辑们长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人都称为 “投资者”。1962 年 7 月 12 日，《华尔街日报》刊登了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明-格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年 6 月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是 “许多小投资者押注股价进一步下跌，卖空奇数手 ”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道： “根据'投资'的什么定义，我们能把'投资者'这个名字称为'投资'呢？”（做空奇数手意味着借入并卖出少于 100 股股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“格雷厄姆问道：”如果这些人是投资者，“我们应该如何定义'投机'和'投机者'？难道目前无法区分投资和投机，不仅会对个人造成严重伤害，还会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗--就像 20 世纪 20 年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个势利小人，他认为市场应该是富人的专属游乐场。他写《聪明的投资者》的明确目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股票市场。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书中写道：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法，也不不道德，（对大多数人来说）也不会中饱私囊。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三个危险： “(1) 当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；(2) 当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地进行投机而不是作为消遣；(3) 在投机中冒的风险超过了你承受的损失”。</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像一张彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多人都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为自己在投机时就是在投资，那么即使是短暂的成功，你也会把技巧归因于技巧，尽管运气是最有可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法在几分钟前专注于未来。接下来你就会知道，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，称交易者和投机者为 “投资者 ”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失。我衷心希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑们最终能停止使用 “投资者 ”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯-福雷尔（Charles Forelle）在回应我的投诉时说：”'投资者'在英语中有着悠久的历史，它是一个包罗万象的术语，指的是那些投入资金并期望获得回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少。“至少可以追溯到 19 世纪中叶，'投资'甚至被用来形容赌马--这种活动与基本面分析的脱节肯定不亚于购买狗狗币”。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是觉得你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场 “投资 ”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为 “投资者 ”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力手段之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的 Instagram 帖子中，一位名叫拉娜-罗德斯（Lana Rhoades）的前色情明星穿着比基尼摆姿势，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据 IMDb.com 报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在她的帖子中宣布，她将推广一种名为 Pawgcoin 的加密货币，该帖子获得了近 180 万人的 “点赞 ”。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为 “那些向发达的后裔致敬的人”准备的。(据我可靠消息，PAWG 代表肥屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站 Poocoin.io 称，自 Rhoades 女士 6 月初开始推广 PAWGcoin 以来，PAWGcoin 已上涨约 900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在推特上写道 “我每天早上也读《华尔街日报》 ”，但记者未能联系到她置评。PAWGcoin 的网站鼓励访问者 “立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗兹女士的 Instagram 帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1147474880","content_text":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.\n\nI’ve had it.\nThe Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.\nIf you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.\nWhenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.\nYou’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.\nOf course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%areinvestors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.\nAn investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.\nThe word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.\nNevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”\nHe wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)\n“If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”\nGraham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.\nIn that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”\nHowever, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”\nMost investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.\nIf you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.\nTake speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.\nI think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.\n“ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”\nI hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.\nCalling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.\nIna recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”\nIn her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.\nThe currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)\nPAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.\nMs. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”\nIn Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2918,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":160822471,"gmtCreate":1623782378793,"gmtModify":1634028298305,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"win","listText":"win","text":"win","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160822471","repostId":"1163235288","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1927,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":187279011,"gmtCreate":1623757003033,"gmtModify":1634028922399,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"halo","listText":"halo","text":"halo","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/187279011","repostId":"2143383753","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1575,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186616448,"gmtCreate":1623491442384,"gmtModify":1634032404345,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"//<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/U/3581487264734524\">@weixiangshe</a>: Investor","listText":"//<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/U/3581487264734524\">@weixiangshe</a>: Investor","text":"//@weixiangshe: Investor","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186616448","repostId":"1147474880","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1147474880","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470168,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1147474880?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1147474880","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless ris","content":"<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽的风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>《华尔街日报》对金融最基本的区别之一的看法是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你仅仅因为一只股票上涨了很多，而没有做任何研究就买入它，那么你就不是《华尔街日报》及其编辑们奇怪地坚持称你为 “投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，那你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产时，因为你有一只雄鸡只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，而其他人似乎也在购买，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的人。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 等模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在押注或押注股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币是如何运作的，以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依靠外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否愿意支付更多，而不管基本面价值如何。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者一词源于拉丁语 “investire ”，意为打扮自己、包围或包裹自己。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或材质的情况下穿衣服。同样，你也不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，《华尔街日报》及其编辑们长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人都称为 “投资者”。1962 年 7 月 12 日，《华尔街日报》刊登了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明-格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年 6 月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是 “许多小投资者押注股价进一步下跌，卖空奇数手 ”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道： “根据'投资'的什么定义，我们能把'投资者'这个名字称为'投资'呢？”（做空奇数手意味着借入并卖出少于 100 股股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“格雷厄姆问道：”如果这些人是投资者，“我们应该如何定义'投机'和'投机者'？难道目前无法区分投资和投机，不仅会对个人造成严重伤害，还会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗--就像 20 世纪 20 年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个势利小人，他认为市场应该是富人的专属游乐场。他写《聪明的投资者》的明确目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股票市场。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书中写道：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法，也不不道德，（对大多数人来说）也不会中饱私囊。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三个危险： “(1) 当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；(2) 当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地进行投机而不是作为消遣；(3) 在投机中冒的风险超过了你承受的损失”。</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像一张彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多人都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为自己在投机时就是在投资，那么即使是短暂的成功，你也会把技巧归因于技巧，尽管运气是最有可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法在几分钟前专注于未来。接下来你就会知道，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，称交易者和投机者为 “投资者 ”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失。我衷心希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑们最终能停止使用 “投资者 ”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯-福雷尔（Charles Forelle）在回应我的投诉时说：”'投资者'在英语中有着悠久的历史，它是一个包罗万象的术语，指的是那些投入资金并期望获得回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少。“至少可以追溯到 19 世纪中叶，'投资'甚至被用来形容赌马--这种活动与基本面分析的脱节肯定不亚于购买狗狗币”。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是觉得你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场 “投资 ”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为 “投资者 ”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力手段之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的 Instagram 帖子中，一位名叫拉娜-罗德斯（Lana Rhoades）的前色情明星穿着比基尼摆姿势，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据 IMDb.com 报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在她的帖子中宣布，她将推广一种名为 Pawgcoin 的加密货币，该帖子获得了近 180 万人的 “点赞 ”。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为 “那些向发达的后裔致敬的人”准备的。(据我可靠消息，PAWG 代表肥屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站 Poocoin.io 称，自 Rhoades 女士 6 月初开始推广 PAWGcoin 以来，PAWGcoin 已上涨约 900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在推特上写道 “我每天早上也读《华尔街日报》 ”，但记者未能联系到她置评。PAWGcoin 的网站鼓励访问者 “立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗兹女士的 Instagram 帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nInvestor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:56</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽的风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>《华尔街日报》对金融最基本的区别之一的看法是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你仅仅因为一只股票上涨了很多，而没有做任何研究就买入它，那么你就不是《华尔街日报》及其编辑们奇怪地坚持称你为 “投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，那你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产时，因为你有一只雄鸡只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，而其他人似乎也在购买，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的人。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 等模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在押注或押注股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币是如何运作的，以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依靠外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否愿意支付更多，而不管基本面价值如何。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者一词源于拉丁语 “investire ”，意为打扮自己、包围或包裹自己。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或材质的情况下穿衣服。同样，你也不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，《华尔街日报》及其编辑们长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人都称为 “投资者”。1962 年 7 月 12 日，《华尔街日报》刊登了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明-格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年 6 月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是 “许多小投资者押注股价进一步下跌，卖空奇数手 ”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道： “根据'投资'的什么定义，我们能把'投资者'这个名字称为'投资'呢？”（做空奇数手意味着借入并卖出少于 100 股股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“格雷厄姆问道：”如果这些人是投资者，“我们应该如何定义'投机'和'投机者'？难道目前无法区分投资和投机，不仅会对个人造成严重伤害，还会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗--就像 20 世纪 20 年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个势利小人，他认为市场应该是富人的专属游乐场。他写《聪明的投资者》的明确目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股票市场。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书中写道：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法，也不不道德，（对大多数人来说）也不会中饱私囊。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三个危险： “(1) 当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；(2) 当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地进行投机而不是作为消遣；(3) 在投机中冒的风险超过了你承受的损失”。</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像一张彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多人都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为自己在投机时就是在投资，那么即使是短暂的成功，你也会把技巧归因于技巧，尽管运气是最有可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法在几分钟前专注于未来。接下来你就会知道，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，称交易者和投机者为 “投资者 ”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失。我衷心希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑们最终能停止使用 “投资者 ”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯-福雷尔（Charles Forelle）在回应我的投诉时说：”'投资者'在英语中有着悠久的历史，它是一个包罗万象的术语，指的是那些投入资金并期望获得回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少。“至少可以追溯到 19 世纪中叶，'投资'甚至被用来形容赌马--这种活动与基本面分析的脱节肯定不亚于购买狗狗币”。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是觉得你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场 “投资 ”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为 “投资者 ”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力手段之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的 Instagram 帖子中，一位名叫拉娜-罗德斯（Lana Rhoades）的前色情明星穿着比基尼摆姿势，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据 IMDb.com 报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在她的帖子中宣布，她将推广一种名为 Pawgcoin 的加密货币，该帖子获得了近 180 万人的 “点赞 ”。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为 “那些向发达的后裔致敬的人”准备的。(据我可靠消息，PAWG 代表肥屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站 Poocoin.io 称，自 Rhoades 女士 6 月初开始推广 PAWGcoin 以来，PAWGcoin 已上涨约 900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在推特上写道 “我每天早上也读《华尔街日报》 ”，但记者未能联系到她置评。PAWGcoin 的网站鼓励访问者 “立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗兹女士的 Instagram 帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1147474880","content_text":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.\n\nI’ve had it.\nThe Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.\nIf you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.\nWhenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.\nYou’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.\nOf course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%areinvestors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.\nAn investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.\nThe word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.\nNevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”\nHe wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)\n“If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”\nGraham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.\nIn that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”\nHowever, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”\nMost investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.\nIf you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.\nTake speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.\nI think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.\n“ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”\nI hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.\nCalling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.\nIna recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”\nIn her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.\nThe currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)\nPAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.\nMs. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”\nIn Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2844,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186618918,"gmtCreate":1623491125434,"gmtModify":1634032405733,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"with tiger&nbsp;","listText":"with tiger&nbsp;","text":"with tiger","images":[{"img":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/321299c3a57d1bc11e56145f04575c35","width":"3024","height":"4032"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186618918","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1510,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186635508,"gmtCreate":1623490524604,"gmtModify":1634032411089,"author":{"id":"3581487264734524","authorId":"3581487264734524","name":"weixiangshe","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/001572c347b0d07cbf88807ccd1cd3fc","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3581487264734524","idStr":"3581487264734524"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"wow","listText":"wow","text":"wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186635508","repostId":"1104635261","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1104635261","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470020,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1104635261?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1104635261","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Enter","content":"<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital 的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>多管齐下的赌注 onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39% 本月对 Mudrick Capital Management LP 进行了回旋镖，Mudrick Capital Management LP 是最新一家成为日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约 10%，原因是 AMC 股价的飙升意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 和其他股票的价格在 1 月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。穆德里克资本（Mudrick Capital）的亏损凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资风险有多大--甚至会对一家与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的效果。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森-穆德里克（Jason Mudrick）几个月来一直在交易 AMC 的股票、期权和债券，这激发了个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金对 AMC 的风险敞口。这些知情人士说，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以约 40 美元的价格从穆德里克手中购买 AMC 股票的权利，但最近 Reddit 推动的购买活动卷土重来，将 AMC 的股价推向了新纪录，这些衍生品合约却膨胀成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的 AMC 战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital 的高管正在与 AMC 进行谈判，计划于 5 月下旬从该公司购买更多股票。 6 月 1 日，AMC 披露，Mudrick Capital 已同意以每股 27.12 美元的价格直接从该公司购买 2.305 亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了这只股票获利，彭博新闻社报道了这一快速转变，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 1 日，Reddit 华尔街投注论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀.他们搬起石头砸了自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子将穆德里克称为 “失败者”、“人渣袋”和 “一大堆没有未来的 S-T”。论坛成员互相敦促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>在穆德里克内部，随着 AMC 反弹势头的增强，高管们越来越担心。6 月 1 日晚，该公司的风险委员会在股价收于 32 美元后召开会议，决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>已经晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 2 日，AMC 的股价在几个小时内就突破了 40 美元，盘中最高触及 72.62 美元。看涨期权期权价格在穆德里克资本推动的交易狂潮中飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了破产，该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital 出售的债务回报率约为 5%，但在考虑其期权交易后，该基金在 AMC 上净亏损约 5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位人士说，穆德里克先生的基金今年仍上涨了约 12%。与此同时，年初购买 AMC 股票并持有的投资者上涨了约 2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的一个决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发了国会听证会，并引起了美国证券交易委员会的审查。现在，越来越多的对冲基金在社交媒体上追踪个人投资者的情绪，并更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率贷款给陷入困境的公司，或者在破产法庭上将现有债务换成股权。穆德里克管理着全公司约 35 亿美元的投资，并持有电子烟制造商 NJOY Holdings Inc. 和卫星通信公司 GlobalStarInc. 的大量非流动性股份。根据汇丰另类投资集团的数据，该旗舰基金报告称，从2018年到2020年，年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但陷入困境的投资机会让 findas 变得更加困难。美联储提供的宽松资金甚至让陷入困境的公司也可以进入债务市场。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，推出了几家特殊目的收购公司，就 AMC 而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于 AMC，以每美元 20 美分的价格购买债券，在 12 月份借给该公司 1 亿美元，并将部分债券交换为新股。在 Covid-19 大流行封锁期间，本已面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC 股价低至 2 美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将重新对大屏幕娱乐产生兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1 月下旬，日内交易者首次涌入 AMC，在社交媒体上互相敦促#SaveAMC，并短暂地将股价提升至 20 美元左右。AMC 股权价值的上升推高了债券价格--穆德里克资本持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番--很快就回报了穆德里克先生的乐观情绪。AMC 利用其飙升的股价，在 1 月下旬筹集了近 10 亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克出售了 AMC 股票的看涨期权期权，产生了即时收入，以抵消连锁影院确实面临问题时的潜在损失。这些衍生品让买家可以选择以约 40 美元的价格从 Mudrick Capital 购买 AMC 股票——当股价低于 10 美元时，这似乎不太可能。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与 AMC 首席执行官亚当·阿伦 (Adam Aron) 就提供额外资金事宜保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，他将衍生品合约作为保险单保留。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:53</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital 的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>多管齐下的赌注 onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39% 本月对 Mudrick Capital Management LP 进行了回旋镖，Mudrick Capital Management LP 是最新一家成为日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约 10%，原因是 AMC 股价的飙升意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 和其他股票的价格在 1 月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。穆德里克资本（Mudrick Capital）的亏损凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资风险有多大--甚至会对一家与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的效果。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森-穆德里克（Jason Mudrick）几个月来一直在交易 AMC 的股票、期权和债券，这激发了个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金对 AMC 的风险敞口。这些知情人士说，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以约 40 美元的价格从穆德里克手中购买 AMC 股票的权利，但最近 Reddit 推动的购买活动卷土重来，将 AMC 的股价推向了新纪录，这些衍生品合约却膨胀成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的 AMC 战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital 的高管正在与 AMC 进行谈判，计划于 5 月下旬从该公司购买更多股票。 6 月 1 日，AMC 披露，Mudrick Capital 已同意以每股 27.12 美元的价格直接从该公司购买 2.305 亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了这只股票获利，彭博新闻社报道了这一快速转变，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 1 日，Reddit 华尔街投注论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀.他们搬起石头砸了自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子将穆德里克称为 “失败者”、“人渣袋”和 “一大堆没有未来的 S-T”。论坛成员互相敦促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>在穆德里克内部，随着 AMC 反弹势头的增强，高管们越来越担心。6 月 1 日晚，该公司的风险委员会在股价收于 32 美元后召开会议，决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>已经晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 2 日，AMC 的股价在几个小时内就突破了 40 美元，盘中最高触及 72.62 美元。看涨期权期权价格在穆德里克资本推动的交易狂潮中飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了破产，该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital 出售的债务回报率约为 5%，但在考虑其期权交易后，该基金在 AMC 上净亏损约 5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位人士说，穆德里克先生的基金今年仍上涨了约 12%。与此同时，年初购买 AMC 股票并持有的投资者上涨了约 2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的一个决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发了国会听证会，并引起了美国证券交易委员会的审查。现在，越来越多的对冲基金在社交媒体上追踪个人投资者的情绪，并更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率贷款给陷入困境的公司，或者在破产法庭上将现有债务换成股权。穆德里克管理着全公司约 35 亿美元的投资，并持有电子烟制造商 NJOY Holdings Inc. 和卫星通信公司 GlobalStarInc. 的大量非流动性股份。根据汇丰另类投资集团的数据，该旗舰基金报告称，从2018年到2020年，年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但陷入困境的投资机会让 findas 变得更加困难。美联储提供的宽松资金甚至让陷入困境的公司也可以进入债务市场。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，推出了几家特殊目的收购公司，就 AMC 而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于 AMC，以每美元 20 美分的价格购买债券，在 12 月份借给该公司 1 亿美元，并将部分债券交换为新股。在 Covid-19 大流行封锁期间，本已面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC 股价低至 2 美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将重新对大屏幕娱乐产生兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1 月下旬，日内交易者首次涌入 AMC，在社交媒体上互相敦促#SaveAMC，并短暂地将股价提升至 20 美元左右。AMC 股权价值的上升推高了债券价格--穆德里克资本持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番--很快就回报了穆德里克先生的乐观情绪。AMC 利用其飙升的股价，在 1 月下旬筹集了近 10 亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克出售了 AMC 股票的看涨期权期权，产生了即时收入，以抵消连锁影院确实面临问题时的潜在损失。这些衍生品让买家可以选择以约 40 美元的价格从 Mudrick Capital 购买 AMC 股票——当股价低于 10 美元时，这似乎不太可能。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与 AMC 首席执行官亚当·阿伦 (Adam Aron) 就提供额外资金事宜保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，他将衍生品合约作为保险单保留。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1104635261","content_text":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.\nMudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.\nThe setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.\nThe development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.\nJason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.\nAs part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.\nMudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.\n“Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.\nInside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.\nIt was a day too late.\nAMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.\nMr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.\nThe impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.\nMr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.\nBut distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.\nMr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.\nDay traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.\nAround that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.\nMr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2202,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}