Tenten
2021-09-05
Good!
The Three Big Transitions Reshaping Finance<blockquote>重塑金融的三大转型</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。
分享至
微信
复制链接
精彩评论
我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白
打开APP，发表看法
APP内打开
发表看法
5
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":814250699,"tweetId":"814250699","gmtCreate":1630829596411,"gmtModify":1631889121888,"author":{"id":3586686286785362,"idStr":"3586686286785362","authorId":3586686286785362,"authorIdStr":"3586686286785362","name":"Tenten","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6aaa492013925eb5bfe2cb43461ebfe4","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":11,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Good!</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Good!</p></body></html>","text":"Good!","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/814250699","repostId":1198049168,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198049168","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1630657800,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1198049168?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-03 16:30","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The Three Big Transitions Reshaping Finance<blockquote>重塑金融的三大转型</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198049168","media":"Barron's","summary":"About the author: Stephen Deane, a chartered financial analyst, is senior director, legislative and ","content":"<p><i>About the author: Stephen Deane, a chartered financial analyst, is senior director, legislative and regulatory outreach, at the CFA Institute. He joined the institute after more than nine years at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.</i></p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：斯蒂芬·迪恩 (Stephen Deane) 是特许金融分析师，现任特许金融分析师协会 (CFA Institute) 立法和监管外联高级总监。他在美国证券交易委员会工作了九年多后加入了该研究所。</i></blockquote></p><p> Ever since Covid disrupted our lives, two themes have emerged. First, a feeling that we are living in an antechamber to a new and still-undefined era. And second, a pattern of hybrids, from homes converted into hybrid spaces of living/working/schooling, to expectations of a new office hybrid that will mix virtual and in-person meetings.</p><p><blockquote>自从Covid扰乱了我们的生活，出现了两个主题。首先，一种感觉，我们生活在一个新的、尚未定义的时代的前厅。第二，混合模式，从家庭转变为生活/工作/教育的混合空间，到对混合虚拟和面对面会议的新混合办公室的期望。</blockquote></p><p> But what about the world of finance and securities markets? There, too, we can find patterns of transition and hybrids. Consider three phenomena that began before Covid but have exploded in growth since then: digital assets, Robinhood, and SPACs.</p><p><blockquote>但是金融和证券市场的世界呢？在那里，我们也可以找到过渡和混合的模式。考虑在Covid之前开始但自那以后爆炸式增长的三种现象：数字资产、Robinhood和SPAC。</blockquote></p><p> Start with the rise of cryptocurrencies, digital tokens and other such assets, which remain very much in a transitory stage (like the “Wild West,” SEC Chairman Gary Genslerrecently observed). Even as the crypto asset class has grown to an estimated $1.6 trillion, basic questions remain unanswered. Are digital tokens securities or commodities? Are decentralized finance platforms really securities exchanges? Are data miners and other digital service providers really broker-dealers? Should the SEC permit Bitcoin ETFs? And who should regulate these products, services and entities—the SEC, the CFTC, or banking regulators?</p><p><blockquote>从加密货币、数字代币和其他此类资产的兴起说起，这些资产在很大程度上仍处于过渡阶段（就像美国证券交易委员会主席加里-根斯勒（Gary Gensler）最近指出的 “狂野西部”一样）。尽管加密资产类别已发展到约 1.6 万亿美元，但基本问题仍未得到解答。数字代币是证券还是商品？去中心化金融平台真的是证券交易所吗？数据挖掘者和其他数字服务提供商真的是经纪交易商吗？SEC 应该允许比特币 ETF 吗？谁应该监管这些产品、服务和实体——美国证券交易委员会、美国商品期货交易委员会还是银行监管机构？</blockquote></p><p> Genslerhas calledon Congress to give the SEC “additional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from falling between regulatory cracks.” Specifically, he wants “additional plenary authority to write rules for and attach guardrails to crypto trading and lending.” And the U.S. House has passed a bill (H.R. 1602, the Eliminate Barriers to Innovation Act of 2021), which would require the SEC and CFTC to establish a working group on digital assets.</p><p><blockquote>根斯勒要求国会赋予美国证券交易委员会 “更多权力，防止交易、产品和平台陷入监管漏洞”。具体来说，他希望 “赋予全体会议额外的权力，为加密货币交易和贷款制定规则并为其设置护栏”。美国众议院已经通过了一项法案（H.R. 1602，2021 年消除创新障碍法案），该法案将要求美国证券交易委员会和美国商品期货交易委员会成立一个数字资产工作组。</blockquote></p><p> Some of what passes as crypto innovations pretty clearly seems to be old-fashioned investment products dressed up in digital garb. That would include any stablecoins that function like money market funds and those tokens that fall within the definition of a security. Nonetheless, there is no denying that crypto mixes digital technology with traditional forms of finance in a hybrid of innovation.</p><p><blockquote>一些被认为是加密创新的东西显然是披着数字外衣的老式投资产品。这将包括任何像货币市场基金一样发挥作用的稳定币，以及那些属于证券定义的代币。尽管如此，不可否认的是，加密货币将数字技术与传统金融形式混合在一起，形成了一种创新的混合体。</blockquote></p><p> Second, consider Robinhood, which has exploded into view along with Redditor-fueled moonshot trades in meme stocks. Its proclaimedmission“to democratize finance for all” may invite skepticism, but the company can make a strong claim to having attracted a surge of first-time retail investors, representing a younger and more ethnically diverse customer base. Powering that success is Robinhood’s sleek mobile app—and its arsenal of gamification tools to entice and engage customers. But do the nudges and gamification tools cross the line into the realm of investment advice?</p><p><blockquote>其次，以 Robinhood 为例，它与 Redditor 推动的备忘录股票的登月交易一起一炮而红。该公司宣称的 “为所有人实现金融民主化 ”的使命可能会招致怀疑，但该公司可以大声疾呼，吸引了大量首次投资的散户投资者，这些投资者代表了一个更年轻、种族更多样化的客户群。推动这一成功的是 Robinhood 时尚的移动应用程序，以及吸引和吸引客户的一系列游戏化工具。但是，这些推送和游戏化工具是否跨越了投资建议领域呢？</blockquote></p><p> “Once individuals become customers, Robinhood relentlessly bombards them with a number of strategies designed to encourage and incentivize continuous and repeated engagement with this application,” the Massachusetts state securities regulator alleges in alawsuitagainst Robinhood. The complaint points to several such techniques, from celebrating customer trades with confetti (a practice Robinhood has since abandoned) to plying customers with lists of most-traded and most-popular securities on its platform.</p><p><blockquote>“马萨诸塞州证券监管机构在针对 Robinhood 的诉讼中指控称：”一旦个人成为客户，Robinhood 就会无情地用一系列策略轰炸他们，旨在鼓励和激励他们持续、反复地使用该应用程序。投诉指出了几种此类技巧，从用五彩纸屑庆祝客户交易（Robinhood 后来放弃了这种做法）到向客户提供其平台上交易量最大和最受欢迎的证券清单。</blockquote></p><p> Should practices like these be subject to the fiduciary standard of an investment adviser? Or to the new Best Interest standard for broker-dealers? Robinhood hascalledthe regulator elitist and says it isn’t making recommendations. Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, these gamification techniques make Robinhood appear different in kind from the (boring?) practices of traditional broker-dealers that merely execute customers’ trades. The gamification of mobile trading apps may represent a hybrid between standard broker-dealer practices and full-fledged investment advice.</p><p><blockquote>像这样的做法是否应该受到投资顾问的信托标准的约束？还是经纪自营商新的最佳利息标准？罗宾汉称监管机构是精英分子，并表示监管机构没有提出建议。无论诉讼结果如何，这些游戏化技术都让 Robinhood 显得与传统经纪自营商（无聊？）的做法截然不同，传统经纪自营商只是执行客户交易。移动交易应用程序的游戏化可能是标准经纪自营商做法和成熟投资建议的混合体。</blockquote></p><p> Third, consider SPACs, which have been around since 2003 but have exploded in popularity in the Covid era. In a hugely successful marketing campaign, SPACs have presented themselves as a kind of poor man’s private equity. If true, that would make SPACs a hybrid between private investment opportunities and public markets.</p><p><blockquote>第三，以 SPAC 为例，它自 2003 年就已出现，但在 Covid 时代大受欢迎。在一场非常成功的营销活动中，SPAC 将自己塑造成一种穷人私募股权。如果属实，这将使 SPAC 成为私人投资机会和公开市场的混合体。</blockquote></p><p> The deSPAC merger—the key event in the life of a SPAC—is also a hybrid. This is when the SPAC merges with a private operating company, allowing the target to become a public company without going through an IPO. Or is the merger itself really an IPO?</p><p><blockquote>deSPAC 合并是 SPAC 生命中的关键事件，也是一种混合体。这是指 SPAC 与一家私营运营公司合并，使目标公司无需进行 IPO 即可成为上市公司。或者合并本身真的是 IPO？</blockquote></p><p></p><p> That’s precisely the question raised by John Coates, a Harvard Law professor who has become a top SEC official. In a provocativespeechon April 8, Coates argued that the deSPAC merger is an initial public offering, because it is the first time the private operating company is introduced to the public. One speech, however, does not make SEC policy. And Coates’ theory remains untested in court. Nonetheless, it suggests how the deSPAC merger can be considered a hybrid between traditional forms of IPO and merger transactions.</p><p><blockquote>这正是哈佛大学法学教授约翰-科茨（John Coates）提出的问题，他已成为美国证券交易委员会的高级官员。在 4 月 8 日的一次挑衅性演讲中，科茨认为 deSPAC 的合并是一次首次公开募股，因为这是这家私营运营公司首次向公众介绍。然而，一次演讲并不能决定美国证券交易委员会的政策。科茨的理论在法庭上仍未得到检验。尽管如此，它表明 deSPAC 合并如何被视为传统形式的 IPO 和合并交易的混合体。</blockquote></p><p> At a House Financial Services subcommitteehearingon May 24, Michael San Nicolas, Guam’s delegate, asked how a SPAC differed from a closed-end equity (mutual) fund. The question may have seemed arcane at the time, but in retrospect it appears to have foreshadowed a series of blockbuster lawsuits against SPACs. Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson, Jr. and Yale Law Professor John Morley have joined in alawsuitagainst Bill Ackman’s SPAC,Pershing Square Tontine Holdings Ltd. (ticker: PSTH), which raised $4 billion to become the single largest SPAC, and followed up with suits against two other SPACs,GO Acquisition Corp.and E.Merge Technology. The suits allege that the SPACs are really investment companies, like mutual funds and ETFs, because they invest in securities while searching for a merger partner.</p><p><blockquote>5 月 24 日，在众议院金融服务小组委员会的听证会上，关岛代表迈克尔-圣尼古拉斯（Michael San Nicolas）询问了特殊目的收购公司（SPAC）与封闭式股权（共同）基金有何不同。这个问题在当时看来似乎很神秘，但现在回想起来，它似乎预示着一系列针对 SPAC 的重磅诉讼。美国证券交易委员会前委员小罗伯特-杰克逊（Robert J. Jackson, Jr.）和耶鲁大学法学教授约翰-莫利（John Morley）加入了针对比尔-阿克曼（Bill Ackman）的特殊目的收购公司潘兴广场通廷控股有限公司（Pershing Square Tontine Holdings Ltd.，股票代码：PSTH）的诉讼，该公司筹集了 40 亿美元，成为最大的单一特殊目的收购公司，随后又对另外两家特殊目的收购公司 GO Acquisition Corp. 和 E.Merge Technology 提起诉讼。诉讼称，这些 SPAC 实际上是投资公司、</blockquote></p><p> “Under the [Investment Company Act of 1940], an Investment Company is an entity whose primary business is investing in securities,” the lawsuit against PSTH argues. “And investing in securities is basically the only thing that PSTH has ever done.”</p><p><blockquote>“针对 PSTH 的诉讼认为：”根据 1940 年《投资公司法》，投资公司是指以投资证券为主要业务的实体。“而投资证券基本上是 PSTH 唯一做过的事情”。</blockquote></p><p> Ackmansaysthe suit against his SPAC is meritless, but warns, “Because the basic issues raised here apply to every SPAC, a successful claim would imply that every SPAC may also be an illegal investment company.” The suit suggests one more way that SPACs could be considered a hybrid—a cross between an investment company (like a mutual fund) and a publicly traded company.</p><p><blockquote>阿克曼说，针对他的 SPAC 的诉讼毫无根据，但他警告说：“由于这里提出的基本问题适用于每一家 SPAC，成功的索赔将意味着每一家 SPAC 也可能是一家非法投资公司”。该诉讼提出了另一种将 SPAC 视为混合体的方式--投资公司（如共同基金）和上市公司的结合体。</blockquote></p><p> One wonders how we will look back on these market developments a decade from now. Will SPACs, cryptoassets, and mobile trading apps be seen as hybrids that emerged in the antechamber we are living in now?</p><p><blockquote>人们不禁要问，十年后我们将如何回顾这些市场发展。SPAC、加密资产和移动交易应用会被视为我们现在生活的前厅中出现的混合体吗？</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","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>The Three Big Transitions Reshaping Finance<blockquote>重塑金融的三大转型</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\">\nThe Three Big Transitions Reshaping Finance<blockquote>重塑金融的三大转型</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">Barron's</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-09-03 16:30</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><i>About the author: Stephen Deane, a chartered financial analyst, is senior director, legislative and regulatory outreach, at the CFA Institute. He joined the institute after more than nine years at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.</i></p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：斯蒂芬·迪恩 (Stephen Deane) 是特许金融分析师，现任特许金融分析师协会 (CFA Institute) 立法和监管外联高级总监。他在美国证券交易委员会工作了九年多后加入了该研究所。</i></blockquote></p><p> Ever since Covid disrupted our lives, two themes have emerged. First, a feeling that we are living in an antechamber to a new and still-undefined era. And second, a pattern of hybrids, from homes converted into hybrid spaces of living/working/schooling, to expectations of a new office hybrid that will mix virtual and in-person meetings.</p><p><blockquote>自从Covid扰乱了我们的生活，出现了两个主题。首先，一种感觉，我们生活在一个新的、尚未定义的时代的前厅。第二，混合模式，从家庭转变为生活/工作/教育的混合空间，到对混合虚拟和面对面会议的新混合办公室的期望。</blockquote></p><p> But what about the world of finance and securities markets? There, too, we can find patterns of transition and hybrids. Consider three phenomena that began before Covid but have exploded in growth since then: digital assets, Robinhood, and SPACs.</p><p><blockquote>但是金融和证券市场的世界呢？在那里，我们也可以找到过渡和混合的模式。考虑在Covid之前开始但自那以后爆炸式增长的三种现象：数字资产、Robinhood和SPAC。</blockquote></p><p> Start with the rise of cryptocurrencies, digital tokens and other such assets, which remain very much in a transitory stage (like the “Wild West,” SEC Chairman Gary Genslerrecently observed). Even as the crypto asset class has grown to an estimated $1.6 trillion, basic questions remain unanswered. Are digital tokens securities or commodities? Are decentralized finance platforms really securities exchanges? Are data miners and other digital service providers really broker-dealers? Should the SEC permit Bitcoin ETFs? And who should regulate these products, services and entities—the SEC, the CFTC, or banking regulators?</p><p><blockquote>从加密货币、数字代币和其他此类资产的兴起说起，这些资产在很大程度上仍处于过渡阶段（就像美国证券交易委员会主席加里-根斯勒（Gary Gensler）最近指出的 “狂野西部”一样）。尽管加密资产类别已发展到约 1.6 万亿美元，但基本问题仍未得到解答。数字代币是证券还是商品？去中心化金融平台真的是证券交易所吗？数据挖掘者和其他数字服务提供商真的是经纪交易商吗？SEC 应该允许比特币 ETF 吗？谁应该监管这些产品、服务和实体——美国证券交易委员会、美国商品期货交易委员会还是银行监管机构？</blockquote></p><p> Genslerhas calledon Congress to give the SEC “additional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from falling between regulatory cracks.” Specifically, he wants “additional plenary authority to write rules for and attach guardrails to crypto trading and lending.” And the U.S. House has passed a bill (H.R. 1602, the Eliminate Barriers to Innovation Act of 2021), which would require the SEC and CFTC to establish a working group on digital assets.</p><p><blockquote>根斯勒要求国会赋予美国证券交易委员会 “更多权力，防止交易、产品和平台陷入监管漏洞”。具体来说，他希望 “赋予全体会议额外的权力，为加密货币交易和贷款制定规则并为其设置护栏”。美国众议院已经通过了一项法案（H.R. 1602，2021 年消除创新障碍法案），该法案将要求美国证券交易委员会和美国商品期货交易委员会成立一个数字资产工作组。</blockquote></p><p> Some of what passes as crypto innovations pretty clearly seems to be old-fashioned investment products dressed up in digital garb. That would include any stablecoins that function like money market funds and those tokens that fall within the definition of a security. Nonetheless, there is no denying that crypto mixes digital technology with traditional forms of finance in a hybrid of innovation.</p><p><blockquote>一些被认为是加密创新的东西显然是披着数字外衣的老式投资产品。这将包括任何像货币市场基金一样发挥作用的稳定币，以及那些属于证券定义的代币。尽管如此，不可否认的是，加密货币将数字技术与传统金融形式混合在一起，形成了一种创新的混合体。</blockquote></p><p> Second, consider Robinhood, which has exploded into view along with Redditor-fueled moonshot trades in meme stocks. Its proclaimedmission“to democratize finance for all” may invite skepticism, but the company can make a strong claim to having attracted a surge of first-time retail investors, representing a younger and more ethnically diverse customer base. Powering that success is Robinhood’s sleek mobile app—and its arsenal of gamification tools to entice and engage customers. But do the nudges and gamification tools cross the line into the realm of investment advice?</p><p><blockquote>其次，以 Robinhood 为例，它与 Redditor 推动的备忘录股票的登月交易一起一炮而红。该公司宣称的 “为所有人实现金融民主化 ”的使命可能会招致怀疑，但该公司可以大声疾呼，吸引了大量首次投资的散户投资者，这些投资者代表了一个更年轻、种族更多样化的客户群。推动这一成功的是 Robinhood 时尚的移动应用程序，以及吸引和吸引客户的一系列游戏化工具。但是，这些推送和游戏化工具是否跨越了投资建议领域呢？</blockquote></p><p> “Once individuals become customers, Robinhood relentlessly bombards them with a number of strategies designed to encourage and incentivize continuous and repeated engagement with this application,” the Massachusetts state securities regulator alleges in alawsuitagainst Robinhood. The complaint points to several such techniques, from celebrating customer trades with confetti (a practice Robinhood has since abandoned) to plying customers with lists of most-traded and most-popular securities on its platform.</p><p><blockquote>“马萨诸塞州证券监管机构在针对 Robinhood 的诉讼中指控称：”一旦个人成为客户，Robinhood 就会无情地用一系列策略轰炸他们，旨在鼓励和激励他们持续、反复地使用该应用程序。投诉指出了几种此类技巧，从用五彩纸屑庆祝客户交易（Robinhood 后来放弃了这种做法）到向客户提供其平台上交易量最大和最受欢迎的证券清单。</blockquote></p><p> Should practices like these be subject to the fiduciary standard of an investment adviser? Or to the new Best Interest standard for broker-dealers? Robinhood hascalledthe regulator elitist and says it isn’t making recommendations. Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, these gamification techniques make Robinhood appear different in kind from the (boring?) practices of traditional broker-dealers that merely execute customers’ trades. The gamification of mobile trading apps may represent a hybrid between standard broker-dealer practices and full-fledged investment advice.</p><p><blockquote>像这样的做法是否应该受到投资顾问的信托标准的约束？还是经纪自营商新的最佳利息标准？罗宾汉称监管机构是精英分子，并表示监管机构没有提出建议。无论诉讼结果如何，这些游戏化技术都让 Robinhood 显得与传统经纪自营商（无聊？）的做法截然不同，传统经纪自营商只是执行客户交易。移动交易应用程序的游戏化可能是标准经纪自营商做法和成熟投资建议的混合体。</blockquote></p><p> Third, consider SPACs, which have been around since 2003 but have exploded in popularity in the Covid era. In a hugely successful marketing campaign, SPACs have presented themselves as a kind of poor man’s private equity. If true, that would make SPACs a hybrid between private investment opportunities and public markets.</p><p><blockquote>第三，以 SPAC 为例，它自 2003 年就已出现，但在 Covid 时代大受欢迎。在一场非常成功的营销活动中，SPAC 将自己塑造成一种穷人私募股权。如果属实，这将使 SPAC 成为私人投资机会和公开市场的混合体。</blockquote></p><p> The deSPAC merger—the key event in the life of a SPAC—is also a hybrid. This is when the SPAC merges with a private operating company, allowing the target to become a public company without going through an IPO. Or is the merger itself really an IPO?</p><p><blockquote>deSPAC 合并是 SPAC 生命中的关键事件，也是一种混合体。这是指 SPAC 与一家私营运营公司合并，使目标公司无需进行 IPO 即可成为上市公司。或者合并本身真的是 IPO？</blockquote></p><p></p><p> That’s precisely the question raised by John Coates, a Harvard Law professor who has become a top SEC official. In a provocativespeechon April 8, Coates argued that the deSPAC merger is an initial public offering, because it is the first time the private operating company is introduced to the public. One speech, however, does not make SEC policy. And Coates’ theory remains untested in court. Nonetheless, it suggests how the deSPAC merger can be considered a hybrid between traditional forms of IPO and merger transactions.</p><p><blockquote>这正是哈佛大学法学教授约翰-科茨（John Coates）提出的问题，他已成为美国证券交易委员会的高级官员。在 4 月 8 日的一次挑衅性演讲中，科茨认为 deSPAC 的合并是一次首次公开募股，因为这是这家私营运营公司首次向公众介绍。然而，一次演讲并不能决定美国证券交易委员会的政策。科茨的理论在法庭上仍未得到检验。尽管如此，它表明 deSPAC 合并如何被视为传统形式的 IPO 和合并交易的混合体。</blockquote></p><p> At a House Financial Services subcommitteehearingon May 24, Michael San Nicolas, Guam’s delegate, asked how a SPAC differed from a closed-end equity (mutual) fund. The question may have seemed arcane at the time, but in retrospect it appears to have foreshadowed a series of blockbuster lawsuits against SPACs. Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson, Jr. and Yale Law Professor John Morley have joined in alawsuitagainst Bill Ackman’s SPAC,Pershing Square Tontine Holdings Ltd. (ticker: PSTH), which raised $4 billion to become the single largest SPAC, and followed up with suits against two other SPACs,GO Acquisition Corp.and E.Merge Technology. The suits allege that the SPACs are really investment companies, like mutual funds and ETFs, because they invest in securities while searching for a merger partner.</p><p><blockquote>5 月 24 日，在众议院金融服务小组委员会的听证会上，关岛代表迈克尔-圣尼古拉斯（Michael San Nicolas）询问了特殊目的收购公司（SPAC）与封闭式股权（共同）基金有何不同。这个问题在当时看来似乎很神秘，但现在回想起来，它似乎预示着一系列针对 SPAC 的重磅诉讼。美国证券交易委员会前委员小罗伯特-杰克逊（Robert J. Jackson, Jr.）和耶鲁大学法学教授约翰-莫利（John Morley）加入了针对比尔-阿克曼（Bill Ackman）的特殊目的收购公司潘兴广场通廷控股有限公司（Pershing Square Tontine Holdings Ltd.，股票代码：PSTH）的诉讼，该公司筹集了 40 亿美元，成为最大的单一特殊目的收购公司，随后又对另外两家特殊目的收购公司 GO Acquisition Corp. 和 E.Merge Technology 提起诉讼。诉讼称，这些 SPAC 实际上是投资公司、</blockquote></p><p> “Under the [Investment Company Act of 1940], an Investment Company is an entity whose primary business is investing in securities,” the lawsuit against PSTH argues. “And investing in securities is basically the only thing that PSTH has ever done.”</p><p><blockquote>“针对 PSTH 的诉讼认为：”根据 1940 年《投资公司法》，投资公司是指以投资证券为主要业务的实体。“而投资证券基本上是 PSTH 唯一做过的事情”。</blockquote></p><p> Ackmansaysthe suit against his SPAC is meritless, but warns, “Because the basic issues raised here apply to every SPAC, a successful claim would imply that every SPAC may also be an illegal investment company.” The suit suggests one more way that SPACs could be considered a hybrid—a cross between an investment company (like a mutual fund) and a publicly traded company.</p><p><blockquote>阿克曼说，针对他的 SPAC 的诉讼毫无根据，但他警告说：“由于这里提出的基本问题适用于每一家 SPAC，成功的索赔将意味着每一家 SPAC 也可能是一家非法投资公司”。该诉讼提出了另一种将 SPAC 视为混合体的方式--投资公司（如共同基金）和上市公司的结合体。</blockquote></p><p> One wonders how we will look back on these market developments a decade from now. Will SPACs, cryptoassets, and mobile trading apps be seen as hybrids that emerged in the antechamber we are living in now?</p><p><blockquote>人们不禁要问，十年后我们将如何回顾这些市场发展。SPAC、加密资产和移动交易应用会被视为我们现在生活的前厅中出现的混合体吗？</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-three-big-transitions-reshaping-finance-51630526645?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_1\">Barron's</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-three-big-transitions-reshaping-finance-51630526645?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_1","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198049168","content_text":"About the author: Stephen Deane, a chartered financial analyst, is senior director, legislative and regulatory outreach, at the CFA Institute. He joined the institute after more than nine years at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.\nEver since Covid disrupted our lives, two themes have emerged. First, a feeling that we are living in an antechamber to a new and still-undefined era. And second, a pattern of hybrids, from homes converted into hybrid spaces of living/working/schooling, to expectations of a new office hybrid that will mix virtual and in-person meetings.\nBut what about the world of finance and securities markets? There, too, we can find patterns of transition and hybrids. Consider three phenomena that began before Covid but have exploded in growth since then: digital assets, Robinhood, and SPACs.\nStart with the rise of cryptocurrencies, digital tokens and other such assets, which remain very much in a transitory stage (like the “Wild West,” SEC Chairman Gary Genslerrecently observed). Even as the crypto asset class has grown to an estimated $1.6 trillion, basic questions remain unanswered. Are digital tokens securities or commodities? Are decentralized finance platforms really securities exchanges? Are data miners and other digital service providers really broker-dealers? Should the SEC permit Bitcoin ETFs? And who should regulate these products, services and entities—the SEC, the CFTC, or banking regulators?\nGenslerhas calledon Congress to give the SEC “additional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from falling between regulatory cracks.” Specifically, he wants “additional plenary authority to write rules for and attach guardrails to crypto trading and lending.” And the U.S. House has passed a bill (H.R. 1602, the Eliminate Barriers to Innovation Act of 2021), which would require the SEC and CFTC to establish a working group on digital assets.\nSome of what passes as crypto innovations pretty clearly seems to be old-fashioned investment products dressed up in digital garb. That would include any stablecoins that function like money market funds and those tokens that fall within the definition of a security. Nonetheless, there is no denying that crypto mixes digital technology with traditional forms of finance in a hybrid of innovation.\nSecond, consider Robinhood, which has exploded into view along with Redditor-fueled moonshot trades in meme stocks. Its proclaimedmission“to democratize finance for all” may invite skepticism, but the company can make a strong claim to having attracted a surge of first-time retail investors, representing a younger and more ethnically diverse customer base. Powering that success is Robinhood’s sleek mobile app—and its arsenal of gamification tools to entice and engage customers. But do the nudges and gamification tools cross the line into the realm of investment advice?\n“Once individuals become customers, Robinhood relentlessly bombards them with a number of strategies designed to encourage and incentivize continuous and repeated engagement with this application,” the Massachusetts state securities regulator alleges in alawsuitagainst Robinhood. The complaint points to several such techniques, from celebrating customer trades with confetti (a practice Robinhood has since abandoned) to plying customers with lists of most-traded and most-popular securities on its platform.\nShould practices like these be subject to the fiduciary standard of an investment adviser? Or to the new Best Interest standard for broker-dealers? Robinhood hascalledthe regulator elitist and says it isn’t making recommendations. Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, these gamification techniques make Robinhood appear different in kind from the (boring?) practices of traditional broker-dealers that merely execute customers’ trades. The gamification of mobile trading apps may represent a hybrid between standard broker-dealer practices and full-fledged investment advice.\nThird, consider SPACs, which have been around since 2003 but have exploded in popularity in the Covid era. In a hugely successful marketing campaign, SPACs have presented themselves as a kind of poor man’s private equity. If true, that would make SPACs a hybrid between private investment opportunities and public markets.\nThe deSPAC merger—the key event in the life of a SPAC—is also a hybrid. This is when the SPAC merges with a private operating company, allowing the target to become a public company without going through an IPO. Or is the merger itself really an IPO?\nThat’s precisely the question raised by John Coates, a Harvard Law professor who has become a top SEC official. In a provocativespeechon April 8, Coates argued that the deSPAC merger is an initial public offering, because it is the first time the private operating company is introduced to the public. One speech, however, does not make SEC policy. And Coates’ theory remains untested in court. Nonetheless, it suggests how the deSPAC merger can be considered a hybrid between traditional forms of IPO and merger transactions.\nAt a House Financial Services subcommitteehearingon May 24, Michael San Nicolas, Guam’s delegate, asked how a SPAC differed from a closed-end equity (mutual) fund. The question may have seemed arcane at the time, but in retrospect it appears to have foreshadowed a series of blockbuster lawsuits against SPACs. Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson, Jr. and Yale Law Professor John Morley have joined in alawsuitagainst Bill Ackman’s SPAC,Pershing Square Tontine Holdings Ltd. (ticker: PSTH), which raised $4 billion to become the single largest SPAC, and followed up with suits against two other SPACs,GO Acquisition Corp.and E.Merge Technology. The suits allege that the SPACs are really investment companies, like mutual funds and ETFs, because they invest in securities while searching for a merger partner.\n“Under the [Investment Company Act of 1940], an Investment Company is an entity whose primary business is investing in securities,” the lawsuit against PSTH argues. “And investing in securities is basically the only thing that PSTH has ever done.”\nAckmansaysthe suit against his SPAC is meritless, but warns, “Because the basic issues raised here apply to every SPAC, a successful claim would imply that every SPAC may also be an illegal investment company.” The suit suggests one more way that SPACs could be considered a hybrid—a cross between an investment company (like a mutual fund) and a publicly traded company.\nOne wonders how we will look back on these market developments a decade from now. Will SPACs, cryptoassets, and mobile trading apps be seen as hybrids that emerged in the antechamber we are living in now?","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".DJI":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":898,"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":5,"subscribersOnly":false,"subscribersOnlyAccessible":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/814250699"}
精彩评论