What could have been the under_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-02-03

What could have been the underlying reasons behind people not selling off their stocks when the price shot up?

As GameStop showed, anyone can manipulate the market. Here's how to fix that

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":314211717,"tweetId":"314211717","gmtCreate":1612353516139,"gmtModify":1703760710590,"author":{"id":3574247298403613,"idStr":"3574247298403613","authorId":3574247298403613,"authorIdStr":"3574247298403613","name":"XDD890","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/175e4bee0517b31778f6b567216fbb5e","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":0,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>What could have been the underlying reasons behind people not selling off their stocks when the price shot up?</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>What could have been the underlying reasons behind people not selling off their stocks when the price shot up?</p></body></html>","text":"What could have been the underlying reasons behind people not selling off their stocks when the price shot up?","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/314211717","repostId":1172180017,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1172180017","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612338041,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1172180017?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-03 15:40","market":"us","language":"en","title":"As GameStop showed, anyone can manipulate the market. Here's how to fix that","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1172180017","media":"straitstimes","summary":"NEW YORK (NYTIMES) - There will be academic case studies on the mania around GameStop's stock. There","content":"<p>NEW YORK (NYTIMES) - There will be academic case studies on the mania around GameStop's stock. There will be philosophical debates about whether this was a genuine protest against hedge funds and inequality or a pump-and-dump scheme masquerading as a moral crusade. Eventually, we will learn whether this was a transformational moment powered by social media that will shift the investing landscape forever, or a short-term blip that soon fades away.</p>\n<p>What is&nbsp;less up for debate is this: The public has a deep distrust of the stock market and everything it represents. That lesson has been laid bare by the anger coursing through the Reddit posts and Twitter threads of GameStop traders and the throngs cheering them on.</p>\n<p>What the Reddit investors did,more than anything else, was demonstrate in the starkest terms that they could manipulate the market in the way that so much of the public believes hedge funds and wealthy investors do every day. In doing so, they exposed the fallacy that the stock market was ever a level playing field.</p>\n<p>So now what? If any good can come from this beyond the feel-good story of some retail traders profiting at the expense of hedge funds - which may reverse before this story is over - it requires a real conversation about how to make a more fair market that nobody can manipulate, that provides the same opportunities for everyone to create wealth.</p>\n<p>Here are policy ideas to help level the playing field:</p>\n<p><b>• A transaction tax for high-frequency traders</b></p>\n<p>One of the arguments repeatedly made by critics of Wall Street is that high-frequency traders - who are buying and selling in milliseconds - have made a mockery of the idea of actual investing. These traders are often taking advantage of price discrepancies using algorithms in a way that no retail investor has any opportunity to do, creating great wealth at firms like Citadel and Virtu Financial. A transaction tax of even 0.1 per cent on the value of trades&nbsp;would not only raise nearly $80 billion a year, but also meaningfully reduce high-frequency trading by making it less profitable. Bills have been proposed in Congress repeatedly for such a tax and struck down.</p>\n<p>The cons: Proponents of high-frequency trading say that it creates more competition and therefore makes the market more efficient for all participants, including retail investors.</p>\n<p><b>• Disclosure of short positions</b></p>\n<p>Big hedge funds have to disclose their \"long\" positions when they cross the threshold of owning 5 per cent or more of a company's shares. No such disclosure is required for short positions. At all. Shouldn't there be? If we as a society believe transparency is important to understand who is buying up shares, it would seem logical that we also want to know who is betting against them. Some people believe that short selling itself should banned, but others believe it performs an important policing function by incentivising shareholders to scrutinise companies for fraud, chicanery or simple mismanagement.</p>\n<p>The cons: If short-sellers were forced to disclose their bets, they could find it difficult to build meaningful positions. Shorting a stock can take time, and building the position could make them targets of investors who might put them in a short squeeze, similar to what was play out over the past week.</p>\n<p><b>• End private meetings between companies and big investors</b></p>\n<p>Passing important information that is not publicly disclosed to all investors is illegal. But big investors travel across the country constantly to visit chief executives and privately grill them about their businesses. The retail investor cannot get in these meetings. While most executives are careful not to pass news of impending earnings or a merger, it is hard to believe that big investors would spend the time and money to get these meetings if they did not believe that doing so provided them with an edge that they could&nbsp;not get otherwise.</p>\n<p>The cons: Companies often say they want to hear from their biggest investors and get feedback on their performance. Some big investors also say that given the amount of money at stake - especially when making a long-term investment commitment - they want to know the management team personally.</p>\n<p><b>• Access to private investments for anyone with smarts, not wealth</b></p>\n<p>The United States&nbsp;Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) says that only \"accredited investors\" can put money in private investment vehicles like venture capital and private equity funds, which often generate some of the biggest returns. Historically, being an accredited investor was measured by wealth. The SEC recently changed the rule to allow people with deep financial experience to invest even if they don't meet the wealth thresholds. What about a test for anyone who wants to become an accredited investor, like a driver's licence for investing? This would create a fairer system and ensure anybody putting money in the most risky vehicles has the required financial literacy to fully understand the risks.</p>\n<p>The cons: Even the most sophisticated investors lose sometimes, but someone with a lot of wealth has a cushion. Someone with less to lose may be forced to rely on the social safety net when an investment goes wrong. And a financial literacy test for everyone might mean some of the wealthiest investors won't take - or pass - the exam, preventing money from being invested in risky but important early-stage companies.</p>\n<p><b>• End payment for order flow</b></p>\n<p>When Robinhood, the brokerage app, was introduced, its biggest innovation was eliminating trading commissions. The move was a huge hit, and the company grew so quickly that other brokerage firms eliminated their fees&nbsp;too. So how does it make money? Robinhood's unique insight was that it could charge market makers to execute trades for it. Market makers, in turn, extract a profit for fulfilling each trade and insights from the flood of data. In the case of Robinhood, Citadel Securities executes a majority of its trades and represents its biggest source of revenue. That has created questions about conflicts of interest and instilled a sense of distrust in the system. Ending the practice could give retail investors more confidence that the prices of their trades reflect prevailing conditions on exchanges and not private arrangements between brokers and other parties.</p>\n<p>The cons: This is a big one - trades would not be free. If you believe that no-commission trading has helped democratise the market and made it more accessible for retail investors, then eliminating it would make the playing field less equal.</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>As GameStop showed, anyone can manipulate the market. Here's how to fix that</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: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\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\">\nAs GameStop showed, anyone can manipulate the market. Here's how to fix that\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-03 15:40 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/as-gamestop-showed-anyone-can-manipulate-the-market-heres-how-to-fix-that><strong>straitstimes</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>NEW YORK (NYTIMES) - There will be academic case studies on the mania around GameStop's stock. There will be philosophical debates about whether this was a genuine protest against hedge funds and ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/as-gamestop-showed-anyone-can-manipulate-the-market-heres-how-to-fix-that\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3780c78c8bb55dbf0b4bcd80ffe89707","relate_stocks":{"GME":"游戏驿站"},"source_url":"https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/as-gamestop-showed-anyone-can-manipulate-the-market-heres-how-to-fix-that","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1172180017","content_text":"NEW YORK (NYTIMES) - There will be academic case studies on the mania around GameStop's stock. There will be philosophical debates about whether this was a genuine protest against hedge funds and inequality or a pump-and-dump scheme masquerading as a moral crusade. Eventually, we will learn whether this was a transformational moment powered by social media that will shift the investing landscape forever, or a short-term blip that soon fades away.\nWhat is less up for debate is this: The public has a deep distrust of the stock market and everything it represents. That lesson has been laid bare by the anger coursing through the Reddit posts and Twitter threads of GameStop traders and the throngs cheering them on.\nWhat the Reddit investors did,more than anything else, was demonstrate in the starkest terms that they could manipulate the market in the way that so much of the public believes hedge funds and wealthy investors do every day. In doing so, they exposed the fallacy that the stock market was ever a level playing field.\nSo now what? If any good can come from this beyond the feel-good story of some retail traders profiting at the expense of hedge funds - which may reverse before this story is over - it requires a real conversation about how to make a more fair market that nobody can manipulate, that provides the same opportunities for everyone to create wealth.\nHere are policy ideas to help level the playing field:\n• A transaction tax for high-frequency traders\nOne of the arguments repeatedly made by critics of Wall Street is that high-frequency traders - who are buying and selling in milliseconds - have made a mockery of the idea of actual investing. These traders are often taking advantage of price discrepancies using algorithms in a way that no retail investor has any opportunity to do, creating great wealth at firms like Citadel and Virtu Financial. A transaction tax of even 0.1 per cent on the value of trades would not only raise nearly $80 billion a year, but also meaningfully reduce high-frequency trading by making it less profitable. Bills have been proposed in Congress repeatedly for such a tax and struck down.\nThe cons: Proponents of high-frequency trading say that it creates more competition and therefore makes the market more efficient for all participants, including retail investors.\n• Disclosure of short positions\nBig hedge funds have to disclose their \"long\" positions when they cross the threshold of owning 5 per cent or more of a company's shares. No such disclosure is required for short positions. At all. Shouldn't there be? If we as a society believe transparency is important to understand who is buying up shares, it would seem logical that we also want to know who is betting against them. Some people believe that short selling itself should banned, but others believe it performs an important policing function by incentivising shareholders to scrutinise companies for fraud, chicanery or simple mismanagement.\nThe cons: If short-sellers were forced to disclose their bets, they could find it difficult to build meaningful positions. Shorting a stock can take time, and building the position could make them targets of investors who might put them in a short squeeze, similar to what was play out over the past week.\n• End private meetings between companies and big investors\nPassing important information that is not publicly disclosed to all investors is illegal. But big investors travel across the country constantly to visit chief executives and privately grill them about their businesses. The retail investor cannot get in these meetings. While most executives are careful not to pass news of impending earnings or a merger, it is hard to believe that big investors would spend the time and money to get these meetings if they did not believe that doing so provided them with an edge that they could not get otherwise.\nThe cons: Companies often say they want to hear from their biggest investors and get feedback on their performance. Some big investors also say that given the amount of money at stake - especially when making a long-term investment commitment - they want to know the management team personally.\n• Access to private investments for anyone with smarts, not wealth\nThe United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) says that only \"accredited investors\" can put money in private investment vehicles like venture capital and private equity funds, which often generate some of the biggest returns. Historically, being an accredited investor was measured by wealth. The SEC recently changed the rule to allow people with deep financial experience to invest even if they don't meet the wealth thresholds. What about a test for anyone who wants to become an accredited investor, like a driver's licence for investing? This would create a fairer system and ensure anybody putting money in the most risky vehicles has the required financial literacy to fully understand the risks.\nThe cons: Even the most sophisticated investors lose sometimes, but someone with a lot of wealth has a cushion. Someone with less to lose may be forced to rely on the social safety net when an investment goes wrong. And a financial literacy test for everyone might mean some of the wealthiest investors won't take - or pass - the exam, preventing money from being invested in risky but important early-stage companies.\n• End payment for order flow\nWhen Robinhood, the brokerage app, was introduced, its biggest innovation was eliminating trading commissions. The move was a huge hit, and the company grew so quickly that other brokerage firms eliminated their fees too. So how does it make money? Robinhood's unique insight was that it could charge market makers to execute trades for it. Market makers, in turn, extract a profit for fulfilling each trade and insights from the flood of data. In the case of Robinhood, Citadel Securities executes a majority of its trades and represents its biggest source of revenue. That has created questions about conflicts of interest and instilled a sense of distrust in the system. Ending the practice could give retail investors more confidence that the prices of their trades reflect prevailing conditions on exchanges and not private arrangements between brokers and other parties.\nThe cons: This is a big one - trades would not be free. If you believe that no-commission trading has helped democratise the market and made it more accessible for retail investors, then eliminating it would make the playing field less equal.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":75,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":92,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/314211717"}