據(jù)悉,Robinhood與其清算所上周四凌晨就30億美元的保證金要求進(jìn)行了電話溝通,并隨即決定限制用戶對(duì)游戲驛站及其它股票進(jìn)行交易。市場(chǎng)觀察人士對(duì)此議論紛紛,該通電話也引發(fā)了外界有關(guān)“陰謀論”的猜測(cè),并促使該公司首席執(zhí)行官與埃隆?馬斯克進(jìn)行了一場(chǎng)精彩對(duì)話。
雖然上周四的事件已基本塵埃落定,但更多細(xì)節(jié)信息仍有待浮出水面。與一些報(bào)道相反,清算所并未給Robinhood首席執(zhí)行官弗拉德?特內(nèi)夫打電話,特內(nèi)夫也沒有說服清算所改變其要求。
一位接近國家證券清算公司(NSCC)、了解相關(guān)事項(xiàng)的消息人士稱,“雙方并未舉行任何談判”。
雖然Robinhood首席執(zhí)行官確實(shí)被一通瘋狂的電話從睡夢(mèng)中驚醒,但打來電話的是該公司自己的運(yùn)營團(tuán)隊(duì),而非NSCC。
而運(yùn)營團(tuán)隊(duì)之所以會(huì)打這通電話,是因?yàn)镽obinhood收到了NSCC發(fā)出的一封列有其日常保證金要求的信函。約有100家交易商收到了此類信函,接收時(shí)間為美東時(shí)間早上7點(diǎn)(Robinhood地處西海岸,此時(shí)為早上4點(diǎn)),所以收到信函本身并不奇怪。
令人驚訝之處在于該機(jī)構(gòu)要求Robinhood提供的保證金金額高達(dá)30億美元,即便Robinhood資金雄厚,這也是一個(gè)驚人的數(shù)字。通常情況下,NSCC絕無理由收取如此額度的保證金,但上周的交易景象卻也絕不屬于“通常情況”的范疇。受對(duì)沖基金與散戶投資者之間激烈博弈的影響,游戲驛站、AMC等公司的股價(jià)出現(xiàn)驚人上漲,大幅推高成交量和波動(dòng)性,達(dá)到前所未有的高度。
從NSCC的角度來看,游戲驛站等公司股價(jià)的暴漲難免使其擔(dān)心,股價(jià)一旦出現(xiàn)暴跌,清算所可能會(huì)陷入困境。具體來說,假設(shè)客戶周三買入股票,兩天后平倉時(shí)股價(jià)出現(xiàn)崩盤,像Robinhood這樣的經(jīng)紀(jì)商可能無力填補(bǔ)股市暴跌留下的資金窟窿。就像經(jīng)紀(jì)商可以要求個(gè)人投資者提供更多現(xiàn)金支付追加保證金一樣,NSCC也希望Robinhood拿出更多現(xiàn)金來規(guī)避風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
上周末,特內(nèi)夫通過Clubhouse與馬斯克進(jìn)行了一場(chǎng)對(duì)話,并在對(duì)話中表示,Robinhood并未像NSCC要求的那樣支付30億美元保證金,而是最終支付了14億美元,雖然這看起來像是Robinhood說服NSCC對(duì)要求打了折扣,但事實(shí)卻并非如此。
據(jù)接近NSCC的消息人士表示,NSCC之所以降低保證金要求,是因?yàn)镽obinhood決定對(duì)游戲驛站和其他“網(wǎng)紅股票”的交易進(jìn)行限制。通過限制交易,Robinhood資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表上波動(dòng)較大的股票數(shù)量將會(huì)有所減少,同時(shí)也讓開立較早的交易得以完成結(jié)算,從而減少公司的整體風(fēng)險(xiǎn)敞口。盡管Robinhood的確與NSCC的高管進(jìn)行了溝通,但該次對(duì)話僅僅證實(shí),如Robinhood對(duì)股票交易進(jìn)行限制,則保證金要求可以從30億美元的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)向下調(diào)整,而并非因?yàn)檫@通電話導(dǎo)致NSCC降低了自己的保證金要求。
Robinhood一位發(fā)言人拒絕提供有關(guān)該公司與NSCC對(duì)話的信息,但作為對(duì)置評(píng)請(qǐng)求的回應(yīng),其建議《財(cái)富》查閱該公司一篇介紹結(jié)算過程細(xì)微差別的博客文章。
上周Robinhood和NSCC之間的戲劇性事件可能會(huì)引發(fā)對(duì)清算所及其母公司——存托及結(jié)算機(jī)構(gòu)(DTCC)的進(jìn)一步審查。DTCC負(fù)責(zé)集中所有股票和債券的結(jié)算業(yè)務(wù),出資方包括銀行和包括Robinhood在內(nèi)的經(jīng)紀(jì)商。
雖然DTCC的活動(dòng)是金融市場(chǎng)的重要元素,但其風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估流程卻并不透明,在與馬斯克的對(duì)話中,特內(nèi)夫形容其為“諱莫如深”。
Bobinhood并非唯一一家因突然收到追加保證金要求而導(dǎo)致業(yè)務(wù)受到影響的經(jīng)紀(jì)商。包括嘉信理財(cái)在內(nèi),多家其它公司也同樣限制了游戲驛站等股票的交易,目的可能同樣是為了減少所需提交的保證金數(shù)額。
DTCC和NSCC流程的復(fù)雜性可能也是導(dǎo)致陰謀論盛行的原因之一,許多人懷疑Robinhood限制游戲驛站及其它股票的交易是為了討好遭受虧損的對(duì)沖基金,但特內(nèi)夫斷然否認(rèn)與對(duì)沖基金有任何勾結(jié)之事,目前也確實(shí)沒有相關(guān)證據(jù)。
盡管上周發(fā)生的事件導(dǎo)致部分交易者對(duì)Robinhood倍感憤怒,但這種影響可能不會(huì)持續(xù)很久。本次交易熱潮讓Robinhood收獲了數(shù)千名新客戶。據(jù)報(bào)道,Robinhood的投資者認(rèn)為該公司對(duì)本次危機(jī)的管理工作可謂“登峰造極”。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
據(jù)悉,Robinhood與其清算所上周四凌晨就30億美元的保證金要求進(jìn)行了電話溝通,并隨即決定限制用戶對(duì)游戲驛站及其它股票進(jìn)行交易。市場(chǎng)觀察人士對(duì)此議論紛紛,該通電話也引發(fā)了外界有關(guān)“陰謀論”的猜測(cè),并促使該公司首席執(zhí)行官與埃隆?馬斯克進(jìn)行了一場(chǎng)精彩對(duì)話。
雖然上周四的事件已基本塵埃落定,但更多細(xì)節(jié)信息仍有待浮出水面。與一些報(bào)道相反,清算所并未給Robinhood首席執(zhí)行官弗拉德?特內(nèi)夫打電話,特內(nèi)夫也沒有說服清算所改變其要求。
一位接近國家證券清算公司(NSCC)、了解相關(guān)事項(xiàng)的消息人士稱,“雙方并未舉行任何談判”。
雖然Robinhood首席執(zhí)行官確實(shí)被一通瘋狂的電話從睡夢(mèng)中驚醒,但打來電話的是該公司自己的運(yùn)營團(tuán)隊(duì),而非NSCC。
而運(yùn)營團(tuán)隊(duì)之所以會(huì)打這通電話,是因?yàn)镽obinhood收到了NSCC發(fā)出的一封列有其日常保證金要求的信函。約有100家交易商收到了此類信函,接收時(shí)間為美東時(shí)間早上7點(diǎn)(Robinhood地處西海岸,此時(shí)為早上4點(diǎn)),所以收到信函本身并不奇怪。
令人驚訝之處在于該機(jī)構(gòu)要求Robinhood提供的保證金金額高達(dá)30億美元,即便Robinhood資金雄厚,這也是一個(gè)驚人的數(shù)字。通常情況下,NSCC絕無理由收取如此額度的保證金,但上周的交易景象卻也絕不屬于“通常情況”的范疇。受對(duì)沖基金與散戶投資者之間激烈博弈的影響,游戲驛站、AMC等公司的股價(jià)出現(xiàn)驚人上漲,大幅推高成交量和波動(dòng)性,達(dá)到前所未有的高度。
從NSCC的角度來看,游戲驛站等公司股價(jià)的暴漲難免使其擔(dān)心,股價(jià)一旦出現(xiàn)暴跌,清算所可能會(huì)陷入困境。具體來說,假設(shè)客戶周三買入股票,兩天后平倉時(shí)股價(jià)出現(xiàn)崩盤,像Robinhood這樣的經(jīng)紀(jì)商可能無力填補(bǔ)股市暴跌留下的資金窟窿。就像經(jīng)紀(jì)商可以要求個(gè)人投資者提供更多現(xiàn)金支付追加保證金一樣,NSCC也希望Robinhood拿出更多現(xiàn)金來規(guī)避風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
上周末,特內(nèi)夫通過Clubhouse與馬斯克進(jìn)行了一場(chǎng)對(duì)話,并在對(duì)話中表示,Robinhood并未像NSCC要求的那樣支付30億美元保證金,而是最終支付了14億美元,雖然這看起來像是Robinhood說服NSCC對(duì)要求打了折扣,但事實(shí)卻并非如此。
據(jù)接近NSCC的消息人士表示,NSCC之所以降低保證金要求,是因?yàn)镽obinhood決定對(duì)游戲驛站和其他“網(wǎng)紅股票”的交易進(jìn)行限制。通過限制交易,Robinhood資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表上波動(dòng)較大的股票數(shù)量將會(huì)有所減少,同時(shí)也讓開立較早的交易得以完成結(jié)算,從而減少公司的整體風(fēng)險(xiǎn)敞口。盡管Robinhood的確與NSCC的高管進(jìn)行了溝通,但該次對(duì)話僅僅證實(shí),如Robinhood對(duì)股票交易進(jìn)行限制,則保證金要求可以從30億美元的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)向下調(diào)整,而并非因?yàn)檫@通電話導(dǎo)致NSCC降低了自己的保證金要求。
Robinhood一位發(fā)言人拒絕提供有關(guān)該公司與NSCC對(duì)話的信息,但作為對(duì)置評(píng)請(qǐng)求的回應(yīng),其建議《財(cái)富》查閱該公司一篇介紹結(jié)算過程細(xì)微差別的博客文章。
上周Robinhood和NSCC之間的戲劇性事件可能會(huì)引發(fā)對(duì)清算所及其母公司——存托及結(jié)算機(jī)構(gòu)(DTCC)的進(jìn)一步審查。DTCC負(fù)責(zé)集中所有股票和債券的結(jié)算業(yè)務(wù),出資方包括銀行和包括Robinhood在內(nèi)的經(jīng)紀(jì)商。
雖然DTCC的活動(dòng)是金融市場(chǎng)的重要元素,但其風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估流程卻并不透明,在與馬斯克的對(duì)話中,特內(nèi)夫形容其為“諱莫如深”。
Bobinhood并非唯一一家因突然收到追加保證金要求而導(dǎo)致業(yè)務(wù)受到影響的經(jīng)紀(jì)商。包括嘉信理財(cái)在內(nèi),多家其它公司也同樣限制了游戲驛站等股票的交易,目的可能同樣是為了減少所需提交的保證金數(shù)額。
DTCC和NSCC流程的復(fù)雜性可能也是導(dǎo)致陰謀論盛行的原因之一,許多人懷疑Robinhood限制游戲驛站及其它股票的交易是為了討好遭受虧損的對(duì)沖基金,但特內(nèi)夫斷然否認(rèn)與對(duì)沖基金有任何勾結(jié)之事,目前也確實(shí)沒有相關(guān)證據(jù)。
盡管上周發(fā)生的事件導(dǎo)致部分交易者對(duì)Robinhood倍感憤怒,但這種影響可能不會(huì)持續(xù)很久。本次交易熱潮讓Robinhood收獲了數(shù)千名新客戶。據(jù)報(bào)道,Robinhood的投資者認(rèn)為該公司對(duì)本次危機(jī)的管理工作可謂“登峰造極”。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
Market watchers are buzzing about a phone call in the early hours of Thursday morning between Robinhood and its clearinghouse over a $3 billion demand for cash. The call led the popular stock-buying app to limit trades in GameStop and other shares—and also touched off conspiracy theories and a colorful interview between Robinhood’s CEO and Elon Musk.
While the dust around last Thursday’s events has mostly settled, the details of what happened are still trickling out. And contrary to some reports, the clearinghouse did not phone Robinhood’s CEO, Vlad Tenev, nor did Tenev persuade the clearinghouse to change its demands.
“There were no negotiations,” said a source close to the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) who is familiar with what occurred.
While Robinhood’s CEO was indeed awakened from sleep by a frantic phone call, that call came from the company’s own operations team, not the NSCC itself.
The reason for the call was a letter Robinhood had received from the NSCC setting out its daily collateral demands. Such letters go out to around 100 brokerages at 7 a.m. ET—4 a.m. on the West Coast, where Robinhood is based—every morning, so receiving one came as no surprise.
What was a surprise was the request to post $3 billion in cash, a staggering amount even for a well-funded company like Robinhood. Ordinarily, there would be no reason for such a sum—but last week’s trading was anything but ordinary. A pitched battle between hedge funds and retail investors drove a staggering run-up in the price of stocks like GameStop and AMC, fueling unprecedented volume and volatility.
From the standpoint of the NSCC, the soaring price of stocks like GameStop created fears the clearinghouse could be left in the lurch if prices suddenly cratered. Specifically, brokerages like Robinhood might not have the capital to cover a potential collapse in prices between when shares were purchased on Wednesday and when they cleared two days later. In the same way a brokerage can ask an individual investor to pony up more cash to cover a margin call, the NSCC wanted Robinhood to plunk down more money to avert risk.
In the course of a weekend conversation with Musk on the app Clubhouse, Tenev stated that Robinhood ultimately coughed up $1.4 billion in cash rather than the $3 billion the NSCC had requested. While this suggests Robinhood had somehow whittled down the demand, the reality is somewhat different.
According to the source close to the NSCC, the lower amount came about because of Robinhood’s decision to limit trading in GameStop and other “meme shares.” By limiting trading, Robinhood would have fewer of the volatile stocks on its balance sheet while also allowing earlier trades to settle, reducing the company’s overall risk exposure. While Robinhood did speak with executives at NSCC, the conversation entailed confirming that limiting the stock sales would count toward reducing its $3 billion collateral demand—but did not result in the amount being reduced.
In response to a request for comment, a Robinhood spokesperson declined to provide information about the NSCC conversation but referred Fortune to a company blog post describing the nuances of the settlement process.
Last week’s drama between Robinhood and the NSCC is likely to produce further scrutiny of the clearinghouse and its parent company, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC). The DTCC serves to centralize the settlement operations of all stocks and bonds, and is funded by banks and brokerages, including Robinhood.
While the DTCC’s activities are an integral element of financial markets, the process by which it assesses risk is not transparent. In his conversation with Musk, Tenev described the process as “opaque.”
Robinhood was not the only brokerage jolted by unexpected collateral demands. Other firms, including Charles Schwab, similarly restricted trading in shares such as GameShop last week, likely in order to reduce the cash they needed to post.
The complexity of the DTCC and NSCC process also likely contributed to conspiracy theories that Robinhood’s decision to limit trading in GameStop and other shares came as a sop to hedge funds that were losing money. Tenev has flatly denied any collusion with the hedge funds, and there is no evidence such collusion took place.
And while the events of last week led to fury at Robinhood on the part of some traders, there are likely to be few long-term repercussions. The trading frenzy resulted in the brokerage acquiring thousands of new customers, while Robinhood’s investors reportedly viewed its management of the crisis “a miracle.”