Robinhood限制散户交易的内幕
据悉，Robinhood与其清算所上周四凌晨就30亿美元的保证金要求进行了电话沟通，并随即决定限制用户对游戏驿站及其它股票进行交易。市场观察人士对此议论纷纷，该通电话也引发了外界有关“阴谋论”的猜测，并促使该公司首席执行官与埃隆•马斯克进行了一场精彩对话。
虽然上周四的事件已基本尘埃落定，但更多细节信息仍有待浮出水面。与一些报道相反，清算所并未给Robinhood首席执行官弗拉德•特内夫打电话，特内夫也没有说服清算所改变其要求。
一位接近国家证券清算公司(NSCC)、了解相关事项的消息人士称，“双方并未举行任何谈判”。
虽然Robinhood首席执行官确实被一通疯狂的电话从睡梦中惊醒，但打来电话的是该公司自己的运营团队，而非NSCC。
而运营团队之所以会打这通电话，是因为Robinhood收到了NSCC发出的一封列有其日常保证金要求的信函。约有100家交易商收到了此类信函，接收时间为美东时间早上7点（Robinhood地处西海岸，此时为早上4点），所以收到信函本身并不奇怪。
令人惊讶之处在于该机构要求Robinhood提供的保证金金额高达30亿美元，即便Robinhood资金雄厚，这也是一个惊人的数字。通常情况下，NSCC绝无理由收取如此额度的保证金，但上周的交易景象却也绝不属于“通常情况”的范畴。受对冲基金与散户投资者之间激烈博弈的影响，游戏驿站、AMC等公司的股价出现惊人上涨，大幅推高成交量和波动性，达到前所未有的高度。
从NSCC的角度来看，游戏驿站等公司股价的暴涨难免使其担心，股价一旦出现暴跌，清算所可能会陷入困境。具体来说，假设客户周三买入股票，两天后平仓时股价出现崩盘，像Robinhood这样的经纪商可能无力填补股市暴跌留下的资金窟窿。就像经纪商可以要求个人投资者提供更多现金支付追加保证金一样，NSCC也希望Robinhood拿出更多现金来规避风险。
上周末，特内夫通过Clubhouse与马斯克进行了一场对话，并在对话中表示，Robinhood并未像NSCC要求的那样支付30亿美元保证金，而是最终支付了14亿美元，虽然这看起来像是Robinhood说服NSCC对要求打了折扣，但事实却并非如此。
据接近NSCC的消息人士表示，NSCC之所以降低保证金要求，是因为Robinhood决定对游戏驿站和其他“网红股票”的交易进行限制。通过限制交易，Robinhood资产负债表上波动较大的股票数量将会有所减少，同时也让开立较早的交易得以完成结算，从而减少公司的整体风险敞口。尽管Robinhood的确与NSCC的高管进行了沟通，但该次对话仅仅证实，如Robinhood对股票交易进行限制，则保证金要求可以从30亿美元的标准向下调整，而并非因为这通电话导致NSCC降低了自己的保证金要求。
Robinhood一位发言人拒绝提供有关该公司与NSCC对话的信息，但作为对置评请求的回应，其建议《财富》查阅该公司一篇介绍结算过程细微差别的博客文章。
上周Robinhood和NSCC之间的戏剧性事件可能会引发对清算所及其母公司——存托及结算机构（DTCC）的进一步审查。DTCC负责集中所有股票和债券的结算业务，出资方包括银行和包括Robinhood在内的经纪商。
虽然DTCC的活动是金融市场的重要元素，但其风险评估流程却并不透明，在与马斯克的对话中，特内夫形容其为“讳莫如深”。
Bobinhood并非唯一一家因突然收到追加保证金要求而导致业务受到影响的经纪商。包括嘉信理财在内，多家其它公司也同样限制了游戏驿站等股票的交易，目的可能同样是为了减少所需提交的保证金数额。
DTCC和NSCC流程的复杂性可能也是导致阴谋论盛行的原因之一，许多人怀疑Robinhood限制游戏驿站及其它股票的交易是为了讨好遭受亏损的对冲基金，但特内夫断然否认与对冲基金有任何勾结之事，目前也确实没有相关证据。
尽管上周发生的事件导致部分交易者对Robinhood倍感愤怒，但这种影响可能不会持续很久。本次交易热潮让Robinhood收获了数千名新客户。据报道，Robinhood的投资者认为该公司对本次危机的管理工作可谓“登峰造极”。（财富中文网）
译者：梁宇
审校：夏林
据悉，Robinhood与其清算所上周四凌晨就30亿美元的保证金要求进行了电话沟通，并随即决定限制用户对游戏驿站及其它股票进行交易。市场观察人士对此议论纷纷，该通电话也引发了外界有关“阴谋论”的猜测，并促使该公司首席执行官与埃隆•马斯克进行了一场精彩对话。
虽然上周四的事件已基本尘埃落定，但更多细节信息仍有待浮出水面。与一些报道相反，清算所并未给Robinhood首席执行官弗拉德•特内夫打电话，特内夫也没有说服清算所改变其要求。
一位接近国家证券清算公司(NSCC)、了解相关事项的消息人士称，“双方并未举行任何谈判”。
虽然Robinhood首席执行官确实被一通疯狂的电话从睡梦中惊醒，但打来电话的是该公司自己的运营团队，而非NSCC。
而运营团队之所以会打这通电话，是因为Robinhood收到了NSCC发出的一封列有其日常保证金要求的信函。约有100家交易商收到了此类信函，接收时间为美东时间早上7点（Robinhood地处西海岸，此时为早上4点），所以收到信函本身并不奇怪。
令人惊讶之处在于该机构要求Robinhood提供的保证金金额高达30亿美元，即便Robinhood资金雄厚，这也是一个惊人的数字。通常情况下，NSCC绝无理由收取如此额度的保证金，但上周的交易景象却也绝不属于“通常情况”的范畴。受对冲基金与散户投资者之间激烈博弈的影响，游戏驿站、AMC等公司的股价出现惊人上涨，大幅推高成交量和波动性，达到前所未有的高度。
从NSCC的角度来看，游戏驿站等公司股价的暴涨难免使其担心，股价一旦出现暴跌，清算所可能会陷入困境。具体来说，假设客户周三买入股票，两天后平仓时股价出现崩盘，像Robinhood这样的经纪商可能无力填补股市暴跌留下的资金窟窿。就像经纪商可以要求个人投资者提供更多现金支付追加保证金一样，NSCC也希望Robinhood拿出更多现金来规避风险。
上周末，特内夫通过Clubhouse与马斯克进行了一场对话，并在对话中表示，Robinhood并未像NSCC要求的那样支付30亿美元保证金，而是最终支付了14亿美元，虽然这看起来像是Robinhood说服NSCC对要求打了折扣，但事实却并非如此。
据接近NSCC的消息人士表示，NSCC之所以降低保证金要求，是因为Robinhood决定对游戏驿站和其他“网红股票”的交易进行限制。通过限制交易，Robinhood资产负债表上波动较大的股票数量将会有所减少，同时也让开立较早的交易得以完成结算，从而减少公司的整体风险敞口。尽管Robinhood的确与NSCC的高管进行了沟通，但该次对话仅仅证实，如Robinhood对股票交易进行限制，则保证金要求可以从30亿美元的标准向下调整，而并非因为这通电话导致NSCC降低了自己的保证金要求。
Robinhood一位发言人拒绝提供有关该公司与NSCC对话的信息，但作为对置评请求的回应，其建议《财富》查阅该公司一篇介绍结算过程细微差别的博客文章。
上周Robinhood和NSCC之间的戏剧性事件可能会引发对清算所及其母公司——存托及结算机构（DTCC）的进一步审查。DTCC负责集中所有股票和债券的结算业务，出资方包括银行和包括Robinhood在内的经纪商。
虽然DTCC的活动是金融市场的重要元素，但其风险评估流程却并不透明，在与马斯克的对话中，特内夫形容其为“讳莫如深”。
Bobinhood并非唯一一家因突然收到追加保证金要求而导致业务受到影响的经纪商。包括嘉信理财在内，多家其它公司也同样限制了游戏驿站等股票的交易，目的可能同样是为了减少所需提交的保证金数额。
DTCC和NSCC流程的复杂性可能也是导致阴谋论盛行的原因之一，许多人怀疑Robinhood限制游戏驿站及其它股票的交易是为了讨好遭受亏损的对冲基金，但特内夫断然否认与对冲基金有任何勾结之事，目前也确实没有相关证据。
尽管上周发生的事件导致部分交易者对Robinhood倍感愤怒，但这种影响可能不会持续很久。本次交易热潮让Robinhood收获了数千名新客户。据报道，Robinhood的投资者认为该公司对本次危机的管理工作可谓“登峰造极”。（财富中文网）
译者：梁宇
审校：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.”
