Ttm_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

yak72
2021-02-01

Ttm

Why regulators shouldn’t get trigger-happy in trying to rein in GameStop’s stock mania<blockquote>为什么监管机构不应该急于遏制游戏驿站的股票狂热</blockquote>

The meteoric rise in videogame-retailer GameStop’s stock price from a few dollars to more than $300

Why regulators shouldn’t get trigger-happy in trying to rein in GameStop’s stock mania<blockquote>为什么监管机构不应该急于遏制游戏驿站的股票狂热</blockquote>

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。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":312589577,"tweetId":"312589577","gmtCreate":1612167304699,"gmtModify":1703758134256,"author":{"id":3574935717212940,"idStr":"3574935717212940","authorId":3574935717212940,"authorIdStr":"3574935717212940","name":"yak72","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/17a87ff9ca11712b778937c22f667b41","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":2,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Ttm</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Ttm</body></html>","text":"Ttm","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/312589577","repostId":1183625716,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1183625716","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1612163292,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1183625716?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-01 15:08","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why regulators shouldn’t get trigger-happy in trying to rein in GameStop’s stock mania<blockquote>为什么监管机构不应该急于遏制游戏驿站的股票狂热</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1183625716","media":"marketwatch","summary":"The meteoric rise in videogame-retailer GameStop’s stock price from a few dollars to more than $300 ","content":"The meteoric rise in videogame-retailer GameStop’s stock price from a few dollars to more than $300 in a couple of weeks, swelling its market value to about $25 billion, has made the company and mania surrounding it a household name.<blockquote>视频游戏零售商游戏驿站的股价在几周内从几美元飙升至300多美元，市值飙升至约250亿美元，使该公司及其周围的狂热成为家喻户晓的名字。</blockquote> Trading in shares of the beleaguered retailer has gone through the roof.&nbsp; Short interest — bets against the company — exceeds the total shares outstanding, and call and put option volume has been in the tens of millions. Those statistics are an order of magnitude greater than for similar stocks.<blockquote>这家陷入困境的零售商的股票交易已经飙升。空头利息——做空该公司的赌注——超过了已发行股票总数，看涨期权和看跌期权交易量已达数千万。这些统计数据比类似股票高一个数量级。</blockquote> Investors, including those on Reddit’s WallStreetBets forum and other social media, have been buying GameStopGME,+67.87%shares, causing a short squeeze for those betting against the company, in turn forcing the short sellers to cover their positions. As a result, that’s driving the shares higher. While the saga is still unfolding, we wouldn’t be surprised that when the music stops, GameStop’s share price would return to terrestrial levels.<blockquote>投资者，包括Reddit的WallStreetBets论坛和其他社交媒体上的投资者，一直在购买GameStopGME，+67.87%的股票，导致那些做空该公司的人出现轧空，进而迫使卖空者回补头寸。因此，这推动股价走高。虽然传奇仍在展开，但当音乐停止时，游戏驿站的股价将回到地球水平，我们不会感到惊讶。</blockquote> The dramatic turn of events has led many to speculate the underlying causes and proffer regulatory remedies. Some draw a parallel to pump-and-dump schemes that seek to manipulate share prices. However, pump-and-dump schemes are already illegal, which might shift attention toward other regulatory avenues.<blockquote>事件的戏剧性转变导致许多人猜测根本原因并提出监管补救措施。一些人将其与试图操纵股价的拉高抛售计划相提并论。然而，抽水和转储计划已经是非法的，这可能会将注意力转移到其他监管途径上。</blockquote> Three come to mind: payment for order flow, a transaction tax and enhanced financial literacy education.<blockquote>我想到了三个：订单流支付、交易税和增强的金融知识教育。</blockquote> Payment for order flow<blockquote>订单流支付</blockquote> Payment for order flow (here’s an SEC study) transfers “some of the trading profits from market making to the brokers that route customer orders to specialists for execution.”<blockquote>订单流支付（这是美国证券交易委员会的一项研究）将“部分做市交易利润转移给经纪人，经纪人将客户订单发送给专家执行。”</blockquote> This practice has experienced renewed scrutiny as a central source of revenue for retail brokerage platforms such as Robinhood, Charles SchwabSCHW,-4.09%and E*Trade. The brokers’ business model offers zero-cost trades to attract business from individual and institutional clients in exchange for the order flow payments they receive from market makers such as Citadel.<blockquote>作为Robinhood、Charles SchwabSCHW,-4.09%和E*Trade等零售经纪平台的主要收入来源，这种做法受到了新的审查。该经纪商的商业模式提供零成本交易，以吸引个人和机构客户的业务，以换取他们从Citadel等做市商那里收到的订单流付款。</blockquote> Detractors argue that zero-cost trades induce excessive trading. While that might be true, it’s naïve to believe that it remotely explains the price movement witnessed in GameStop. Moreover, the lower cost of trading in all stocks and better execution have democratized investors’ access to securities markets without adverse effects on securities market. In fact, greater investor participation and trading enhance price transparency and liquidity — both desirable tenets of securities markets. Making order flow payments verboten will deprive markets of these benefits.<blockquote>批评者认为零成本交易会导致过度交易。虽然这可能是真的，但认为它可以远程解释游戏驿站目睹的价格变动是天真的。此外，所有股票的较低交易成本和更好的执行使投资者进入证券市场的途径民主化，而不会对证券市场产生不利影响。事实上，更多的投资者参与和交易提高了价格透明度和流动性——这两者都是证券市场的理想原则。禁止订单流支付将剥夺市场的这些好处。</blockquote> Transaction tax<blockquote>交易税</blockquote> Clearly, trading volume in GameStop shares is many times its historical average. This anecdotal evidence of high trading volume and high volatility might revive the financial transaction tax proposal.<blockquote>显然，游戏驿站股票的交易量是其历史平均水平的许多倍。这种高交易量和高波动性的轶事证据可能会重振金融交易税提案。</blockquote> A financial transaction tax is typically premised on notions that trading fuels volatility, and trading, especially high-frequency trading, does not serve a useful social purpose.&nbsp;An alternative explanation is that economic news and uncertainty contribute to trading and price volatility.<blockquote>金融交易税通常基于这样一种观念，即交易会加剧波动，交易，尤其是高频交易，不会服务于有用的社会目的。另一种解释是，经济新闻和不确定性会导致交易和价格波动。</blockquote> As the COVID-19 pandemic hit the U.S. in March 2020, the adverse news and high degree of uncertainty about U.S. economic prospects manifested in a sharp fall in asset prices and the VIX rising almost instantaneously to a historic high. Simultaneously, trading volume doubled. From April 2020, asset prices rose and VIX dropped rapidly with federal stimulus, accommodative monetary policies and Treasury fiscal support to businesses.<blockquote>随着COVID-19疫情于2020年3月袭击美国，美国经济前景的不利消息和高度不确定性表现为资产价格大幅下跌，VIX几乎瞬间升至历史高位。与此同时，交易量翻了一番。从2020年4月开始，随着联邦刺激、宽松的货币政策和财政部对企业的财政支持，资产价格上涨，VIX迅速下降。</blockquote> However, trading volume has remained elevated, which contradicts the notion that trading fuels market volatility. A financial transaction tax would discourage trading, for sure, but it is unlikely to attenuate volatility.&nbsp;More importantly, price discovery might be sacrificed as a result of less trading, which would adversely affect efficient capital allocation.<blockquote>然而，交易量仍然很高，这与交易加剧市场波动的观点相矛盾。金融交易税肯定会抑制交易，但不太可能降低波动性。更重要的是，交易减少可能会牺牲价格发现，从而对有效的资本配置产生不利影响。</blockquote> Finally, financial transaction taxes are also unlikely to be effective in curbing episodes such as the sudden rise of GameStop.<blockquote>最后，金融交易税也不太可能有效遏制游戏驿站突然崛起等事件。</blockquote> Financial literacy<blockquote>金融知识</blockquote> A baseline level of education is a prerequisite for an individual investor to trade in options. Enhanced financial literacy education might be a promising approach to discipline investor exuberance. Still, more information is needed to determine its efficacy. This may come in the form of research on the links between education and investor behavior.<blockquote>基本教育水平是个人投资者进行期权交易的先决条件。加强金融知识教育可能是约束投资者繁荣的一种有前途的方法。尽管如此，还需要更多的信息来确定其疗效。这可能以研究教育和投资者行为之间的联系的形式出现。</blockquote> Rather than regulation directly designed to curb trading, experimentation in financial markets might hold greater promise in calibrating the form of effective financial literacy education.<blockquote>与直接旨在抑制交易的监管相比，金融市场的实验在校准有效的金融知识教育形式方面可能更有希望。</blockquote> The limits of arbitrage capital<blockquote>套利资本的限度</blockquote> The sudden, sharp rise in GameStop highlights the clout of individual investors acting in concert. Their collective buying power has propelled the stock to loftier levels, which virtually everyone believes to be unhinged from underlying economic fundamentals.<blockquote>游戏驿站的突然大幅上涨凸显了个人投资者一致行动的影响力。他们的集体购买力将该股推至更高水平，几乎每个人都认为这与潜在的经济基本面脱节。</blockquote> Typically, active investors, including short sellers, correct the price by selling the stock.&nbsp;However, the GameStop episode has exposed the limits of arbitrage capital that might otherwise counter the tsunami of buying pressure as a result of coordinated buying by a huge number of investors.&nbsp;A few hundred million to a few billion dollars of capital from short sellers has been too little so far.<blockquote>通常情况下，包括卖空者在内的活跃投资者会通过卖出股票来修正价格。然而，游戏驿站事件暴露了套利资本的局限性，否则套利资本可能会抵消大量投资者协调买入带来的购买压力海啸。到目前为止，来自卖空者的几亿至几十亿美元的资本太少了。</blockquote> Moreover, they could not marshal additional capital to meet margin calls as the stock price rose. Worse yet, buying to close out their loss positions only resulted in additional buying pressure or the short-squeeze effect.<blockquote>此外，随着股价上涨，他们无法筹集额外资金来满足保证金评级。更糟糕的是，买入以平仓亏损头寸只会导致额外的买入压力或轧空效应。</blockquote> The bottom line is, the efficient functioning of the stock market requires substantial arbitrage capital to correct mispricing that might result from coordinated buying motivated to exact a revenge of what individual investors perceive as a market rigged by short sellers. Unfortunately, in this environment of demonization of short sellers, it’s hard to imagine additional capital will flow to stem what seems like an irrational stock price rise in GameStop.<blockquote>最重要的是，股票市场的有效运作需要大量的套利资本来纠正错误定价，这种错误定价可能是由协调购买造成的，这些购买动机是对个人投资者认为被卖空者操纵的市场进行报复。不幸的是，在这种妖魔化卖空者的环境下，很难想象会有额外的资本流入来阻止游戏驿站看似非理性的股价上涨。</blockquote> Of course, only time will tell whether the price rise is rational or that it exposes the lack of adequate arbitrage capital.&nbsp;In the meantime, it behooves to resist being trigger-happy with regulation.<blockquote>当然，只有时间才能证明价格上涨是理性的，还是暴露了缺乏足够的套利资本。与此同时，它应该抵制对监管的一触即发。</blockquote> SP Kothari&nbsp;is a professor at MIT Sloan School of Management and former chief economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2019-2021.&nbsp;Eric So&nbsp;is a professor at MIT Sloan School of Management.<blockquote>SP Kothari是麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院教授，2019-2021年曾任美国证券交易委员会首席经济学家。Eric So是麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院教授。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","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>Why regulators shouldn’t get trigger-happy in trying to rein in GameStop’s stock mania<blockquote>为什么监管机构不应该急于遏制游戏驿站的股票狂热</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\">\nWhy regulators shouldn’t get trigger-happy in trying to rein in GameStop’s stock mania<blockquote>为什么监管机构不应该急于遏制游戏驿站的股票狂热</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nmarketwatch2021-02-01 15:08\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nThe meteoric rise in videogame-retailer GameStop’s stock price from a few dollars to more than $300 in a couple of weeks, swelling its market value to about $25 billion, has made the company and mania surrounding it a household name.<blockquote>视频游戏零售商游戏驿站的股价在几周内从几美元飙升至300多美元，市值飙升至约250亿美元，使该公司及其周围的狂热成为家喻户晓的名字。</blockquote> Trading in shares of the beleaguered retailer has gone through the roof.&nbsp; Short interest — bets against the company — exceeds the total shares outstanding, and call and put option volume has been in the tens of millions. Those statistics are an order of magnitude greater than for similar stocks.<blockquote>这家陷入困境的零售商的股票交易已经飙升。空头利息——做空该公司的赌注——超过了已发行股票总数，看涨期权和看跌期权交易量已达数千万。这些统计数据比类似股票高一个数量级。</blockquote> Investors, including those on Reddit’s WallStreetBets forum and other social media, have been buying GameStopGME,+67.87%shares, causing a short squeeze for those betting against the company, in turn forcing the short sellers to cover their positions. As a result, that’s driving the shares higher. While the saga is still unfolding, we wouldn’t be surprised that when the music stops, GameStop’s share price would return to terrestrial levels.<blockquote>投资者，包括Reddit的WallStreetBets论坛和其他社交媒体上的投资者，一直在购买GameStopGME，+67.87%的股票，导致那些做空该公司的人出现轧空，进而迫使卖空者回补头寸。因此，这推动股价走高。虽然传奇仍在展开，但当音乐停止时，游戏驿站的股价将回到地球水平，我们不会感到惊讶。</blockquote> The dramatic turn of events has led many to speculate the underlying causes and proffer regulatory remedies. Some draw a parallel to pump-and-dump schemes that seek to manipulate share prices. However, pump-and-dump schemes are already illegal, which might shift attention toward other regulatory avenues.<blockquote>事件的戏剧性转变导致许多人猜测根本原因并提出监管补救措施。一些人将其与试图操纵股价的拉高抛售计划相提并论。然而，抽水和转储计划已经是非法的，这可能会将注意力转移到其他监管途径上。</blockquote> Three come to mind: payment for order flow, a transaction tax and enhanced financial literacy education.<blockquote>我想到了三个：订单流支付、交易税和增强的金融知识教育。</blockquote> Payment for order flow<blockquote>订单流支付</blockquote> Payment for order flow (here’s an SEC study) transfers “some of the trading profits from market making to the brokers that route customer orders to specialists for execution.”<blockquote>订单流支付（这是美国证券交易委员会的一项研究）将“部分做市交易利润转移给经纪人，经纪人将客户订单发送给专家执行。”</blockquote> This practice has experienced renewed scrutiny as a central source of revenue for retail brokerage platforms such as Robinhood, Charles SchwabSCHW,-4.09%and E*Trade. The brokers’ business model offers zero-cost trades to attract business from individual and institutional clients in exchange for the order flow payments they receive from market makers such as Citadel.<blockquote>作为Robinhood、Charles SchwabSCHW,-4.09%和E*Trade等零售经纪平台的主要收入来源，这种做法受到了新的审查。该经纪商的商业模式提供零成本交易，以吸引个人和机构客户的业务，以换取他们从Citadel等做市商那里收到的订单流付款。</blockquote> Detractors argue that zero-cost trades induce excessive trading. While that might be true, it’s naïve to believe that it remotely explains the price movement witnessed in GameStop. Moreover, the lower cost of trading in all stocks and better execution have democratized investors’ access to securities markets without adverse effects on securities market. In fact, greater investor participation and trading enhance price transparency and liquidity — both desirable tenets of securities markets. Making order flow payments verboten will deprive markets of these benefits.<blockquote>批评者认为零成本交易会导致过度交易。虽然这可能是真的，但认为它可以远程解释游戏驿站目睹的价格变动是天真的。此外，所有股票的较低交易成本和更好的执行使投资者进入证券市场的途径民主化，而不会对证券市场产生不利影响。事实上，更多的投资者参与和交易提高了价格透明度和流动性——这两者都是证券市场的理想原则。禁止订单流支付将剥夺市场的这些好处。</blockquote> Transaction tax<blockquote>交易税</blockquote> Clearly, trading volume in GameStop shares is many times its historical average. This anecdotal evidence of high trading volume and high volatility might revive the financial transaction tax proposal.<blockquote>显然，游戏驿站股票的交易量是其历史平均水平的许多倍。这种高交易量和高波动性的轶事证据可能会重振金融交易税提案。</blockquote> A financial transaction tax is typically premised on notions that trading fuels volatility, and trading, especially high-frequency trading, does not serve a useful social purpose.&nbsp;An alternative explanation is that economic news and uncertainty contribute to trading and price volatility.<blockquote>金融交易税通常基于这样一种观念，即交易会加剧波动，交易，尤其是高频交易，不会服务于有用的社会目的。另一种解释是，经济新闻和不确定性会导致交易和价格波动。</blockquote> As the COVID-19 pandemic hit the U.S. in March 2020, the adverse news and high degree of uncertainty about U.S. economic prospects manifested in a sharp fall in asset prices and the VIX rising almost instantaneously to a historic high. Simultaneously, trading volume doubled. From April 2020, asset prices rose and VIX dropped rapidly with federal stimulus, accommodative monetary policies and Treasury fiscal support to businesses.<blockquote>随着COVID-19疫情于2020年3月袭击美国，美国经济前景的不利消息和高度不确定性表现为资产价格大幅下跌，VIX几乎瞬间升至历史高位。与此同时，交易量翻了一番。从2020年4月开始，随着联邦刺激、宽松的货币政策和财政部对企业的财政支持，资产价格上涨，VIX迅速下降。</blockquote> However, trading volume has remained elevated, which contradicts the notion that trading fuels market volatility. A financial transaction tax would discourage trading, for sure, but it is unlikely to attenuate volatility.&nbsp;More importantly, price discovery might be sacrificed as a result of less trading, which would adversely affect efficient capital allocation.<blockquote>然而，交易量仍然很高，这与交易加剧市场波动的观点相矛盾。金融交易税肯定会抑制交易，但不太可能降低波动性。更重要的是，交易减少可能会牺牲价格发现，从而对有效的资本配置产生不利影响。</blockquote> Finally, financial transaction taxes are also unlikely to be effective in curbing episodes such as the sudden rise of GameStop.<blockquote>最后，金融交易税也不太可能有效遏制游戏驿站突然崛起等事件。</blockquote> Financial literacy<blockquote>金融知识</blockquote> A baseline level of education is a prerequisite for an individual investor to trade in options. Enhanced financial literacy education might be a promising approach to discipline investor exuberance. Still, more information is needed to determine its efficacy. This may come in the form of research on the links between education and investor behavior.<blockquote>基本教育水平是个人投资者进行期权交易的先决条件。加强金融知识教育可能是约束投资者繁荣的一种有前途的方法。尽管如此，还需要更多的信息来确定其疗效。这可能以研究教育和投资者行为之间的联系的形式出现。</blockquote> Rather than regulation directly designed to curb trading, experimentation in financial markets might hold greater promise in calibrating the form of effective financial literacy education.<blockquote>与直接旨在抑制交易的监管相比，金融市场的实验在校准有效的金融知识教育形式方面可能更有希望。</blockquote> The limits of arbitrage capital<blockquote>套利资本的限度</blockquote> The sudden, sharp rise in GameStop highlights the clout of individual investors acting in concert. Their collective buying power has propelled the stock to loftier levels, which virtually everyone believes to be unhinged from underlying economic fundamentals.<blockquote>游戏驿站的突然大幅上涨凸显了个人投资者一致行动的影响力。他们的集体购买力将该股推至更高水平，几乎每个人都认为这与潜在的经济基本面脱节。</blockquote> Typically, active investors, including short sellers, correct the price by selling the stock.&nbsp;However, the GameStop episode has exposed the limits of arbitrage capital that might otherwise counter the tsunami of buying pressure as a result of coordinated buying by a huge number of investors.&nbsp;A few hundred million to a few billion dollars of capital from short sellers has been too little so far.<blockquote>通常情况下，包括卖空者在内的活跃投资者会通过卖出股票来修正价格。然而，游戏驿站事件暴露了套利资本的局限性，否则套利资本可能会抵消大量投资者协调买入带来的购买压力海啸。到目前为止，来自卖空者的几亿至几十亿美元的资本太少了。</blockquote> Moreover, they could not marshal additional capital to meet margin calls as the stock price rose. Worse yet, buying to close out their loss positions only resulted in additional buying pressure or the short-squeeze effect.<blockquote>此外，随着股价上涨，他们无法筹集额外资金来满足保证金评级。更糟糕的是，买入以平仓亏损头寸只会导致额外的买入压力或轧空效应。</blockquote> The bottom line is, the efficient functioning of the stock market requires substantial arbitrage capital to correct mispricing that might result from coordinated buying motivated to exact a revenge of what individual investors perceive as a market rigged by short sellers. Unfortunately, in this environment of demonization of short sellers, it’s hard to imagine additional capital will flow to stem what seems like an irrational stock price rise in GameStop.<blockquote>最重要的是，股票市场的有效运作需要大量的套利资本来纠正错误定价，这种错误定价可能是由协调购买造成的，这些购买动机是对个人投资者认为被卖空者操纵的市场进行报复。不幸的是，在这种妖魔化卖空者的环境下，很难想象会有额外的资本流入来阻止游戏驿站看似非理性的股价上涨。</blockquote> Of course, only time will tell whether the price rise is rational or that it exposes the lack of adequate arbitrage capital.&nbsp;In the meantime, it behooves to resist being trigger-happy with regulation.<blockquote>当然，只有时间才能证明价格上涨是理性的，还是暴露了缺乏足够的套利资本。与此同时，它应该抵制对监管的一触即发。</blockquote> SP Kothari&nbsp;is a professor at MIT Sloan School of Management and former chief economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2019-2021.&nbsp;Eric So&nbsp;is a professor at MIT Sloan School of Management.<blockquote>SP Kothari是麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院教授，2019-2021年曾任美国证券交易委员会首席经济学家。Eric So是麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院教授。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-regulators-shouldnt-get-trigger-happy-in-trying-to-rein-in-gamestops-stock-mania-11611939882?mod=home-page\">marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b1fdaab121d904fee30d8fe32e39819a","relate_stocks":{"GME":"游戏驿站"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-regulators-shouldnt-get-trigger-happy-in-trying-to-rein-in-gamestops-stock-mania-11611939882?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1183625716","content_text":"The meteoric rise in videogame-retailer GameStop’s stock price from a few dollars to more than $300 in a couple of weeks, swelling its market value to about $25 billion, has made the company and mania surrounding it a household name.\nTrading in shares of the beleaguered retailer has gone through the roof.  Short interest — bets against the company — exceeds the total shares outstanding, and call and put option volume has been in the tens of millions. Those statistics are an order of magnitude greater than for similar stocks.\nInvestors, including those on Reddit’s WallStreetBets forum and other social media, have been buying GameStopGME,+67.87%shares, causing a short squeeze for those betting against the company, in turn forcing the short sellers to cover their positions. As a result, that’s driving the shares higher. While the saga is still unfolding, we wouldn’t be surprised that when the music stops, GameStop’s share price would return to terrestrial levels.\nThe dramatic turn of events has led many to speculate the underlying causes and proffer regulatory remedies. Some draw a parallel to pump-and-dump schemes that seek to manipulate share prices. However, pump-and-dump schemes are already illegal, which might shift attention toward other regulatory avenues.\nThree come to mind: payment for order flow, a transaction tax and enhanced financial literacy education.\nPayment for order flow\nPayment for order flow (here’s an SEC study) transfers “some of the trading profits from market making to the brokers that route customer orders to specialists for execution.”\nThis practice has experienced renewed scrutiny as a central source of revenue for retail brokerage platforms such as Robinhood, Charles SchwabSCHW,-4.09%and E*Trade. The brokers’ business model offers zero-cost trades to attract business from individual and institutional clients in exchange for the order flow payments they receive from market makers such as Citadel.\nDetractors argue that zero-cost trades induce excessive trading. While that might be true, it’s naïve to believe that it remotely explains the price movement witnessed in GameStop. Moreover, the lower cost of trading in all stocks and better execution have democratized investors’ access to securities markets without adverse effects on securities market. In fact, greater investor participation and trading enhance price transparency and liquidity — both desirable tenets of securities markets. Making order flow payments verboten will deprive markets of these benefits.\nTransaction tax\nClearly, trading volume in GameStop shares is many times its historical average. This anecdotal evidence of high trading volume and high volatility might revive the financial transaction tax proposal.\nA financial transaction tax is typically premised on notions that trading fuels volatility, and trading, especially high-frequency trading, does not serve a useful social purpose. An alternative explanation is that economic news and uncertainty contribute to trading and price volatility.\nAs the COVID-19 pandemic hit the U.S. in March 2020, the adverse news and high degree of uncertainty about U.S. economic prospects manifested in a sharp fall in asset prices and the VIX rising almost instantaneously to a historic high. Simultaneously, trading volume doubled. From April 2020, asset prices rose and VIX dropped rapidly with federal stimulus, accommodative monetary policies and Treasury fiscal support to businesses.\nHowever, trading volume has remained elevated, which contradicts the notion that trading fuels market volatility. A financial transaction tax would discourage trading, for sure, but it is unlikely to attenuate volatility. More importantly, price discovery might be sacrificed as a result of less trading, which would adversely affect efficient capital allocation.\nFinally, financial transaction taxes are also unlikely to be effective in curbing episodes such as the sudden rise of GameStop.\nFinancial literacy\nA baseline level of education is a prerequisite for an individual investor to trade in options. Enhanced financial literacy education might be a promising approach to discipline investor exuberance. Still, more information is needed to determine its efficacy. This may come in the form of research on the links between education and investor behavior.\nRather than regulation directly designed to curb trading, experimentation in financial markets might hold greater promise in calibrating the form of effective financial literacy education.\nThe limits of arbitrage capital\nThe sudden, sharp rise in GameStop highlights the clout of individual investors acting in concert. Their collective buying power has propelled the stock to loftier levels, which virtually everyone believes to be unhinged from underlying economic fundamentals.\nTypically, active investors, including short sellers, correct the price by selling the stock. However, the GameStop episode has exposed the limits of arbitrage capital that might otherwise counter the tsunami of buying pressure as a result of coordinated buying by a huge number of investors. A few hundred million to a few billion dollars of capital from short sellers has been too little so far.\nMoreover, they could not marshal additional capital to meet margin calls as the stock price rose. Worse yet, buying to close out their loss positions only resulted in additional buying pressure or the short-squeeze effect.\nThe bottom line is, the efficient functioning of the stock market requires substantial arbitrage capital to correct mispricing that might result from coordinated buying motivated to exact a revenge of what individual investors perceive as a market rigged by short sellers. Unfortunately, in this environment of demonization of short sellers, it’s hard to imagine additional capital will flow to stem what seems like an irrational stock price rise in GameStop.\nOf course, only time will tell whether the price rise is rational or that it exposes the lack of adequate arbitrage capital. In the meantime, it behooves to resist being trigger-happy with regulation.\nSP Kothari is a professor at MIT Sloan School of Management and former chief economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2019-2021. Eric So is a professor at MIT Sloan School of Management.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"GME":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1022,"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":3,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}