立即打开
“散户之光”Robinhood,人设崩塌

“散户之光”Robinhood,人设崩塌

SHAWN TULLY 2021年07月31日
真正“民主”的IPO是直接上市,每个人而不仅仅是那些华尔街机构,都能在开盘日早上的公开拍卖中竞标,从而决定股票的真实市场价格。

在7月29日上市的前几周,Robinhood Markets高调宣布,其将为自己的经纪客户保留一大部分新发行的股票,作为对公司2250万忠实用户的特殊奖励。但是,Robinhood的股价在开盘当天出现暴跌,这或许意味着,Robinhood大力宣扬的让普通投资者受益的营销活动的效果与其初衷适得其反。

在大多数IPO中,个人投资者只分得5%左右的一小部分,华尔街的银行通常会将大部分股票奖励给他们的对冲基金和共同基金客户。这些客户享受这种分配方式,因为银行会系统性地压低承销股票的价格,然后在交易开始时制造“暴涨”,以获得大量交易和丰厚佣金回报银行。在过去的18个月里,IPO首日涨幅非常大,今年以来和2020年的平均涨幅分别为33%和42%。一位经历过IPO的首席执行官认为,在这个“精英过程”中,“华尔街的肥猫们得到了丰富的牛奶”。

作为免佣金交易的先驱,Robinhood以将小投资者吸引到股市而闻名,达到了前所未有的数量。对于自己的IPO,这家在线经纪公司宣称,其主流客户可以以与大型基金相同的内幕价格购买股票。Robinhood在7月28日的注册声明中表示:“我们很自豪能够以与机构投资者同等的条件,向客户开放本次发行。”

简而言之,Robinhood的IPO不仅仅是为了成为一家上市企业并筹集大量新资本,更是为了让其小投资者享有与大型基金同样优越的地位。在推动股票投资这方面,没有哪个股票市场成员比Robinhood付出过更多的努力。Robinhood自称使命是“为所有人实现金融民主化”,此次IPO是这一使命的的又一个里程碑。

但是,到目前为止,这场IPO令小投资者感到沮丧,也损害了Robinhood“支持小人物”的声誉。

罗宾汉要求为其客户分配一大笔资金

很显然,Robinhood利用了与承销商的杠杆关系,为散户群体(特别是公司的经纪客户)获得了比最近几乎任何其他大型IPO都要大的发行份额。Robinhood在承销中预售了5240万股,并授予其投资银行在售后市场再购买10.5%或550万股的权利。Robinhood在其注册声明中表示,承销商将为其客户保留20%至35%的发行份额,相当于通常份额的7倍之多。确切的数字将由Robinhood和银行之间的谈判确定,目前尚未披露。

Robinhood宣布,其账户持有人可以通过公司旗下的在线平台IPO Access购买股票——这一平台通过投资银行提供的配售,以承销价格向客户提供新股发行。平台母公司的IPO,使平台能够出售的股票数量远远超过其所处理的其他典型IPO。注册声明披露,所有客户都可以申请股票,这意味着,每个申请者都有获得股票的平等机会。

目前还不清楚Robinhood的客户购买了多少比例的股份。如果他们拿下了全部35%,这个数字可能高达2100万股。Robinhood和银行首先披露了38美元到42美元之间的可能价格区间。但是,上市后总体需求却不温不火,股价低至38美元的底端。因此,如果Robinhood的小投资者们购买了35%的股票,他们将为此支付8亿美元的损失。

Robinhood不仅没有成功,反而在下午1点左右暴跌11%,至33美元,然后又在下午4点收盘时小幅回升,至34.82美元,亏损了8.4%,市值为290亿美元——就在几天前,市场的乐观估计是320亿美元,而现在的数字要低得多。Robinhood的用户在一天内蒙受了大约6700万美元的损失。这听起来是一笔巨大的数字。但好消息是,尽管IPO令人失望,而Robinhood用户得到的股票本身就很少,摊到每个人身上,可能就只是很小的打击了。

如果在Robinhood庞大的用户基数中有四分之一——525万人申购,他们平均每个人只能获得4股。佛罗里达大学经济学家、全美领先的IPO专家杰伊•里特(Jay Ritter)怀疑,是否有许多申购者拿到了不止10股。从这个数字来看,投资者本来以380美元的价格买入,到这一天结束时就只损失了32美元。基金组织蒙受的损失更大。如果这些机构购买了此次发行量的65%,他们最初支付的价格就是13亿美元,到7月29日收盘时,亏损了1.07亿美元。

结论:Robinhood正与其“民主化”交易的目标背道而驰

股价暴跌给Robinhood带来的打击可能只是暂时的。但Robinhood背叛自己“交易民主化”初心的地方是在传统的IPO中与华尔街合作。“他们一点都不民主,”里特说。“华尔街投行的定价是低于市场价格的,所以股票才会出现短缺。IPO越热,小投资者和大型基金能买到的股票就都越少。”他指出,一些颇具影响的基金在研究哪些IPO能成为“爆款”时会很狡猾,并利用他们和银行的裙带关系参与这些交易,同时避开需求疲软的产品——它们的股票可能会平仓,或者最多只涨一点点。在那些不太受欢迎的交易中,股价甚至会下跌,就像Robinhood经历的那样。

相比之下,中小投资者事先并不知道哪些交易会成为爆款。他们不像巨头们那样吹毛求疵。因此,他们在投资时要冒着收益寥寥的风险。他们能在无人问津的冷门交易中得到更多股票,但在上市当天就大受欢迎的抢手交易中,分给他们的就少得多了。银行还会鼓动发行股票的公司把更多“抢手货”卖给机构,向散户少发行一点。如果得知Robinhood的用户得到了35%的股票、而不是20%,因为机构对他们的股票没什么兴趣,事情就很有意思了。

总体而言,通过IPO Access购入大量Robinhood股票的散户们确实会赚到一笔额外之财,因为至少在目前,大多数IPO确实能爆一把。但他们能得到的股票数量也极少,因为华尔街牢牢控制着这个过程。如果他们想买到更多股票,就要进入售后市场,并按真实的市场价格购买。这个价格不是投行设定的,而是“让自由市场决定”的。

里特说,真正“民主”的IPO是直接上市,每个人而不仅仅是那些华尔街机构,都能在开盘日早上的公开拍卖中竞标,从而决定股票的真实市场价格,并防止银行精心策划的虚假繁荣。Robinhood应该支持直接上市,而不是与华尔街合作进行传统的IPO——后者将给一个真正平等的金融界带来沉重的打击。(财富中文网)

编译:杨二一、陈聪聪

在7月29日上市的前几周,Robinhood Markets高调宣布,其将为自己的经纪客户保留一大部分新发行的股票,作为对公司2250万忠实用户的特殊奖励。但是,Robinhood的股价在开盘当天出现暴跌,这或许意味着,Robinhood大力宣扬的让普通投资者受益的营销活动的效果与其初衷适得其反。

在大多数IPO中,个人投资者只分得5%左右的一小部分,华尔街的银行通常会将大部分股票奖励给他们的对冲基金和共同基金客户。这些客户享受这种分配方式,因为银行会系统性地压低承销股票的价格,然后在交易开始时制造“暴涨”,以获得大量交易和丰厚佣金回报银行。在过去的18个月里,IPO首日涨幅非常大,今年以来和2020年的平均涨幅分别为33%和42%。一位经历过IPO的首席执行官认为,在这个“精英过程”中,“华尔街的肥猫们得到了丰富的牛奶”。

作为免佣金交易的先驱,Robinhood以将小投资者吸引到股市而闻名,达到了前所未有的数量。对于自己的IPO,这家在线经纪公司宣称,其主流客户可以以与大型基金相同的内幕价格购买股票。Robinhood在7月28日的注册声明中表示:“我们很自豪能够以与机构投资者同等的条件,向客户开放本次发行。”

简而言之,Robinhood的IPO不仅仅是为了成为一家上市企业并筹集大量新资本,更是为了让其小投资者享有与大型基金同样优越的地位。在推动股票投资这方面,没有哪个股票市场成员比Robinhood付出过更多的努力。Robinhood自称使命是“为所有人实现金融民主化”,此次IPO是这一使命的的又一个里程碑。

但是,到目前为止,这场IPO令小投资者感到沮丧,也损害了Robinhood“支持小人物”的声誉。

罗宾汉要求为其客户分配一大笔资金

很显然,Robinhood利用了与承销商的杠杆关系,为散户群体(特别是公司的经纪客户)获得了比最近几乎任何其他大型IPO都要大的发行份额。Robinhood在承销中预售了5240万股,并授予其投资银行在售后市场再购买10.5%或550万股的权利。Robinhood在其注册声明中表示,承销商将为其客户保留20%至35%的发行份额,相当于通常份额的7倍之多。确切的数字将由Robinhood和银行之间的谈判确定,目前尚未披露。

Robinhood宣布,其账户持有人可以通过公司旗下的在线平台IPO Access购买股票——这一平台通过投资银行提供的配售,以承销价格向客户提供新股发行。平台母公司的IPO,使平台能够出售的股票数量远远超过其所处理的其他典型IPO。注册声明披露,所有客户都可以申请股票,这意味着,每个申请者都有获得股票的平等机会。

目前还不清楚Robinhood的客户购买了多少比例的股份。如果他们拿下了全部35%,这个数字可能高达2100万股。Robinhood和银行首先披露了38美元到42美元之间的可能价格区间。但是,上市后总体需求却不温不火,股价低至38美元的底端。因此,如果Robinhood的小投资者们购买了35%的股票,他们将为此支付8亿美元的损失。

Robinhood不仅没有成功,反而在下午1点左右暴跌11%,至33美元,然后又在下午4点收盘时小幅回升,至34.82美元,亏损了8.4%,市值为290亿美元——就在几天前,市场的乐观估计是320亿美元,而现在的数字要低得多。Robinhood的用户在一天内蒙受了大约6700万美元的损失。这听起来是一笔巨大的数字。但好消息是,尽管IPO令人失望,而Robinhood用户得到的股票本身就很少,摊到每个人身上,可能就只是很小的打击了。

如果在Robinhood庞大的用户基数中有四分之一——525万人申购,他们平均每个人只能获得4股。佛罗里达大学经济学家、全美领先的IPO专家杰伊•里特(Jay Ritter)怀疑,是否有许多申购者拿到了不止10股。从这个数字来看,投资者本来以380美元的价格买入,到这一天结束时就只损失了32美元。基金组织蒙受的损失更大。如果这些机构购买了此次发行量的65%,他们最初支付的价格就是13亿美元,到7月29日收盘时,亏损了1.07亿美元。

结论:Robinhood正与其“民主化”交易的目标背道而驰

股价暴跌给Robinhood带来的打击可能只是暂时的。但Robinhood背叛自己“交易民主化”初心的地方是在传统的IPO中与华尔街合作。“他们一点都不民主,”里特说。“华尔街投行的定价是低于市场价格的,所以股票才会出现短缺。IPO越热,小投资者和大型基金能买到的股票就都越少。”他指出,一些颇具影响的基金在研究哪些IPO能成为“爆款”时会很狡猾,并利用他们和银行的裙带关系参与这些交易,同时避开需求疲软的产品——它们的股票可能会平仓,或者最多只涨一点点。在那些不太受欢迎的交易中,股价甚至会下跌,就像Robinhood经历的那样。

相比之下,中小投资者事先并不知道哪些交易会成为爆款。他们不像巨头们那样吹毛求疵。因此,他们在投资时要冒着收益寥寥的风险。他们能在无人问津的冷门交易中得到更多股票,但在上市当天就大受欢迎的抢手交易中,分给他们的就少得多了。银行还会鼓动发行股票的公司把更多“抢手货”卖给机构,向散户少发行一点。如果得知Robinhood的用户得到了35%的股票、而不是20%,因为机构对他们的股票没什么兴趣,事情就很有意思了。

总体而言,通过IPO Access购入大量Robinhood股票的散户们确实会赚到一笔额外之财,因为至少在目前,大多数IPO确实能爆一把。但他们能得到的股票数量也极少,因为华尔街牢牢控制着这个过程。如果他们想买到更多股票,就要进入售后市场,并按真实的市场价格购买。这个价格不是投行设定的,而是“让自由市场决定”的。

里特说,真正“民主”的IPO是直接上市,每个人而不仅仅是那些华尔街机构,都能在开盘日早上的公开拍卖中竞标,从而决定股票的真实市场价格,并防止银行精心策划的虚假繁荣。Robinhood应该支持直接上市,而不是与华尔街合作进行传统的IPO——后者将给一个真正平等的金融界带来沉重的打击。(财富中文网)

编译:杨二一、陈聪聪

In the weeks before its public offering on July 29, Robinhood Markets grandly proclaimed that it was reserving a big chunk of the newly-issued shares for its own brokerage customers. The plan was designed as a special reward for its 22.5 million loyal account holders. But as Robinhood's price plunged on opening day, what amounted to a marketing campaign touting how Robinhood benefits the Main Street investor backfired badly.

In most IPOs, individual investors get a puny slice of around 5% of the offering. The Wall Street banks typically award the vast bulk of shares to their hedge and mutual fund clients. Those customers relish the allocations because the banks systematically underprice the stock sold in the underwriting to create a "pop" at the start of trading, and repay the banks with lots of trading and fat commissions. Those first-day jumps have been especially big in the last 18 months, averaging 33% this year and 42% in 2020. In that elite process, as one CEO who went through an IPO put it, the "Wall Street fat cats get the rich milk."

As a pioneer in commission-free trading, Robinhood is renowned for rallying small investors to the stock market in numbers never seen. For its own IPO, the online-broker trumpeted that legions of its Main Street customers could buy shares at the same insider prices as the big funds. "We are proud to open this offering to our customers on equal terms as institutional investors," Robinhood stated in its July 28 registration statement.

Put simply, Robinhood pitched its IPO not just as a route to becoming a publicly traded enterprise and raising lots of fresh capital, but to putting its small investors on the same privileged footing as the powerhouse funds. No player has done more to lift the folks on the street from a minor to major role in equity investing than Robinhood. Its IPO was targeted as another milestone in its self-described mission to "democratize finance for all."

But so far, the offering's proven a downer for the small investors, and tarnished Robinhood's reputation for championing the little guy.

Robinhood demanded a huge allocation for its customers

Robinhood clearly deployed its leverage with underwriters to secure a larger piece of the offering for the retail crowd––specifically, its own brokerage customers––than in virtually any other major IPO in recent memory. It pre-sold 52.4 million shares in the underwriting, and granted its investment banks rights to purchase another 10.5% or 5.5 million in the aftermarket. In its registration statement, Robinhood stated that the underwriters would reserve between 20% and 35% of the offering for it customers, as much as seven-times the typical share. The exact number was to be determined by negotiations between Robinhood and the banks, and hasn't been disclosed.

Robinhood announced that its account holders could purchase shares through its online platform IPO Access, which offers its customers shares in new issues at the underwriting price, via allocations provided by investment banks. Its parent's debut gave IPO Access far more shares to sell than in the typical offerings it handles. The registration statement disclosed that all customers could apply for shares. It implied that everyone that applied had an equal chance of getting shares.

It's not clear what portion of the offering Robinhood's customers purchased. If they took the full 35%, the number could be as high as 21 million shares. Robinhood and the banks first disclosed a possible range in prices between $38 and $42. But overall demand was tepid, and the shares fetched the low-end of $38. Hence, if Robinhood's small investors bought 35% of the offering, they would have paid a total of $800 million.

Robinhood not only failed to pop, it cratered 11% by around 1 PM to $33 before recovering slightly to $34.82 by the 4 PM close for a loss of 8.4%, giving Robinhood a market cap of $29 billion, below the optimistic estimates of over $32 billion just days before. Robinhood's customers suffered a one-day loss of roughly $67 million. That sounds like a big number. The good news is that although the IPO was a disappointment, Robinhood customers got so few shares each likely suffered only a small hit.

If one-fourth or 5.25 million of Robinhood's customers applied, they'd get an average of just four shares each. Jay Ritter, an economist at the University of Florida who's the nation's leading expert on IPOs, doubts that many applicants received more than about 10 shares. At that number, an investor would have put down $380, and by the end of the day lost just $32. The funds suffered the bigger damage. If the institutions bought 65% of the offering, they initially paid $1.3 billion, and by the close on July 29, suffered a $107 million loss.

The upshot: Robinhood is promoting a process that's the opposite of democratic

The losses give Robinhood a black eye that may be temporary. But where Robinhood's betrayed its own goals is partnering with Wall Street in traditional IPOs. "They're undemocratic," says Ritter. "The banks set the price below the market price, so there's a shortage of shares. The hotter the IPO, the fewer shares both small investors and big funds get to buy." He notes that the powerful funds get sophisticated on research on which IPOs are going to be hot, and use their clout with the banks to get into those deals, while shunning offerings where demand is weak––where shares are likely to open flat, or pop just a little at best. In those less-popular deals, prices can even drop, as in the case of Robinhood.

By contrast, small investors don't know in advance which deal will be hot. They don't cherrypick like the big guys. So they risk getting much lower returns. They get far bigger allocations on the cool deals that do poorly, and far fewer shares of the sought-after deals that deliver a big pop on opening day. The banks also push issuers to sell more shares to institutions and fewer to retail in the hot offerings. It would be interesting to know if the Robinhood customers got an allocation of 35%, say, instead of 20% because institutional interest was so weak.

It's true that overall, Robinhood's customers who buy a lot of IPOs through IPO Access will make a little extra money because for now at least, most IPOs do pop. But they'll be limited to very small numbers of shares because Wall Street controls the process. If they want to buy a significant number, they need to go into the aftermarket and pay the true market price. That price, not the one set by the investment banks, is the "let freedom ring" price.

The truly democratic IPOs, says Ritter, are direct listings where everyone, not just those Wall Street anoints, gets to bid in an open auction on the morning of opening day, establishing a true market price, and preventing the artificial jump orchestrated by the banks. Robinhood should take a stand by endorsing direct listings, and stop partnering with Wall Street on traditional IPOs. That would be striking a blow for true equality in the financial world.

最新:
  • 热读文章
  • 热门视频
活动
扫码打开财富Plus App