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>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-2","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"资深虎友","description":"加入老虎社区1000天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0063fb68ea29c9ae6858c58630e182d5","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96c699a93be4214d4b49aea6a5a5d1a4","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/35b0e542a9ff77046ed69ef602bc105d","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.01.16","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"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,"redirectLink":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},{"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,"redirectLink":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},{"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,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":"60.98%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"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":[],"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":1710,"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":[],"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":1485,"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":[],"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":1708,"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":[],"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.laohu8.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>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》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>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，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是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，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>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</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，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<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，并了解还有谁在做空股票。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的工作原理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、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</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>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你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>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《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“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</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，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，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>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且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认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</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（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</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，这会带来三种危险：“（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，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</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>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。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，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，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，将交易者和投机者称为“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的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“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>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度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，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅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方式之一。</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·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，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>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</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“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</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>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。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>在罗迪斯的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>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》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>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，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是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，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>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</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，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<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，并了解还有谁在做空股票。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的工作原理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、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</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>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你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>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《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“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</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，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，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>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且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认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</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（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</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，这会带来三种危险：“（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，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</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>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。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，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，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，将交易者和投机者称为“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的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“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>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度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，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅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方式之一。</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·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，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>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</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“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</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>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。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>在罗迪斯的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":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"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,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2531,"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":[],"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.laohu8.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>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》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>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，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是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，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>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</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，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<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，并了解还有谁在做空股票。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的工作原理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、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</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>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你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>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《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“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</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，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，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>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且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认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</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（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</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，这会带来三种危险：“（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，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</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>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。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，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，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，将交易者和投机者称为“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的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“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>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度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，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅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方式之一。</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·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，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>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</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“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</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>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。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>在罗迪斯的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>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》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>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，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是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，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>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</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，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<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，并了解还有谁在做空股票。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的工作原理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、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</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>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你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>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《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“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</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，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，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>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且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认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</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（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</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，这会带来三种危险：“（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，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</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>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。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，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，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，将交易者和投机者称为“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的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“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>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度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，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅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方式之一。</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·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，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>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</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“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</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>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。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>在罗迪斯的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":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"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,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2694,"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":[],"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":1185,"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":[],"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.laohu8.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>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量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%，因为AMC股价的上涨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。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位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影响。</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股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</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就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。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该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，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华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</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>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并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>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股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为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>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克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已上涨约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决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，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>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为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>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立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，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</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，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近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，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</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)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</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>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量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%，因为AMC股价的上涨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。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位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影响。</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股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</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就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。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该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，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华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</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>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并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>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股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为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>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克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已上涨约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决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，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>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为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>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立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，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</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，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近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，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</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)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</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":1794,"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":[],"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":1708,"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":[],"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.laohu8.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>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》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>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，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是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，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>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</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，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<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，并了解还有谁在做空股票。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的工作原理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、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</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>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你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>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《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“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</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，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，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>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且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认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</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（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</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，这会带来三种危险：“（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，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</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>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。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，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，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，将交易者和投机者称为“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的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“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>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度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，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅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方式之一。</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·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，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>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</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“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</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>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。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>在罗迪斯的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>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》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>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，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是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，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>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</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，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<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，并了解还有谁在做空股票。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的工作原理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、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</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>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你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>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《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“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</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，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，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>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且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认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</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（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</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，这会带来三种危险：“（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，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</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>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。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，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，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，将交易者和投机者称为“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的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“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>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度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，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅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方式之一。</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·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，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>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</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“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</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>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。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>在罗迪斯的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":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"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,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2694,"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":[],"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":1710,"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":[],"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":1485,"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":[],"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.laohu8.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>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》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>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，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是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，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>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</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，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<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，并了解还有谁在做空股票。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的工作原理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、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</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>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你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>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《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“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</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，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，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>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且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认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</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（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</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，这会带来三种危险：“（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，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</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>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。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，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，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，将交易者和投机者称为“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的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“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>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度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，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅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方式之一。</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·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，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>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</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“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</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>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。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>在罗迪斯的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>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》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>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，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是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，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>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</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，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<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，并了解还有谁在做空股票。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的工作原理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、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</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>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你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>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《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“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</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，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，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>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且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认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</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（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</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，这会带来三种危险：“（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，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</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>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。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，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，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，将交易者和投机者称为“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的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“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>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度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，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅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方式之一。</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·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，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>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</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“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</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>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。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>在罗迪斯的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":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"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,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2531,"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":[],"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":1185,"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":[],"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.laohu8.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>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量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%，因为AMC股价的上涨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。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位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影响。</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股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</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就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。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该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，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华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</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>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并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>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股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为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>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克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已上涨约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决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，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>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为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>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立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，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</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，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近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，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</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)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</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>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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>对冲基金对AMC的押注因模因股票交易员而瓦解</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>本月，对AMC Entertainment HoldingsINC.AMC 15.39%的多管齐下的押注在Mudrick Capital Management LP上适得其反，Mudrick Capital Management LP是最新一家成为大量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%，因为AMC股价的上涨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。Mudrick Capital的损失凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资的风险有多大，甚至会对一位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影响。</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股票、期权和债券，个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情高涨。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金在股价下跌时对AMC的敞口。知情人士称，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以大约40美元的价格从Mudrick购买AMC股票的权利，但当Reddit推动的购买热潮最近将AMC股票推至新纪录时，这些衍生品合约就变成了负债。</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就购买该公司的额外股票进行谈判。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该股票并获利，彭博新闻报道了这一快速抛售，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华尔街博彩论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀……他们是搬起石头砸自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子称穆德里克为“失败者”、“人渣”和“一大堆没有未来的挥舞着的S-T”。论坛成员互相催促买入并持有。</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>随着AMC反弹势头增强，穆德里克内部的高管们越来越感到担忧。该公司的风险委员会于6月1日晚在该股收于32美元后召开会议，并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>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股价在几个小时内突破40美元，触及72.62美元的盘中高点。在穆德里克资本促成的疯狂交易中，看涨期权期权价格飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了失败，使该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital出售的债务回报率约为5%，但考虑到期权交易后，该基金在AMC上的净亏损约为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>其中一位知情人士表示，穆德里克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已上涨约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决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发国会听证会并受到美国证券交易委员会的审查。更多的对冲基金现在跟踪个人投资者在社交媒体上的情绪，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>穆德里克先生专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率向陷入困境的公司提供贷款，或者在破产法庭上将其现有债务换成股权。Mudrick管理着全公司约35亿美元的投资，并通过此类交易所持有电子烟制造商NJOY Holdings Inc.和卫星通信公司GlobalStarInc.的大量非流动性股份。汇丰另类投资集团的数据显示，2018年至2020年，该旗舰基金的年回报率约为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>但由于美联储的宽松资金甚至为陷入困境的公司提供了进入债务市场的机会，因此陷入困境的投资机会变得越来越难找到。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，成立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，以低至20美分的价格购买债券，在12月向该公司借出1亿美元，并将部分债券换成新股。在Covid-19大流行封锁期间，已经面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC股票交易价格低至2美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将恢复对大屏幕娱乐的兴趣。</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，日内交易者首次在AMC进行了交易，在社交媒体上高呼#SaveAMC，并短暂将该股推升至20美元左右。AMC不断上涨的股票价值推高了债务价格——Mudrick Capital持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番——很快就回报了Mudrick先生的看涨情绪。AMC利用其飙升的股价在1月底筹集了近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，穆德里克先生出售了AMC股票的看涨期权期权，如果连锁影院确实面临问题，可以立即产生收入来抵消潜在的损失。衍生品让买家可以选择以40美元左右的价格从穆德里克资本手中购买AMC股票——当股票交易价格低于10美元时，这似乎是不太可能的。</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)就提供额外资金保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，作为一项保险政策，他保留了衍生品合约。</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":1794,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}