Jyefey的个人主页 - 老虎社区

Jyefey

Jyefey

暂无个人介绍

IP属地：未知

60关注

0粉丝

0主题

0勋章

2021-08-04

Great

Robinhood Q2 Revenues From Order Flow Tumble 34%<blockquote>Robinhood第二季度订单流收入下降34%</blockquote>

2021-07-31

Too bad

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-08-04

Great

Airbnb Earnings Could Be a Pleasant Surprise. Here’s Why.<blockquote>爱彼迎的盈利可能会令人惊喜。原因如下。</blockquote>

2021-07-31

Looking bad

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-31

Not a good day

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-07-31

Too bad

Jim Cramer: Robinhood's IPO Debacle Shows How Little Has Changed Over the Decades<blockquote>吉姆·克莱默：Robinhood的IPO惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>

去老虎APP查看更多动态

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3580642229367263","uuid":"3580642229367263","gmtCreate":1623128348056,"gmtModify":1627698576724,"name":"Jyefey","pinyin":"jyefey","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":60,"tweetSize":6,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37-1","templateUuid":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37","name":"博闻投资者","description":"累计交易超过10只正股","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.02.20","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-1","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"出道虎友","description":"加入老虎社区500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e4d0ca1da0456dc7894c946d44bf9ab","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f2f65e8ce4cfaae8db2bea9b127f58b","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5948a31b6edf154422335b265235809","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.10.28","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969-1","templateUuid":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969","name":"精英交易员","description":"证券或期货账户累计交易次数达到30次","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab0f87127c854ce3191a752d57b46edc","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9835ce48b8c8743566d344ac7a7ba8c","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76754b53ce7a90019f132c1d2fbc698f","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.28","exceedPercentage":"60.67%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},{"badgeId":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a-1","templateUuid":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a","name":"实盘交易者","description":"完成一笔实盘交易","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":4,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"hot","tweets":[{"id":890003958,"gmtCreate":1628063980174,"gmtModify":1633753927578,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Great","listText":"Great","text":"Great","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/890003958","repostId":"1143608786","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1143608786","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1628061660,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1143608786?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-04 15:21","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Airbnb Earnings Could Be a Pleasant Surprise. Here’s Why.<blockquote>爱彼迎的盈利可能会令人惊喜。原因如下。</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1143608786","media":"Barrons","summary":"Airbnb is poised for an earnings surge, KeyBanc analyst Justin Patterson predicts in a research note","content":"<p>Airbnb is poised for an earnings surge, KeyBanc analyst Justin Patterson predicts in a research note Tuesday.</p><p><blockquote>KeyBanc分析师Justin Patterson在周二的一份研究报告中预测，爱彼迎的盈利有望飙升。</blockquote></p><p> Patterson lifted his rating on Airbnb (ticker: ABNB) to Overweight from Sector Weight, setting a price target for the short-term lodging rentals business of $180, about 19% above yesterday’s close. The analyst argues the stock is headed for a period of “material” earnings estimate revisions—and he believes June-quarter results will be well above current Street estimates.</p><p><blockquote>帕特森将Airbnb（股票代码：ABNB）的评级从行业权重上调至跑赢大盘，将短期住宿租赁业务的目标价定为180美元，较昨日收盘价上涨约19%。这位分析师认为，该股将进入一段“重大”盈利预期修正的时期，他相信六月季度的业绩将远高于目前华尔街的预期。</blockquote></p><p> The company&nbsp;will report results on Aug. 12.</p><p><blockquote>该公司将于8月12日公布业绩。</blockquote></p><p> Patterson raised his financial forecasts for the second quarter, the full year, and next year. For the June quarter, he’s now projecting revenue of $1.34 billion, above the consensus forecast of $1.25 billion, with earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (Ebitda) of $136 million, likewise well above the Street consensus at $38 billion.</p><p><blockquote>帕特森上调了第二季度、全年和明年的财务预测。他目前预计6月份季度的收入为13.4亿美元，高于市场普遍预测的12.5亿美元，息税折旧摊销前利润(Ebitda)为1.36亿美元，同样远高于华尔街普遍预期的380亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> For the full year, he sees revenue of $5.8 billion and Ebitda of $1.1 billion (consensus is $5.5 billion in revenue and $738 million for Ebitda), and for 2022, he projects revenue of $7.7 billion and Ebitda of $1.7 billion, an even bigger gap above consensus, which stands at $7 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively.</p><p><blockquote>他预计全年收入为58亿美元，Ebitda为11亿美元（市场普遍认为收入为55亿美元，Ebitda为7.38亿美元），2022年，他预计收入为77亿美元，Ebitda为17亿美元，差距更大高于共识，分别为70亿美元和12亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> In Patterson’s view, the company’s “unit economics” advantages are going to begin to emerge more clearly in reported results. He notes that 90% of Airbnb’s traffic comes direct to the site, with the company spending much less than peers on digital advertising. Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky addresses that question in&nbsp;a recent interview with&nbsp;<i>Barron’s</i>, noting that a recent recovery in the business from pandemic lows came with almost zero ad spending.</p><p><blockquote>在帕特森看来，该公司的“单位经济”优势将开始在报告的业绩中更加明显地显现出来。他指出，爱彼迎90%的流量直接来自该网站，该公司在数字广告上的支出远低于同行。爱彼迎首席执行官Brian Chesky在最近的采访中回答了这个问题<i>巴伦周刊</i>指出，最近该业务从大流行低点复苏的同时，广告支出几乎为零。</blockquote></p><p> “Not only does this make Airbnb more insulated from digital ad inflation, it also provides more room for margin expansion when revenue accelerates,” the analyst writes. “Both of these conditions are present today, which we believe leads to significant revenue and Ebitda revision potential versus peers.”</p><p><blockquote>这位分析师写道：“这不仅使爱彼迎更好地免受数字广告通胀的影响，而且还在收入加速时为利润率扩张提供了更多空间。”“这两个条件今天都存在，我们相信与同行相比，这将带来巨大的收入和Ebitda修正潜力。”</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","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>Airbnb Earnings Could Be a Pleasant Surprise. Here’s Why.<blockquote>爱彼迎的盈利可能会令人惊喜。原因如下。</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\">\nAirbnb Earnings Could Be a Pleasant Surprise. Here’s Why.<blockquote>爱彼迎的盈利可能会令人惊喜。原因如下。</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">Barrons</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-08-04 15:21</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Airbnb is poised for an earnings surge, KeyBanc analyst Justin Patterson predicts in a research note Tuesday.</p><p><blockquote>KeyBanc分析师Justin Patterson在周二的一份研究报告中预测，爱彼迎的盈利有望飙升。</blockquote></p><p> Patterson lifted his rating on Airbnb (ticker: ABNB) to Overweight from Sector Weight, setting a price target for the short-term lodging rentals business of $180, about 19% above yesterday’s close. The analyst argues the stock is headed for a period of “material” earnings estimate revisions—and he believes June-quarter results will be well above current Street estimates.</p><p><blockquote>帕特森将Airbnb（股票代码：ABNB）的评级从行业权重上调至跑赢大盘，将短期住宿租赁业务的目标价定为180美元，较昨日收盘价上涨约19%。这位分析师认为，该股将进入一段“重大”盈利预期修正的时期，他相信六月季度的业绩将远高于目前华尔街的预期。</blockquote></p><p> The company&nbsp;will report results on Aug. 12.</p><p><blockquote>该公司将于8月12日公布业绩。</blockquote></p><p> Patterson raised his financial forecasts for the second quarter, the full year, and next year. For the June quarter, he’s now projecting revenue of $1.34 billion, above the consensus forecast of $1.25 billion, with earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (Ebitda) of $136 million, likewise well above the Street consensus at $38 billion.</p><p><blockquote>帕特森上调了第二季度、全年和明年的财务预测。他目前预计6月份季度的收入为13.4亿美元，高于市场普遍预测的12.5亿美元，息税折旧摊销前利润(Ebitda)为1.36亿美元，同样远高于华尔街普遍预期的380亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> For the full year, he sees revenue of $5.8 billion and Ebitda of $1.1 billion (consensus is $5.5 billion in revenue and $738 million for Ebitda), and for 2022, he projects revenue of $7.7 billion and Ebitda of $1.7 billion, an even bigger gap above consensus, which stands at $7 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively.</p><p><blockquote>他预计全年收入为58亿美元，Ebitda为11亿美元（市场普遍认为收入为55亿美元，Ebitda为7.38亿美元），2022年，他预计收入为77亿美元，Ebitda为17亿美元，差距更大高于共识，分别为70亿美元和12亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> In Patterson’s view, the company’s “unit economics” advantages are going to begin to emerge more clearly in reported results. He notes that 90% of Airbnb’s traffic comes direct to the site, with the company spending much less than peers on digital advertising. Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky addresses that question in&nbsp;a recent interview with&nbsp;<i>Barron’s</i>, noting that a recent recovery in the business from pandemic lows came with almost zero ad spending.</p><p><blockquote>在帕特森看来，该公司的“单位经济”优势将开始在报告的业绩中更加明显地显现出来。他指出，爱彼迎90%的流量直接来自该网站，该公司在数字广告上的支出远低于同行。爱彼迎首席执行官Brian Chesky在最近的采访中回答了这个问题<i>巴伦周刊</i>指出，最近该业务从大流行低点复苏的同时，广告支出几乎为零。</blockquote></p><p> “Not only does this make Airbnb more insulated from digital ad inflation, it also provides more room for margin expansion when revenue accelerates,” the analyst writes. “Both of these conditions are present today, which we believe leads to significant revenue and Ebitda revision potential versus peers.”</p><p><blockquote>这位分析师写道：“这不仅使爱彼迎更好地免受数字广告通胀的影响，而且还在收入加速时为利润率扩张提供了更多空间。”“这两个条件今天都存在，我们相信与同行相比，这将带来巨大的收入和Ebitda修正潜力。”</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/airbnb-earnings-estimates-51628001439?mod=RTA\">Barrons</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":{"ABNB":"爱彼迎"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/airbnb-earnings-estimates-51628001439?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1143608786","content_text":"Airbnb is poised for an earnings surge, KeyBanc analyst Justin Patterson predicts in a research note Tuesday.\nPatterson lifted his rating on Airbnb (ticker: ABNB) to Overweight from Sector Weight, setting a price target for the short-term lodging rentals business of $180, about 19% above yesterday’s close. The analyst argues the stock is headed for a period of “material” earnings estimate revisions—and he believes June-quarter results will be well above current Street estimates.\nThe company will report results on Aug. 12.\nPatterson raised his financial forecasts for the second quarter, the full year, and next year. For the June quarter, he’s now projecting revenue of $1.34 billion, above the consensus forecast of $1.25 billion, with earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (Ebitda) of $136 million, likewise well above the Street consensus at $38 billion.\nFor the full year, he sees revenue of $5.8 billion and Ebitda of $1.1 billion (consensus is $5.5 billion in revenue and $738 million for Ebitda), and for 2022, he projects revenue of $7.7 billion and Ebitda of $1.7 billion, an even bigger gap above consensus, which stands at $7 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively.\nIn Patterson’s view, the company’s “unit economics” advantages are going to begin to emerge more clearly in reported results. He notes that 90% of Airbnb’s traffic comes direct to the site, with the company spending much less than peers on digital advertising. Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky addresses that question in a recent interview with Barron’s, noting that a recent recovery in the business from pandemic lows came with almost zero ad spending.\n“Not only does this make Airbnb more insulated from digital ad inflation, it also provides more room for margin expansion when revenue accelerates,” the analyst writes. “Both of these conditions are present today, which we believe leads to significant revenue and Ebitda revision potential versus peers.”","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"ABNB":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":376,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":807777131,"gmtCreate":1628063791923,"gmtModify":1633753929629,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Great","listText":"Great","text":"Great","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/807777131","repostId":"1173852688","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1173852688","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1628063180,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1173852688?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-04 15:46","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Robinhood Q2 Revenues From Order Flow Tumble 34%<blockquote>Robinhood第二季度订单流收入下降34%</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1173852688","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Yesterday Robinhood released its preliminary revenue numbers for Q2 when it published itsForm 606 an","content":"<p>Yesterday Robinhood released its preliminary revenue numbers for Q2 when it published itsForm 606 and 607 disclosurefor April through June. While the data covers payment for orderflow (PFOF), this remains the biggest component of the recently IPOed company's top-line (dogecoin revenues notwithstanding), so it serves as a good proxy for what to expect when the company publishes its first earnings release as a public company.</p><p><blockquote>昨天，Robinhood发布了4月至6月的606和607表格披露，公布了第二季度的初步收入数据。虽然这些数据涵盖了订单流支付(PFOF)，但这仍然是这家最近首次公开募股的公司营收的最大组成部分（尽管有狗狗币收入），因此它可以很好地代表该公司发布首次财报时的预期情况作为一家上市公司发布。</blockquote></p><p> The numbers were quite disappointing, and a stark reminder of just how fickle retail trading can be.</p><p><blockquote>这些数字相当令人失望，这清楚地提醒人们零售交易是多么变化无常。</blockquote></p><p> After a blistering Q1 which saw a record surge in retail trading, and which translated into record payment for orderflow to Robinhood to the tune of $331 million, the bulk of which was for option orderflow at $198 million and was paid by Citadel which accounted for roughly 43% ($142 million) of Robinhood's total Q1 revenues, things slowed down substantially in Q2.</p><p><blockquote>在经历了创纪录的第一季度之后，零售交易量激增，并转化为向Robinhood支付的orderflow金额达到创纪录的3.31亿美元，其中大部分用于期权orderflow，金额为1.98亿美元，由Citadel支付，约占Robinhood第一季度总收入的43%（1.42亿美元），第二季度的情况大幅放缓。</blockquote></p><p> As the chart below shows, the retail trading frenzy ended with a bang in April when Robinhood's payment for orderflow was just $65.9 million, and then dropped further in May, sliding to just $57.4 million - the lowest since October. The good news: there was a modest rebound in June when as we discussed previously, retail investors shifted their gamma-ramping attention to tech giants such as Amazon and Apple, resulting in PFOF revenue of $93.6 million.</p><p><blockquote>如下图所示，零售交易狂潮在4月份戛然而止，当时Robinhood对orderflow的支付额仅为6590万美元，然后在5月份进一步下降，下滑至仅5740万美元——为10月份以来的最低水平。好消息是：正如我们之前讨论的，6月份出现了小幅反弹，当时散户投资者将伽马增长的注意力转向了亚马逊和苹果等科技巨头，导致PFOF收入达到9360万美元。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/10c58d48d38d33f480f1807b8af05c7f\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"740\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> What we also found notable is that Robinhood's revenue from orderflow from S&amp;P and non S&amp;P500 stocks was down 25% Y/Y, with the only value that Robinhood providers to internalizers such as Citadel is selling it option traffic which rose 48% from $111.1 million a year ago to $164.8 million in Q2 2021. How soon until some dedicated option market-maker decides to steal Robinhood's market share and aggressively starts dumping option traffic data to the Citadels of the world;<b>alternatively what happens when the \"gamma\" trade is no longer a moneymaking cash cow, and retail traders get fed up with selling weekly calls and puts when their premiums gets wiped out after a major market shakeout?</b></p><p><blockquote>我们还发现值得注意的是，Robinhood来自S&amp;P和非S&amp;P 500股票orderflow的收入同比下降了25%，Robinhood提供商向Citadel等内部化者提供的唯一价值是向其出售期权流量，该流量从1.111亿美元增长了48%一年前增至2021年第二季度的1.648亿美元。一些专门的期权做市商决定窃取Robinhood的市场份额，并积极开始向世界各地的城堡倾倒期权流量数据；<b>或者，当“伽马”交易不再是赚钱的摇钱树，散户交易者厌倦了在市场重大震荡后溢价被抹去时出售每周评级和看跌期权，会发生什么？</b></blockquote></p><p> Question aside, the fade of retail trading mania in Q2 was especially acute on a quarterly basis, as PFOF revenue tumbled 34.4% sequentially and were up just 20.4% from the year ago quarter when retail trading mania was still in its infancy.</p><p><blockquote>抛开问题不谈，第二季度零售交易狂热的消退按季度计算尤为严重，PFOF收入环比下降34.4%，较去年同期仅增长20.4%，当时零售交易狂热仍处于起步阶段。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a3840be05d08dbdf2a87fbb6c97b568d\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"740\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> And yes, for those wondering, Citadel still remains Robinhood's top customer, accounting for $81.6 million, or 27.6% of the company's total Q2 PFOF. That said, clearly Citadel's contribution to Robinhood's top line is declining and in June it accounted for just 35.3% of total PFOF, the lowest on record.</p><p><blockquote>是的，对于那些想知道的人来说，Citadel仍然是Robinhood的最大客户，占该公司第二季度PFOF总额的27.6%。尽管如此，Citadel对Robinhood营收的贡献显然正在下降，6月份仅占PFOF总额的35.3%，为有记录以来的最低水平。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/933a087b330c1a69de4b21ec2680829a\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"762\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> To be sure, it wasn't just Robinhood: as the following chart from Bloomberg shows all brokers saw a substantial drop in PFOF revenue in Q2, amounting to roughly 27% across the major players, but nobody suffered as much as Robinhood.</p><p><blockquote>可以肯定的是，不仅仅是Robinhood：正如彭博社的下图所示，所有经纪商在第二季度的PFOF收入均大幅下降，主要参与者的降幅约为27%，但没有人比Robinhood遭受的损失更大。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/004b806dad72a61d0c8d6f9f633b1e0a\" tg-width=\"902\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Which prompts several questions: is Citadel - whose historically generous payments for RH orderflow is what enabled the company's multi-billion valuation - gradually shifting away from its top supplier of bulk retail trading data, and if so, how will Robinhood replace the lost revenue? And perhaps more importantly: with retail trading patterns clearly reflecting inflows of stimulus payments, peaking just after bulk \"stimmy\" checks clear, i.e., in June 2020, and in Q1 2021, is a long Robinhood thesis just a bet on continued stimulus checks from the generous Biden administration? And linked to that, what happens to Robinhood's bread and butter - retail option trades - when retail traders no longer expect free money from the government?</p><p><blockquote>这引发了几个问题：Citadel（其历史上对RH orderflow的慷慨支付使该公司获得了数十亿美元的估值）是否正在逐渐远离其大宗零售交易数据的顶级供应商？如果是这样，Robinhood将如何弥补损失的收入？或许更重要的是：随着零售交易模式清楚地反映了刺激支付的流入，在大宗“刺激”支票兑现后达到峰值，即在2020年6月和2021年Q1，罗宾汉的长篇论文只是对慷慨的拜登政府持续刺激支票的押注吗？与此相关的是，当零售交易者不再期望从政府获得免费资金时，罗宾汉的面包和黄油——零售期权交易会发生什么？</blockquote></p><p> An amusing aside is whether Robinhood will pocket revenues from selling the client order data to Citadel<b>from retail traders who are currently ramping Robinhood's own stock</b>in an attempted gamma squeeze. In other words, has Robinhood created a perpetual motion device where it generates revenue when<i><b>it itself</b></i>becomes the target of outsized client trades, as the case clearly is today?</p><p><blockquote>有趣的是，Robinhood是否会将向Citadel出售客户订单数据的收入收入囊中<b>来自目前正在增持Robinhood自己股票的零售交易员</b>在一次尝试伽马挤压中。换句话说，Robinhood是否创造了一种永动机设备，并在以下情况下产生收入<i><b>它本身</b></i>成为巨额客户交易的目标，就像今天的情况一样？</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7c5a9a67a1d7544c7665f81cd570cd2e\" tg-width=\"1106\" tg-height=\"723\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Alternatively, one can argue that the simplest trade to bet on an end of generous fiscal stimulus is not shorting the market or betting on an economic slowdown, as these also benefit from the Fed's generous monetary stimulus, but rather just shorting Robinhood stock - once it is permitted - and waiting.</p><p><blockquote>或者，人们可以说，押注慷慨财政刺激结束的最简单的交易不是做空市场或押注经济放缓，因为这些也受益于美联储慷慨的货币刺激，而只是做空Robinhood股票——一旦它是允许的——并等待。</blockquote></p><p></p>","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>Robinhood Q2 Revenues From Order Flow Tumble 34%<blockquote>Robinhood第二季度订单流收入下降34%</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\">\nRobinhood Q2 Revenues From Order Flow Tumble 34%<blockquote>Robinhood第二季度订单流收入下降34%</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-08-04 15:46</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Yesterday Robinhood released its preliminary revenue numbers for Q2 when it published itsForm 606 and 607 disclosurefor April through June. While the data covers payment for orderflow (PFOF), this remains the biggest component of the recently IPOed company's top-line (dogecoin revenues notwithstanding), so it serves as a good proxy for what to expect when the company publishes its first earnings release as a public company.</p><p><blockquote>昨天，Robinhood发布了4月至6月的606和607表格披露，公布了第二季度的初步收入数据。虽然这些数据涵盖了订单流支付(PFOF)，但这仍然是这家最近首次公开募股的公司营收的最大组成部分（尽管有狗狗币收入），因此它可以很好地代表该公司发布首次财报时的预期情况作为一家上市公司发布。</blockquote></p><p> The numbers were quite disappointing, and a stark reminder of just how fickle retail trading can be.</p><p><blockquote>这些数字相当令人失望，这清楚地提醒人们零售交易是多么变化无常。</blockquote></p><p> After a blistering Q1 which saw a record surge in retail trading, and which translated into record payment for orderflow to Robinhood to the tune of $331 million, the bulk of which was for option orderflow at $198 million and was paid by Citadel which accounted for roughly 43% ($142 million) of Robinhood's total Q1 revenues, things slowed down substantially in Q2.</p><p><blockquote>在经历了创纪录的第一季度之后，零售交易量激增，并转化为向Robinhood支付的orderflow金额达到创纪录的3.31亿美元，其中大部分用于期权orderflow，金额为1.98亿美元，由Citadel支付，约占Robinhood第一季度总收入的43%（1.42亿美元），第二季度的情况大幅放缓。</blockquote></p><p> As the chart below shows, the retail trading frenzy ended with a bang in April when Robinhood's payment for orderflow was just $65.9 million, and then dropped further in May, sliding to just $57.4 million - the lowest since October. The good news: there was a modest rebound in June when as we discussed previously, retail investors shifted their gamma-ramping attention to tech giants such as Amazon and Apple, resulting in PFOF revenue of $93.6 million.</p><p><blockquote>如下图所示，零售交易狂潮在4月份戛然而止，当时Robinhood对orderflow的支付额仅为6590万美元，然后在5月份进一步下降，下滑至仅5740万美元——为10月份以来的最低水平。好消息是：正如我们之前讨论的，6月份出现了小幅反弹，当时散户投资者将伽马增长的注意力转向了亚马逊和苹果等科技巨头，导致PFOF收入达到9360万美元。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/10c58d48d38d33f480f1807b8af05c7f\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"740\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> What we also found notable is that Robinhood's revenue from orderflow from S&amp;P and non S&amp;P500 stocks was down 25% Y/Y, with the only value that Robinhood providers to internalizers such as Citadel is selling it option traffic which rose 48% from $111.1 million a year ago to $164.8 million in Q2 2021. How soon until some dedicated option market-maker decides to steal Robinhood's market share and aggressively starts dumping option traffic data to the Citadels of the world;<b>alternatively what happens when the \"gamma\" trade is no longer a moneymaking cash cow, and retail traders get fed up with selling weekly calls and puts when their premiums gets wiped out after a major market shakeout?</b></p><p><blockquote>我们还发现值得注意的是，Robinhood来自S&amp;P和非S&amp;P 500股票orderflow的收入同比下降了25%，Robinhood提供商向Citadel等内部化者提供的唯一价值是向其出售期权流量，该流量从1.111亿美元增长了48%一年前增至2021年第二季度的1.648亿美元。一些专门的期权做市商决定窃取Robinhood的市场份额，并积极开始向世界各地的城堡倾倒期权流量数据；<b>或者，当“伽马”交易不再是赚钱的摇钱树，散户交易者厌倦了在市场重大震荡后溢价被抹去时出售每周评级和看跌期权，会发生什么？</b></blockquote></p><p> Question aside, the fade of retail trading mania in Q2 was especially acute on a quarterly basis, as PFOF revenue tumbled 34.4% sequentially and were up just 20.4% from the year ago quarter when retail trading mania was still in its infancy.</p><p><blockquote>抛开问题不谈，第二季度零售交易狂热的消退按季度计算尤为严重，PFOF收入环比下降34.4%，较去年同期仅增长20.4%，当时零售交易狂热仍处于起步阶段。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a3840be05d08dbdf2a87fbb6c97b568d\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"740\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> And yes, for those wondering, Citadel still remains Robinhood's top customer, accounting for $81.6 million, or 27.6% of the company's total Q2 PFOF. That said, clearly Citadel's contribution to Robinhood's top line is declining and in June it accounted for just 35.3% of total PFOF, the lowest on record.</p><p><blockquote>是的，对于那些想知道的人来说，Citadel仍然是Robinhood的最大客户，占该公司第二季度PFOF总额的27.6%。尽管如此，Citadel对Robinhood营收的贡献显然正在下降，6月份仅占PFOF总额的35.3%，为有记录以来的最低水平。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/933a087b330c1a69de4b21ec2680829a\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"762\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> To be sure, it wasn't just Robinhood: as the following chart from Bloomberg shows all brokers saw a substantial drop in PFOF revenue in Q2, amounting to roughly 27% across the major players, but nobody suffered as much as Robinhood.</p><p><blockquote>可以肯定的是，不仅仅是Robinhood：正如彭博社的下图所示，所有经纪商在第二季度的PFOF收入均大幅下降，主要参与者的降幅约为27%，但没有人比Robinhood遭受的损失更大。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/004b806dad72a61d0c8d6f9f633b1e0a\" tg-width=\"902\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Which prompts several questions: is Citadel - whose historically generous payments for RH orderflow is what enabled the company's multi-billion valuation - gradually shifting away from its top supplier of bulk retail trading data, and if so, how will Robinhood replace the lost revenue? And perhaps more importantly: with retail trading patterns clearly reflecting inflows of stimulus payments, peaking just after bulk \"stimmy\" checks clear, i.e., in June 2020, and in Q1 2021, is a long Robinhood thesis just a bet on continued stimulus checks from the generous Biden administration? And linked to that, what happens to Robinhood's bread and butter - retail option trades - when retail traders no longer expect free money from the government?</p><p><blockquote>这引发了几个问题：Citadel（其历史上对RH orderflow的慷慨支付使该公司获得了数十亿美元的估值）是否正在逐渐远离其大宗零售交易数据的顶级供应商？如果是这样，Robinhood将如何弥补损失的收入？或许更重要的是：随着零售交易模式清楚地反映了刺激支付的流入，在大宗“刺激”支票兑现后达到峰值，即在2020年6月和2021年Q1，罗宾汉的长篇论文只是对慷慨的拜登政府持续刺激支票的押注吗？与此相关的是，当零售交易者不再期望从政府获得免费资金时，罗宾汉的面包和黄油——零售期权交易会发生什么？</blockquote></p><p> An amusing aside is whether Robinhood will pocket revenues from selling the client order data to Citadel<b>from retail traders who are currently ramping Robinhood's own stock</b>in an attempted gamma squeeze. In other words, has Robinhood created a perpetual motion device where it generates revenue when<i><b>it itself</b></i>becomes the target of outsized client trades, as the case clearly is today?</p><p><blockquote>有趣的是，Robinhood是否会将向Citadel出售客户订单数据的收入收入囊中<b>来自目前正在增持Robinhood自己股票的零售交易员</b>在一次尝试伽马挤压中。换句话说，Robinhood是否创造了一种永动机设备，并在以下情况下产生收入<i><b>它本身</b></i>成为巨额客户交易的目标，就像今天的情况一样？</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7c5a9a67a1d7544c7665f81cd570cd2e\" tg-width=\"1106\" tg-height=\"723\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Alternatively, one can argue that the simplest trade to bet on an end of generous fiscal stimulus is not shorting the market or betting on an economic slowdown, as these also benefit from the Fed's generous monetary stimulus, but rather just shorting Robinhood stock - once it is permitted - and waiting.</p><p><blockquote>或者，人们可以说，押注慷慨财政刺激结束的最简单的交易不是做空市场或押注经济放缓，因为这些也受益于美联储慷慨的货币刺激，而只是做空Robinhood股票——一旦它是允许的——并等待。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/robinhood-q2-revenues-order-flow-tumble-34\">zerohedge</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":{"HOOD":"Robinhood"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/robinhood-q2-revenues-order-flow-tumble-34","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1173852688","content_text":"Yesterday Robinhood released its preliminary revenue numbers for Q2 when it published itsForm 606 and 607 disclosurefor April through June. While the data covers payment for orderflow (PFOF), this remains the biggest component of the recently IPOed company's top-line (dogecoin revenues notwithstanding), so it serves as a good proxy for what to expect when the company publishes its first earnings release as a public company.\nThe numbers were quite disappointing, and a stark reminder of just how fickle retail trading can be.\nAfter a blistering Q1 which saw a record surge in retail trading, and which translated into record payment for orderflow to Robinhood to the tune of $331 million, the bulk of which was for option orderflow at $198 million and was paid by Citadel which accounted for roughly 43% ($142 million) of Robinhood's total Q1 revenues, things slowed down substantially in Q2.\nAs the chart below shows, the retail trading frenzy ended with a bang in April when Robinhood's payment for orderflow was just $65.9 million, and then dropped further in May, sliding to just $57.4 million - the lowest since October. The good news: there was a modest rebound in June when as we discussed previously, retail investors shifted their gamma-ramping attention to tech giants such as Amazon and Apple, resulting in PFOF revenue of $93.6 million.\n\nWhat we also found notable is that Robinhood's revenue from orderflow from S&P and non S&P500 stocks was down 25% Y/Y, with the only value that Robinhood providers to internalizers such as Citadel is selling it option traffic which rose 48% from $111.1 million a year ago to $164.8 million in Q2 2021. How soon until some dedicated option market-maker decides to steal Robinhood's market share and aggressively starts dumping option traffic data to the Citadels of the world;alternatively what happens when the \"gamma\" trade is no longer a moneymaking cash cow, and retail traders get fed up with selling weekly calls and puts when their premiums gets wiped out after a major market shakeout?\nQuestion aside, the fade of retail trading mania in Q2 was especially acute on a quarterly basis, as PFOF revenue tumbled 34.4% sequentially and were up just 20.4% from the year ago quarter when retail trading mania was still in its infancy.\n\nAnd yes, for those wondering, Citadel still remains Robinhood's top customer, accounting for $81.6 million, or 27.6% of the company's total Q2 PFOF. That said, clearly Citadel's contribution to Robinhood's top line is declining and in June it accounted for just 35.3% of total PFOF, the lowest on record.\n\nTo be sure, it wasn't just Robinhood: as the following chart from Bloomberg shows all brokers saw a substantial drop in PFOF revenue in Q2, amounting to roughly 27% across the major players, but nobody suffered as much as Robinhood.\n\nWhich prompts several questions: is Citadel - whose historically generous payments for RH orderflow is what enabled the company's multi-billion valuation - gradually shifting away from its top supplier of bulk retail trading data, and if so, how will Robinhood replace the lost revenue? And perhaps more importantly: with retail trading patterns clearly reflecting inflows of stimulus payments, peaking just after bulk \"stimmy\" checks clear, i.e., in June 2020, and in Q1 2021, is a long Robinhood thesis just a bet on continued stimulus checks from the generous Biden administration? And linked to that, what happens to Robinhood's bread and butter - retail option trades - when retail traders no longer expect free money from the government?\nAn amusing aside is whether Robinhood will pocket revenues from selling the client order data to Citadelfrom retail traders who are currently ramping Robinhood's own stockin an attempted gamma squeeze. In other words, has Robinhood created a perpetual motion device where it generates revenue whenit itselfbecomes the target of outsized client trades, as the case clearly is today?\nAlternatively, one can argue that the simplest trade to bet on an end of generous fiscal stimulus is not shorting the market or betting on an economic slowdown, as these also benefit from the Fed's generous monetary stimulus, but rather just shorting Robinhood stock - once it is permitted - and waiting.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"HOOD":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":327,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802012025,"gmtCreate":1627698744867,"gmtModify":1633757000221,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Looking bad","listText":"Looking bad","text":"Looking bad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802012025","repostId":"2155743150","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":632,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802018177,"gmtCreate":1627698647799,"gmtModify":1633757002100,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Too bad","listText":"Too bad","text":"Too bad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802018177","repostId":"1152039134","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1152039134?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 07:50","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jim Cramer: Robinhood's IPO Debacle Shows How Little Has Changed Over the Decades<blockquote>吉姆·克莱默：Robinhood的IPO惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1152039134","media":"The Street","summary":"Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed.\n\nWhat should Robinhood (HOOD) -Get Repor","content":"<p>  Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed.  What should Robinhood&nbsp;(<b>HOOD</b>) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?</p><p><blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（<b>发动机罩</b>)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote></p><p> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.</p><p><blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote></p><p> I can only tell you what I argued for 22 years ago whenTheStreet.comwas coming public. First, as the founder, I was determined to award all the subscribers with stock to demonstrate my loyalty to them.</p><p><blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote></p><p> Second, I was insistent that the deal be priced much lower than the underwriters wanted. We had already made a ton of money for initial investors. Why not leave a lot on the table and let the new investors do well?</p><p><blockquote>其次，我坚持认为这笔交易的定价要比承销商想要的低得多。我们已经为初始投资者赚了一大笔钱。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote></p><p> Third, I wanted enough stock placed with good hands that there would be no flippers and I wanted close coordination with the various brokers who tended to infiltrate the process and hijack the openings by batching market orders and opening the stocks way too high and then shorting them all the way down.</p><p><blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，这样就不会有脚蹼，我希望与各种经纪人密切协调，这些经纪人往往会渗透到流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote></p><p> I lost on every single point.</p><p><blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote></p><p> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.</p><p><blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote></p><p> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.</p><p><blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote></p><p> Third, the over-the-transom orders, those who placed market orders, were batched by an outfit called Knight Securities, not the underwriter, Goldman Sachs, and it opened at $62 -- it wasn't even clear what the opening price was it was so chaotic -- traded to $66, like how Robinhood traded to $39 and change, and then never traded higher.</p><p><blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who bought that day lost money.</p><p><blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who sold that day made money.</p><p><blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote></p><p> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.</p><p><blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote></p><p> It is amazing that here we are in 2021 and the process, while letting clients in, failed to price it so that Robinhood left money on the table. Believe me, it was possible to do so. But the underwriters and the management chose not to do so. We don't know which side screwed up, or both, but there was a successful blueprint; believe me, if I knew what it was in 1999, they knew what it is now.</p><p><blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。但承销商和管理层选择不这样做。我们不知道哪一方搞砸了，或者两者都搞砸了，但有一个成功的蓝图；相信我，如果我知道1999年是什么，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote></p><p> I always regretted what happened. Most people blamed me as I was the face of the process. I was astounded by how horrendous it was and did not \"take the long view\" because the long view sucked.</p><p><blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote></p><p> Why do these things go wrong? I do blame the underwriter because they do this every day and the principals only do it once. They have to keep the management from betraying the shareholders because the shareholders think that it is management's fault. No underwriter is EVER going to say that they screwed up. That's not in the cards.</p><p><blockquote>为什么这些事情会出错？我确实责怪承销商，因为他们每天都这样做，而委托人只做一次。他们必须阻止管理层背叛股东，因为股东认为这是管理层的错。没有承销商会说他们搞砸了。那是不可能的。</blockquote></p><p> So, we sit back and we marvel about how badly the deal went even as it was well within the province of the underwriter and the principals to make it so Robinhood left more on the table.</p><p><blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote></p><p> Greed?</p><p><blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote></p><p> Stupidity?</p><p><blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote></p><p> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.</p><p><blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote></p><p> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.</p><p><blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1610613172068","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>Jim Cramer: Robinhood's IPO Debacle Shows How Little Has Changed Over the Decades<blockquote>吉姆·克莱默：Robinhood的IPO惨败表明几十年来变化很小</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\">\nJim Cramer: Robinhood's IPO Debacle Shows How Little Has Changed Over the Decades<blockquote>吉姆·克莱默：Robinhood的IPO惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Street</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-07-31 07:50</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed.  What should Robinhood&nbsp;(<b>HOOD</b>) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?</p><p><blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（<b>发动机罩</b>)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote></p><p> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.</p><p><blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote></p><p> I can only tell you what I argued for 22 years ago whenTheStreet.comwas coming public. First, as the founder, I was determined to award all the subscribers with stock to demonstrate my loyalty to them.</p><p><blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote></p><p> Second, I was insistent that the deal be priced much lower than the underwriters wanted. We had already made a ton of money for initial investors. Why not leave a lot on the table and let the new investors do well?</p><p><blockquote>其次，我坚持认为这笔交易的定价要比承销商想要的低得多。我们已经为初始投资者赚了一大笔钱。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote></p><p> Third, I wanted enough stock placed with good hands that there would be no flippers and I wanted close coordination with the various brokers who tended to infiltrate the process and hijack the openings by batching market orders and opening the stocks way too high and then shorting them all the way down.</p><p><blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，这样就不会有脚蹼，我希望与各种经纪人密切协调，这些经纪人往往会渗透到流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote></p><p> I lost on every single point.</p><p><blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote></p><p> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.</p><p><blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote></p><p> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.</p><p><blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote></p><p> Third, the over-the-transom orders, those who placed market orders, were batched by an outfit called Knight Securities, not the underwriter, Goldman Sachs, and it opened at $62 -- it wasn't even clear what the opening price was it was so chaotic -- traded to $66, like how Robinhood traded to $39 and change, and then never traded higher.</p><p><blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who bought that day lost money.</p><p><blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who sold that day made money.</p><p><blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote></p><p> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.</p><p><blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote></p><p> It is amazing that here we are in 2021 and the process, while letting clients in, failed to price it so that Robinhood left money on the table. Believe me, it was possible to do so. But the underwriters and the management chose not to do so. We don't know which side screwed up, or both, but there was a successful blueprint; believe me, if I knew what it was in 1999, they knew what it is now.</p><p><blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。但承销商和管理层选择不这样做。我们不知道哪一方搞砸了，或者两者都搞砸了，但有一个成功的蓝图；相信我，如果我知道1999年是什么，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote></p><p> I always regretted what happened. Most people blamed me as I was the face of the process. I was astounded by how horrendous it was and did not \"take the long view\" because the long view sucked.</p><p><blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote></p><p> Why do these things go wrong? I do blame the underwriter because they do this every day and the principals only do it once. They have to keep the management from betraying the shareholders because the shareholders think that it is management's fault. No underwriter is EVER going to say that they screwed up. That's not in the cards.</p><p><blockquote>为什么这些事情会出错？我确实责怪承销商，因为他们每天都这样做，而委托人只做一次。他们必须阻止管理层背叛股东，因为股东认为这是管理层的错。没有承销商会说他们搞砸了。那是不可能的。</blockquote></p><p> So, we sit back and we marvel about how badly the deal went even as it was well within the province of the underwriter and the principals to make it so Robinhood left more on the table.</p><p><blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote></p><p> Greed?</p><p><blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote></p><p> Stupidity?</p><p><blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote></p><p> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.</p><p><blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote></p><p> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.</p><p><blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</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":{"HOOD":"Robinhood"},"source_url":"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1152039134","content_text":"Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed.\n\nWhat should Robinhood (HOOD) -Get Report have done to avoid the IPO debacle?\nI can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.\nI can only tell you what I argued for 22 years ago whenTheStreet.comwas coming public. First, as the founder, I was determined to award all the subscribers with stock to demonstrate my loyalty to them.\nSecond, I was insistent that the deal be priced much lower than the underwriters wanted. We had already made a ton of money for initial investors. Why not leave a lot on the table and let the new investors do well?\nThird, I wanted enough stock placed with good hands that there would be no flippers and I wanted close coordination with the various brokers who tended to infiltrate the process and hijack the openings by batching market orders and opening the stocks way too high and then shorting them all the way down.\nI lost on every single point.\nThe underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.\nSecond, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.\nThird, the over-the-transom orders, those who placed market orders, were batched by an outfit called Knight Securities, not the underwriter, Goldman Sachs, and it opened at $62 -- it wasn't even clear what the opening price was it was so chaotic -- traded to $66, like how Robinhood traded to $39 and change, and then never traded higher.\nEveryone who bought that day lost money.\nEveryone who sold that day made money.\nNo subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.\nIt is amazing that here we are in 2021 and the process, while letting clients in, failed to price it so that Robinhood left money on the table. Believe me, it was possible to do so. But the underwriters and the management chose not to do so. We don't know which side screwed up, or both, but there was a successful blueprint; believe me, if I knew what it was in 1999, they knew what it is now.\nI always regretted what happened. Most people blamed me as I was the face of the process. I was astounded by how horrendous it was and did not \"take the long view\" because the long view sucked.\nWhy do these things go wrong? I do blame the underwriter because they do this every day and the principals only do it once. They have to keep the management from betraying the shareholders because the shareholders think that it is management's fault. No underwriter is EVER going to say that they screwed up. That's not in the cards.\nSo, we sit back and we marvel about how badly the deal went even as it was well within the province of the underwriter and the principals to make it so Robinhood left more on the table.\nGreed?\nStupidity?\nHow about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.\nJust like the offering ofTheStreet.com.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"HOOD":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":435,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802011158,"gmtCreate":1627698619774,"gmtModify":1633757003044,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Too bad","listText":"Too bad","text":"Too bad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802011158","repostId":"2155001152","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":308,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802037400,"gmtCreate":1627698472200,"gmtModify":1633757006357,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Not a good day","listText":"Not a good day","text":"Not a good day","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802037400","repostId":"2155001152","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":448,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":807777131,"gmtCreate":1628063791923,"gmtModify":1633753929629,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Great","listText":"Great","text":"Great","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/807777131","repostId":"1173852688","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1173852688","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1628063180,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1173852688?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-04 15:46","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Robinhood Q2 Revenues From Order Flow Tumble 34%<blockquote>Robinhood第二季度订单流收入下降34%</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1173852688","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Yesterday Robinhood released its preliminary revenue numbers for Q2 when it published itsForm 606 an","content":"<p>Yesterday Robinhood released its preliminary revenue numbers for Q2 when it published itsForm 606 and 607 disclosurefor April through June. While the data covers payment for orderflow (PFOF), this remains the biggest component of the recently IPOed company's top-line (dogecoin revenues notwithstanding), so it serves as a good proxy for what to expect when the company publishes its first earnings release as a public company.</p><p><blockquote>昨天，Robinhood发布了4月至6月的606和607表格披露，公布了第二季度的初步收入数据。虽然这些数据涵盖了订单流支付(PFOF)，但这仍然是这家最近首次公开募股的公司营收的最大组成部分（尽管有狗狗币收入），因此它可以很好地代表该公司发布首次财报时的预期情况作为一家上市公司发布。</blockquote></p><p> The numbers were quite disappointing, and a stark reminder of just how fickle retail trading can be.</p><p><blockquote>这些数字相当令人失望，这清楚地提醒人们零售交易是多么变化无常。</blockquote></p><p> After a blistering Q1 which saw a record surge in retail trading, and which translated into record payment for orderflow to Robinhood to the tune of $331 million, the bulk of which was for option orderflow at $198 million and was paid by Citadel which accounted for roughly 43% ($142 million) of Robinhood's total Q1 revenues, things slowed down substantially in Q2.</p><p><blockquote>在经历了创纪录的第一季度之后，零售交易量激增，并转化为向Robinhood支付的orderflow金额达到创纪录的3.31亿美元，其中大部分用于期权orderflow，金额为1.98亿美元，由Citadel支付，约占Robinhood第一季度总收入的43%（1.42亿美元），第二季度的情况大幅放缓。</blockquote></p><p> As the chart below shows, the retail trading frenzy ended with a bang in April when Robinhood's payment for orderflow was just $65.9 million, and then dropped further in May, sliding to just $57.4 million - the lowest since October. The good news: there was a modest rebound in June when as we discussed previously, retail investors shifted their gamma-ramping attention to tech giants such as Amazon and Apple, resulting in PFOF revenue of $93.6 million.</p><p><blockquote>如下图所示，零售交易狂潮在4月份戛然而止，当时Robinhood对orderflow的支付额仅为6590万美元，然后在5月份进一步下降，下滑至仅5740万美元——为10月份以来的最低水平。好消息是：正如我们之前讨论的，6月份出现了小幅反弹，当时散户投资者将伽马增长的注意力转向了亚马逊和苹果等科技巨头，导致PFOF收入达到9360万美元。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/10c58d48d38d33f480f1807b8af05c7f\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"740\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> What we also found notable is that Robinhood's revenue from orderflow from S&amp;P and non S&amp;P500 stocks was down 25% Y/Y, with the only value that Robinhood providers to internalizers such as Citadel is selling it option traffic which rose 48% from $111.1 million a year ago to $164.8 million in Q2 2021. How soon until some dedicated option market-maker decides to steal Robinhood's market share and aggressively starts dumping option traffic data to the Citadels of the world;<b>alternatively what happens when the \"gamma\" trade is no longer a moneymaking cash cow, and retail traders get fed up with selling weekly calls and puts when their premiums gets wiped out after a major market shakeout?</b></p><p><blockquote>我们还发现值得注意的是，Robinhood来自S&amp;P和非S&amp;P 500股票orderflow的收入同比下降了25%，Robinhood提供商向Citadel等内部化者提供的唯一价值是向其出售期权流量，该流量从1.111亿美元增长了48%一年前增至2021年第二季度的1.648亿美元。一些专门的期权做市商决定窃取Robinhood的市场份额，并积极开始向世界各地的城堡倾倒期权流量数据；<b>或者，当“伽马”交易不再是赚钱的摇钱树，散户交易者厌倦了在市场重大震荡后溢价被抹去时出售每周评级和看跌期权，会发生什么？</b></blockquote></p><p> Question aside, the fade of retail trading mania in Q2 was especially acute on a quarterly basis, as PFOF revenue tumbled 34.4% sequentially and were up just 20.4% from the year ago quarter when retail trading mania was still in its infancy.</p><p><blockquote>抛开问题不谈，第二季度零售交易狂热的消退按季度计算尤为严重，PFOF收入环比下降34.4%，较去年同期仅增长20.4%，当时零售交易狂热仍处于起步阶段。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a3840be05d08dbdf2a87fbb6c97b568d\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"740\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> And yes, for those wondering, Citadel still remains Robinhood's top customer, accounting for $81.6 million, or 27.6% of the company's total Q2 PFOF. That said, clearly Citadel's contribution to Robinhood's top line is declining and in June it accounted for just 35.3% of total PFOF, the lowest on record.</p><p><blockquote>是的，对于那些想知道的人来说，Citadel仍然是Robinhood的最大客户，占该公司第二季度PFOF总额的27.6%。尽管如此，Citadel对Robinhood营收的贡献显然正在下降，6月份仅占PFOF总额的35.3%，为有记录以来的最低水平。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/933a087b330c1a69de4b21ec2680829a\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"762\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> To be sure, it wasn't just Robinhood: as the following chart from Bloomberg shows all brokers saw a substantial drop in PFOF revenue in Q2, amounting to roughly 27% across the major players, but nobody suffered as much as Robinhood.</p><p><blockquote>可以肯定的是，不仅仅是Robinhood：正如彭博社的下图所示，所有经纪商在第二季度的PFOF收入均大幅下降，主要参与者的降幅约为27%，但没有人比Robinhood遭受的损失更大。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/004b806dad72a61d0c8d6f9f633b1e0a\" tg-width=\"902\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Which prompts several questions: is Citadel - whose historically generous payments for RH orderflow is what enabled the company's multi-billion valuation - gradually shifting away from its top supplier of bulk retail trading data, and if so, how will Robinhood replace the lost revenue? And perhaps more importantly: with retail trading patterns clearly reflecting inflows of stimulus payments, peaking just after bulk \"stimmy\" checks clear, i.e., in June 2020, and in Q1 2021, is a long Robinhood thesis just a bet on continued stimulus checks from the generous Biden administration? And linked to that, what happens to Robinhood's bread and butter - retail option trades - when retail traders no longer expect free money from the government?</p><p><blockquote>这引发了几个问题：Citadel（其历史上对RH orderflow的慷慨支付使该公司获得了数十亿美元的估值）是否正在逐渐远离其大宗零售交易数据的顶级供应商？如果是这样，Robinhood将如何弥补损失的收入？或许更重要的是：随着零售交易模式清楚地反映了刺激支付的流入，在大宗“刺激”支票兑现后达到峰值，即在2020年6月和2021年Q1，罗宾汉的长篇论文只是对慷慨的拜登政府持续刺激支票的押注吗？与此相关的是，当零售交易者不再期望从政府获得免费资金时，罗宾汉的面包和黄油——零售期权交易会发生什么？</blockquote></p><p> An amusing aside is whether Robinhood will pocket revenues from selling the client order data to Citadel<b>from retail traders who are currently ramping Robinhood's own stock</b>in an attempted gamma squeeze. In other words, has Robinhood created a perpetual motion device where it generates revenue when<i><b>it itself</b></i>becomes the target of outsized client trades, as the case clearly is today?</p><p><blockquote>有趣的是，Robinhood是否会将向Citadel出售客户订单数据的收入收入囊中<b>来自目前正在增持Robinhood自己股票的零售交易员</b>在一次尝试伽马挤压中。换句话说，Robinhood是否创造了一种永动机设备，并在以下情况下产生收入<i><b>它本身</b></i>成为巨额客户交易的目标，就像今天的情况一样？</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7c5a9a67a1d7544c7665f81cd570cd2e\" tg-width=\"1106\" tg-height=\"723\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Alternatively, one can argue that the simplest trade to bet on an end of generous fiscal stimulus is not shorting the market or betting on an economic slowdown, as these also benefit from the Fed's generous monetary stimulus, but rather just shorting Robinhood stock - once it is permitted - and waiting.</p><p><blockquote>或者，人们可以说，押注慷慨财政刺激结束的最简单的交易不是做空市场或押注经济放缓，因为这些也受益于美联储慷慨的货币刺激，而只是做空Robinhood股票——一旦它是允许的——并等待。</blockquote></p><p></p>","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>Robinhood Q2 Revenues From Order Flow Tumble 34%<blockquote>Robinhood第二季度订单流收入下降34%</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\">\nRobinhood Q2 Revenues From Order Flow Tumble 34%<blockquote>Robinhood第二季度订单流收入下降34%</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-08-04 15:46</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Yesterday Robinhood released its preliminary revenue numbers for Q2 when it published itsForm 606 and 607 disclosurefor April through June. While the data covers payment for orderflow (PFOF), this remains the biggest component of the recently IPOed company's top-line (dogecoin revenues notwithstanding), so it serves as a good proxy for what to expect when the company publishes its first earnings release as a public company.</p><p><blockquote>昨天，Robinhood发布了4月至6月的606和607表格披露，公布了第二季度的初步收入数据。虽然这些数据涵盖了订单流支付(PFOF)，但这仍然是这家最近首次公开募股的公司营收的最大组成部分（尽管有狗狗币收入），因此它可以很好地代表该公司发布首次财报时的预期情况作为一家上市公司发布。</blockquote></p><p> The numbers were quite disappointing, and a stark reminder of just how fickle retail trading can be.</p><p><blockquote>这些数字相当令人失望，这清楚地提醒人们零售交易是多么变化无常。</blockquote></p><p> After a blistering Q1 which saw a record surge in retail trading, and which translated into record payment for orderflow to Robinhood to the tune of $331 million, the bulk of which was for option orderflow at $198 million and was paid by Citadel which accounted for roughly 43% ($142 million) of Robinhood's total Q1 revenues, things slowed down substantially in Q2.</p><p><blockquote>在经历了创纪录的第一季度之后，零售交易量激增，并转化为向Robinhood支付的orderflow金额达到创纪录的3.31亿美元，其中大部分用于期权orderflow，金额为1.98亿美元，由Citadel支付，约占Robinhood第一季度总收入的43%（1.42亿美元），第二季度的情况大幅放缓。</blockquote></p><p> As the chart below shows, the retail trading frenzy ended with a bang in April when Robinhood's payment for orderflow was just $65.9 million, and then dropped further in May, sliding to just $57.4 million - the lowest since October. The good news: there was a modest rebound in June when as we discussed previously, retail investors shifted their gamma-ramping attention to tech giants such as Amazon and Apple, resulting in PFOF revenue of $93.6 million.</p><p><blockquote>如下图所示，零售交易狂潮在4月份戛然而止，当时Robinhood对orderflow的支付额仅为6590万美元，然后在5月份进一步下降，下滑至仅5740万美元——为10月份以来的最低水平。好消息是：正如我们之前讨论的，6月份出现了小幅反弹，当时散户投资者将伽马增长的注意力转向了亚马逊和苹果等科技巨头，导致PFOF收入达到9360万美元。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/10c58d48d38d33f480f1807b8af05c7f\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"740\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> What we also found notable is that Robinhood's revenue from orderflow from S&amp;P and non S&amp;P500 stocks was down 25% Y/Y, with the only value that Robinhood providers to internalizers such as Citadel is selling it option traffic which rose 48% from $111.1 million a year ago to $164.8 million in Q2 2021. How soon until some dedicated option market-maker decides to steal Robinhood's market share and aggressively starts dumping option traffic data to the Citadels of the world;<b>alternatively what happens when the \"gamma\" trade is no longer a moneymaking cash cow, and retail traders get fed up with selling weekly calls and puts when their premiums gets wiped out after a major market shakeout?</b></p><p><blockquote>我们还发现值得注意的是，Robinhood来自S&amp;P和非S&amp;P 500股票orderflow的收入同比下降了25%，Robinhood提供商向Citadel等内部化者提供的唯一价值是向其出售期权流量，该流量从1.111亿美元增长了48%一年前增至2021年第二季度的1.648亿美元。一些专门的期权做市商决定窃取Robinhood的市场份额，并积极开始向世界各地的城堡倾倒期权流量数据；<b>或者，当“伽马”交易不再是赚钱的摇钱树，散户交易者厌倦了在市场重大震荡后溢价被抹去时出售每周评级和看跌期权，会发生什么？</b></blockquote></p><p> Question aside, the fade of retail trading mania in Q2 was especially acute on a quarterly basis, as PFOF revenue tumbled 34.4% sequentially and were up just 20.4% from the year ago quarter when retail trading mania was still in its infancy.</p><p><blockquote>抛开问题不谈，第二季度零售交易狂热的消退按季度计算尤为严重，PFOF收入环比下降34.4%，较去年同期仅增长20.4%，当时零售交易狂热仍处于起步阶段。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a3840be05d08dbdf2a87fbb6c97b568d\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"740\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> And yes, for those wondering, Citadel still remains Robinhood's top customer, accounting for $81.6 million, or 27.6% of the company's total Q2 PFOF. That said, clearly Citadel's contribution to Robinhood's top line is declining and in June it accounted for just 35.3% of total PFOF, the lowest on record.</p><p><blockquote>是的，对于那些想知道的人来说，Citadel仍然是Robinhood的最大客户，占该公司第二季度PFOF总额的27.6%。尽管如此，Citadel对Robinhood营收的贡献显然正在下降，6月份仅占PFOF总额的35.3%，为有记录以来的最低水平。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/933a087b330c1a69de4b21ec2680829a\" tg-width=\"1280\" tg-height=\"762\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> To be sure, it wasn't just Robinhood: as the following chart from Bloomberg shows all brokers saw a substantial drop in PFOF revenue in Q2, amounting to roughly 27% across the major players, but nobody suffered as much as Robinhood.</p><p><blockquote>可以肯定的是，不仅仅是Robinhood：正如彭博社的下图所示，所有经纪商在第二季度的PFOF收入均大幅下降，主要参与者的降幅约为27%，但没有人比Robinhood遭受的损失更大。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/004b806dad72a61d0c8d6f9f633b1e0a\" tg-width=\"902\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Which prompts several questions: is Citadel - whose historically generous payments for RH orderflow is what enabled the company's multi-billion valuation - gradually shifting away from its top supplier of bulk retail trading data, and if so, how will Robinhood replace the lost revenue? And perhaps more importantly: with retail trading patterns clearly reflecting inflows of stimulus payments, peaking just after bulk \"stimmy\" checks clear, i.e., in June 2020, and in Q1 2021, is a long Robinhood thesis just a bet on continued stimulus checks from the generous Biden administration? And linked to that, what happens to Robinhood's bread and butter - retail option trades - when retail traders no longer expect free money from the government?</p><p><blockquote>这引发了几个问题：Citadel（其历史上对RH orderflow的慷慨支付使该公司获得了数十亿美元的估值）是否正在逐渐远离其大宗零售交易数据的顶级供应商？如果是这样，Robinhood将如何弥补损失的收入？或许更重要的是：随着零售交易模式清楚地反映了刺激支付的流入，在大宗“刺激”支票兑现后达到峰值，即在2020年6月和2021年Q1，罗宾汉的长篇论文只是对慷慨的拜登政府持续刺激支票的押注吗？与此相关的是，当零售交易者不再期望从政府获得免费资金时，罗宾汉的面包和黄油——零售期权交易会发生什么？</blockquote></p><p> An amusing aside is whether Robinhood will pocket revenues from selling the client order data to Citadel<b>from retail traders who are currently ramping Robinhood's own stock</b>in an attempted gamma squeeze. In other words, has Robinhood created a perpetual motion device where it generates revenue when<i><b>it itself</b></i>becomes the target of outsized client trades, as the case clearly is today?</p><p><blockquote>有趣的是，Robinhood是否会将向Citadel出售客户订单数据的收入收入囊中<b>来自目前正在增持Robinhood自己股票的零售交易员</b>在一次尝试伽马挤压中。换句话说，Robinhood是否创造了一种永动机设备，并在以下情况下产生收入<i><b>它本身</b></i>成为巨额客户交易的目标，就像今天的情况一样？</blockquote></p><p></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7c5a9a67a1d7544c7665f81cd570cd2e\" tg-width=\"1106\" tg-height=\"723\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Alternatively, one can argue that the simplest trade to bet on an end of generous fiscal stimulus is not shorting the market or betting on an economic slowdown, as these also benefit from the Fed's generous monetary stimulus, but rather just shorting Robinhood stock - once it is permitted - and waiting.</p><p><blockquote>或者，人们可以说，押注慷慨财政刺激结束的最简单的交易不是做空市场或押注经济放缓，因为这些也受益于美联储慷慨的货币刺激，而只是做空Robinhood股票——一旦它是允许的——并等待。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/robinhood-q2-revenues-order-flow-tumble-34\">zerohedge</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":{"HOOD":"Robinhood"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/robinhood-q2-revenues-order-flow-tumble-34","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1173852688","content_text":"Yesterday Robinhood released its preliminary revenue numbers for Q2 when it published itsForm 606 and 607 disclosurefor April through June. While the data covers payment for orderflow (PFOF), this remains the biggest component of the recently IPOed company's top-line (dogecoin revenues notwithstanding), so it serves as a good proxy for what to expect when the company publishes its first earnings release as a public company.\nThe numbers were quite disappointing, and a stark reminder of just how fickle retail trading can be.\nAfter a blistering Q1 which saw a record surge in retail trading, and which translated into record payment for orderflow to Robinhood to the tune of $331 million, the bulk of which was for option orderflow at $198 million and was paid by Citadel which accounted for roughly 43% ($142 million) of Robinhood's total Q1 revenues, things slowed down substantially in Q2.\nAs the chart below shows, the retail trading frenzy ended with a bang in April when Robinhood's payment for orderflow was just $65.9 million, and then dropped further in May, sliding to just $57.4 million - the lowest since October. The good news: there was a modest rebound in June when as we discussed previously, retail investors shifted their gamma-ramping attention to tech giants such as Amazon and Apple, resulting in PFOF revenue of $93.6 million.\n\nWhat we also found notable is that Robinhood's revenue from orderflow from S&P and non S&P500 stocks was down 25% Y/Y, with the only value that Robinhood providers to internalizers such as Citadel is selling it option traffic which rose 48% from $111.1 million a year ago to $164.8 million in Q2 2021. How soon until some dedicated option market-maker decides to steal Robinhood's market share and aggressively starts dumping option traffic data to the Citadels of the world;alternatively what happens when the \"gamma\" trade is no longer a moneymaking cash cow, and retail traders get fed up with selling weekly calls and puts when their premiums gets wiped out after a major market shakeout?\nQuestion aside, the fade of retail trading mania in Q2 was especially acute on a quarterly basis, as PFOF revenue tumbled 34.4% sequentially and were up just 20.4% from the year ago quarter when retail trading mania was still in its infancy.\n\nAnd yes, for those wondering, Citadel still remains Robinhood's top customer, accounting for $81.6 million, or 27.6% of the company's total Q2 PFOF. That said, clearly Citadel's contribution to Robinhood's top line is declining and in June it accounted for just 35.3% of total PFOF, the lowest on record.\n\nTo be sure, it wasn't just Robinhood: as the following chart from Bloomberg shows all brokers saw a substantial drop in PFOF revenue in Q2, amounting to roughly 27% across the major players, but nobody suffered as much as Robinhood.\n\nWhich prompts several questions: is Citadel - whose historically generous payments for RH orderflow is what enabled the company's multi-billion valuation - gradually shifting away from its top supplier of bulk retail trading data, and if so, how will Robinhood replace the lost revenue? And perhaps more importantly: with retail trading patterns clearly reflecting inflows of stimulus payments, peaking just after bulk \"stimmy\" checks clear, i.e., in June 2020, and in Q1 2021, is a long Robinhood thesis just a bet on continued stimulus checks from the generous Biden administration? And linked to that, what happens to Robinhood's bread and butter - retail option trades - when retail traders no longer expect free money from the government?\nAn amusing aside is whether Robinhood will pocket revenues from selling the client order data to Citadelfrom retail traders who are currently ramping Robinhood's own stockin an attempted gamma squeeze. In other words, has Robinhood created a perpetual motion device where it generates revenue whenit itselfbecomes the target of outsized client trades, as the case clearly is today?\nAlternatively, one can argue that the simplest trade to bet on an end of generous fiscal stimulus is not shorting the market or betting on an economic slowdown, as these also benefit from the Fed's generous monetary stimulus, but rather just shorting Robinhood stock - once it is permitted - and waiting.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"HOOD":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":327,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802011158,"gmtCreate":1627698619774,"gmtModify":1633757003044,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Too bad","listText":"Too bad","text":"Too bad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802011158","repostId":"2155001152","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":308,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":890003958,"gmtCreate":1628063980174,"gmtModify":1633753927578,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Great","listText":"Great","text":"Great","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/890003958","repostId":"1143608786","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1143608786","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1628061660,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1143608786?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-04 15:21","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Airbnb Earnings Could Be a Pleasant Surprise. Here’s Why.<blockquote>爱彼迎的盈利可能会令人惊喜。原因如下。</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1143608786","media":"Barrons","summary":"Airbnb is poised for an earnings surge, KeyBanc analyst Justin Patterson predicts in a research note","content":"<p>Airbnb is poised for an earnings surge, KeyBanc analyst Justin Patterson predicts in a research note Tuesday.</p><p><blockquote>KeyBanc分析师Justin Patterson在周二的一份研究报告中预测，爱彼迎的盈利有望飙升。</blockquote></p><p> Patterson lifted his rating on Airbnb (ticker: ABNB) to Overweight from Sector Weight, setting a price target for the short-term lodging rentals business of $180, about 19% above yesterday’s close. The analyst argues the stock is headed for a period of “material” earnings estimate revisions—and he believes June-quarter results will be well above current Street estimates.</p><p><blockquote>帕特森将Airbnb（股票代码：ABNB）的评级从行业权重上调至跑赢大盘，将短期住宿租赁业务的目标价定为180美元，较昨日收盘价上涨约19%。这位分析师认为，该股将进入一段“重大”盈利预期修正的时期，他相信六月季度的业绩将远高于目前华尔街的预期。</blockquote></p><p> The company&nbsp;will report results on Aug. 12.</p><p><blockquote>该公司将于8月12日公布业绩。</blockquote></p><p> Patterson raised his financial forecasts for the second quarter, the full year, and next year. For the June quarter, he’s now projecting revenue of $1.34 billion, above the consensus forecast of $1.25 billion, with earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (Ebitda) of $136 million, likewise well above the Street consensus at $38 billion.</p><p><blockquote>帕特森上调了第二季度、全年和明年的财务预测。他目前预计6月份季度的收入为13.4亿美元，高于市场普遍预测的12.5亿美元，息税折旧摊销前利润(Ebitda)为1.36亿美元，同样远高于华尔街普遍预期的380亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> For the full year, he sees revenue of $5.8 billion and Ebitda of $1.1 billion (consensus is $5.5 billion in revenue and $738 million for Ebitda), and for 2022, he projects revenue of $7.7 billion and Ebitda of $1.7 billion, an even bigger gap above consensus, which stands at $7 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively.</p><p><blockquote>他预计全年收入为58亿美元，Ebitda为11亿美元（市场普遍认为收入为55亿美元，Ebitda为7.38亿美元），2022年，他预计收入为77亿美元，Ebitda为17亿美元，差距更大高于共识，分别为70亿美元和12亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> In Patterson’s view, the company’s “unit economics” advantages are going to begin to emerge more clearly in reported results. He notes that 90% of Airbnb’s traffic comes direct to the site, with the company spending much less than peers on digital advertising. Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky addresses that question in&nbsp;a recent interview with&nbsp;<i>Barron’s</i>, noting that a recent recovery in the business from pandemic lows came with almost zero ad spending.</p><p><blockquote>在帕特森看来，该公司的“单位经济”优势将开始在报告的业绩中更加明显地显现出来。他指出，爱彼迎90%的流量直接来自该网站，该公司在数字广告上的支出远低于同行。爱彼迎首席执行官Brian Chesky在最近的采访中回答了这个问题<i>巴伦周刊</i>指出，最近该业务从大流行低点复苏的同时，广告支出几乎为零。</blockquote></p><p> “Not only does this make Airbnb more insulated from digital ad inflation, it also provides more room for margin expansion when revenue accelerates,” the analyst writes. “Both of these conditions are present today, which we believe leads to significant revenue and Ebitda revision potential versus peers.”</p><p><blockquote>这位分析师写道：“这不仅使爱彼迎更好地免受数字广告通胀的影响，而且还在收入加速时为利润率扩张提供了更多空间。”“这两个条件今天都存在，我们相信与同行相比，这将带来巨大的收入和Ebitda修正潜力。”</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","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>Airbnb Earnings Could Be a Pleasant Surprise. Here’s Why.<blockquote>爱彼迎的盈利可能会令人惊喜。原因如下。</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\">\nAirbnb Earnings Could Be a Pleasant Surprise. Here’s Why.<blockquote>爱彼迎的盈利可能会令人惊喜。原因如下。</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">Barrons</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-08-04 15:21</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Airbnb is poised for an earnings surge, KeyBanc analyst Justin Patterson predicts in a research note Tuesday.</p><p><blockquote>KeyBanc分析师Justin Patterson在周二的一份研究报告中预测，爱彼迎的盈利有望飙升。</blockquote></p><p> Patterson lifted his rating on Airbnb (ticker: ABNB) to Overweight from Sector Weight, setting a price target for the short-term lodging rentals business of $180, about 19% above yesterday’s close. The analyst argues the stock is headed for a period of “material” earnings estimate revisions—and he believes June-quarter results will be well above current Street estimates.</p><p><blockquote>帕特森将Airbnb（股票代码：ABNB）的评级从行业权重上调至跑赢大盘，将短期住宿租赁业务的目标价定为180美元，较昨日收盘价上涨约19%。这位分析师认为，该股将进入一段“重大”盈利预期修正的时期，他相信六月季度的业绩将远高于目前华尔街的预期。</blockquote></p><p> The company&nbsp;will report results on Aug. 12.</p><p><blockquote>该公司将于8月12日公布业绩。</blockquote></p><p> Patterson raised his financial forecasts for the second quarter, the full year, and next year. For the June quarter, he’s now projecting revenue of $1.34 billion, above the consensus forecast of $1.25 billion, with earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (Ebitda) of $136 million, likewise well above the Street consensus at $38 billion.</p><p><blockquote>帕特森上调了第二季度、全年和明年的财务预测。他目前预计6月份季度的收入为13.4亿美元，高于市场普遍预测的12.5亿美元，息税折旧摊销前利润(Ebitda)为1.36亿美元，同样远高于华尔街普遍预期的380亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> For the full year, he sees revenue of $5.8 billion and Ebitda of $1.1 billion (consensus is $5.5 billion in revenue and $738 million for Ebitda), and for 2022, he projects revenue of $7.7 billion and Ebitda of $1.7 billion, an even bigger gap above consensus, which stands at $7 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively.</p><p><blockquote>他预计全年收入为58亿美元，Ebitda为11亿美元（市场普遍认为收入为55亿美元，Ebitda为7.38亿美元），2022年，他预计收入为77亿美元，Ebitda为17亿美元，差距更大高于共识，分别为70亿美元和12亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> In Patterson’s view, the company’s “unit economics” advantages are going to begin to emerge more clearly in reported results. He notes that 90% of Airbnb’s traffic comes direct to the site, with the company spending much less than peers on digital advertising. Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky addresses that question in&nbsp;a recent interview with&nbsp;<i>Barron’s</i>, noting that a recent recovery in the business from pandemic lows came with almost zero ad spending.</p><p><blockquote>在帕特森看来，该公司的“单位经济”优势将开始在报告的业绩中更加明显地显现出来。他指出，爱彼迎90%的流量直接来自该网站，该公司在数字广告上的支出远低于同行。爱彼迎首席执行官Brian Chesky在最近的采访中回答了这个问题<i>巴伦周刊</i>指出，最近该业务从大流行低点复苏的同时，广告支出几乎为零。</blockquote></p><p> “Not only does this make Airbnb more insulated from digital ad inflation, it also provides more room for margin expansion when revenue accelerates,” the analyst writes. “Both of these conditions are present today, which we believe leads to significant revenue and Ebitda revision potential versus peers.”</p><p><blockquote>这位分析师写道：“这不仅使爱彼迎更好地免受数字广告通胀的影响，而且还在收入加速时为利润率扩张提供了更多空间。”“这两个条件今天都存在，我们相信与同行相比，这将带来巨大的收入和Ebitda修正潜力。”</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/airbnb-earnings-estimates-51628001439?mod=RTA\">Barrons</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":{"ABNB":"爱彼迎"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/airbnb-earnings-estimates-51628001439?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1143608786","content_text":"Airbnb is poised for an earnings surge, KeyBanc analyst Justin Patterson predicts in a research note Tuesday.\nPatterson lifted his rating on Airbnb (ticker: ABNB) to Overweight from Sector Weight, setting a price target for the short-term lodging rentals business of $180, about 19% above yesterday’s close. The analyst argues the stock is headed for a period of “material” earnings estimate revisions—and he believes June-quarter results will be well above current Street estimates.\nThe company will report results on Aug. 12.\nPatterson raised his financial forecasts for the second quarter, the full year, and next year. For the June quarter, he’s now projecting revenue of $1.34 billion, above the consensus forecast of $1.25 billion, with earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (Ebitda) of $136 million, likewise well above the Street consensus at $38 billion.\nFor the full year, he sees revenue of $5.8 billion and Ebitda of $1.1 billion (consensus is $5.5 billion in revenue and $738 million for Ebitda), and for 2022, he projects revenue of $7.7 billion and Ebitda of $1.7 billion, an even bigger gap above consensus, which stands at $7 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively.\nIn Patterson’s view, the company’s “unit economics” advantages are going to begin to emerge more clearly in reported results. He notes that 90% of Airbnb’s traffic comes direct to the site, with the company spending much less than peers on digital advertising. Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky addresses that question in a recent interview with Barron’s, noting that a recent recovery in the business from pandemic lows came with almost zero ad spending.\n“Not only does this make Airbnb more insulated from digital ad inflation, it also provides more room for margin expansion when revenue accelerates,” the analyst writes. “Both of these conditions are present today, which we believe leads to significant revenue and Ebitda revision potential versus peers.”","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"ABNB":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":376,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802012025,"gmtCreate":1627698744867,"gmtModify":1633757000221,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Looking bad","listText":"Looking bad","text":"Looking bad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802012025","repostId":"2155743150","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":632,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802037400,"gmtCreate":1627698472200,"gmtModify":1633757006357,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Not a good day","listText":"Not a good day","text":"Not a good day","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802037400","repostId":"2155001152","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":448,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":802018177,"gmtCreate":1627698647799,"gmtModify":1633757002100,"author":{"id":"3580642229367263","authorId":"3580642229367263","name":"Jyefey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/987339b0c339c86af3052e6b22d88558","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3580642229367263","idStr":"3580642229367263"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Too bad","listText":"Too bad","text":"Too bad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802018177","repostId":"1152039134","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1152039134?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 07:50","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Jim Cramer: Robinhood's IPO Debacle Shows How Little Has Changed Over the Decades<blockquote>吉姆·克莱默：Robinhood的IPO惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1152039134","media":"The Street","summary":"Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed.\n\nWhat should Robinhood (HOOD) -Get Repor","content":"<p>  Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed.  What should Robinhood&nbsp;(<b>HOOD</b>) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?</p><p><blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（<b>发动机罩</b>)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote></p><p> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.</p><p><blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote></p><p> I can only tell you what I argued for 22 years ago whenTheStreet.comwas coming public. First, as the founder, I was determined to award all the subscribers with stock to demonstrate my loyalty to them.</p><p><blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote></p><p> Second, I was insistent that the deal be priced much lower than the underwriters wanted. We had already made a ton of money for initial investors. Why not leave a lot on the table and let the new investors do well?</p><p><blockquote>其次，我坚持认为这笔交易的定价要比承销商想要的低得多。我们已经为初始投资者赚了一大笔钱。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote></p><p> Third, I wanted enough stock placed with good hands that there would be no flippers and I wanted close coordination with the various brokers who tended to infiltrate the process and hijack the openings by batching market orders and opening the stocks way too high and then shorting them all the way down.</p><p><blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，这样就不会有脚蹼，我希望与各种经纪人密切协调，这些经纪人往往会渗透到流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote></p><p> I lost on every single point.</p><p><blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote></p><p> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.</p><p><blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote></p><p> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.</p><p><blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote></p><p> Third, the over-the-transom orders, those who placed market orders, were batched by an outfit called Knight Securities, not the underwriter, Goldman Sachs, and it opened at $62 -- it wasn't even clear what the opening price was it was so chaotic -- traded to $66, like how Robinhood traded to $39 and change, and then never traded higher.</p><p><blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who bought that day lost money.</p><p><blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who sold that day made money.</p><p><blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote></p><p> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.</p><p><blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote></p><p> It is amazing that here we are in 2021 and the process, while letting clients in, failed to price it so that Robinhood left money on the table. Believe me, it was possible to do so. But the underwriters and the management chose not to do so. We don't know which side screwed up, or both, but there was a successful blueprint; believe me, if I knew what it was in 1999, they knew what it is now.</p><p><blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。但承销商和管理层选择不这样做。我们不知道哪一方搞砸了，或者两者都搞砸了，但有一个成功的蓝图；相信我，如果我知道1999年是什么，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote></p><p> I always regretted what happened. Most people blamed me as I was the face of the process. I was astounded by how horrendous it was and did not \"take the long view\" because the long view sucked.</p><p><blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote></p><p> Why do these things go wrong? I do blame the underwriter because they do this every day and the principals only do it once. They have to keep the management from betraying the shareholders because the shareholders think that it is management's fault. No underwriter is EVER going to say that they screwed up. That's not in the cards.</p><p><blockquote>为什么这些事情会出错？我确实责怪承销商，因为他们每天都这样做，而委托人只做一次。他们必须阻止管理层背叛股东，因为股东认为这是管理层的错。没有承销商会说他们搞砸了。那是不可能的。</blockquote></p><p> So, we sit back and we marvel about how badly the deal went even as it was well within the province of the underwriter and the principals to make it so Robinhood left more on the table.</p><p><blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote></p><p> Greed?</p><p><blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote></p><p> Stupidity?</p><p><blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote></p><p> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.</p><p><blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote></p><p> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.</p><p><blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1610613172068","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>Jim Cramer: Robinhood's IPO Debacle Shows How Little Has Changed Over the Decades<blockquote>吉姆·克莱默：Robinhood的IPO惨败表明几十年来变化很小</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\">\nJim Cramer: Robinhood's IPO Debacle Shows How Little Has Changed Over the Decades<blockquote>吉姆·克莱默：Robinhood的IPO惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Street</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-07-31 07:50</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed.  What should Robinhood&nbsp;(<b>HOOD</b>) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?</p><p><blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（<b>发动机罩</b>)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote></p><p> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.</p><p><blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote></p><p> I can only tell you what I argued for 22 years ago whenTheStreet.comwas coming public. First, as the founder, I was determined to award all the subscribers with stock to demonstrate my loyalty to them.</p><p><blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote></p><p> Second, I was insistent that the deal be priced much lower than the underwriters wanted. We had already made a ton of money for initial investors. Why not leave a lot on the table and let the new investors do well?</p><p><blockquote>其次，我坚持认为这笔交易的定价要比承销商想要的低得多。我们已经为初始投资者赚了一大笔钱。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote></p><p> Third, I wanted enough stock placed with good hands that there would be no flippers and I wanted close coordination with the various brokers who tended to infiltrate the process and hijack the openings by batching market orders and opening the stocks way too high and then shorting them all the way down.</p><p><blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，这样就不会有脚蹼，我希望与各种经纪人密切协调，这些经纪人往往会渗透到流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote></p><p> I lost on every single point.</p><p><blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote></p><p> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.</p><p><blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote></p><p> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.</p><p><blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote></p><p> Third, the over-the-transom orders, those who placed market orders, were batched by an outfit called Knight Securities, not the underwriter, Goldman Sachs, and it opened at $62 -- it wasn't even clear what the opening price was it was so chaotic -- traded to $66, like how Robinhood traded to $39 and change, and then never traded higher.</p><p><blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who bought that day lost money.</p><p><blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who sold that day made money.</p><p><blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote></p><p> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.</p><p><blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote></p><p> It is amazing that here we are in 2021 and the process, while letting clients in, failed to price it so that Robinhood left money on the table. Believe me, it was possible to do so. But the underwriters and the management chose not to do so. We don't know which side screwed up, or both, but there was a successful blueprint; believe me, if I knew what it was in 1999, they knew what it is now.</p><p><blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。但承销商和管理层选择不这样做。我们不知道哪一方搞砸了，或者两者都搞砸了，但有一个成功的蓝图；相信我，如果我知道1999年是什么，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote></p><p> I always regretted what happened. Most people blamed me as I was the face of the process. I was astounded by how horrendous it was and did not \"take the long view\" because the long view sucked.</p><p><blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote></p><p> Why do these things go wrong? I do blame the underwriter because they do this every day and the principals only do it once. They have to keep the management from betraying the shareholders because the shareholders think that it is management's fault. No underwriter is EVER going to say that they screwed up. That's not in the cards.</p><p><blockquote>为什么这些事情会出错？我确实责怪承销商，因为他们每天都这样做，而委托人只做一次。他们必须阻止管理层背叛股东，因为股东认为这是管理层的错。没有承销商会说他们搞砸了。那是不可能的。</blockquote></p><p> So, we sit back and we marvel about how badly the deal went even as it was well within the province of the underwriter and the principals to make it so Robinhood left more on the table.</p><p><blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote></p><p> Greed?</p><p><blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote></p><p> Stupidity?</p><p><blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote></p><p> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.</p><p><blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote></p><p> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.</p><p><blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</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":{"HOOD":"Robinhood"},"source_url":"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1152039134","content_text":"Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed.\n\nWhat should Robinhood (HOOD) -Get Report have done to avoid the IPO debacle?\nI can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.\nI can only tell you what I argued for 22 years ago whenTheStreet.comwas coming public. First, as the founder, I was determined to award all the subscribers with stock to demonstrate my loyalty to them.\nSecond, I was insistent that the deal be priced much lower than the underwriters wanted. We had already made a ton of money for initial investors. Why not leave a lot on the table and let the new investors do well?\nThird, I wanted enough stock placed with good hands that there would be no flippers and I wanted close coordination with the various brokers who tended to infiltrate the process and hijack the openings by batching market orders and opening the stocks way too high and then shorting them all the way down.\nI lost on every single point.\nThe underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.\nSecond, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.\nThird, the over-the-transom orders, those who placed market orders, were batched by an outfit called Knight Securities, not the underwriter, Goldman Sachs, and it opened at $62 -- it wasn't even clear what the opening price was it was so chaotic -- traded to $66, like how Robinhood traded to $39 and change, and then never traded higher.\nEveryone who bought that day lost money.\nEveryone who sold that day made money.\nNo subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.\nIt is amazing that here we are in 2021 and the process, while letting clients in, failed to price it so that Robinhood left money on the table. Believe me, it was possible to do so. But the underwriters and the management chose not to do so. We don't know which side screwed up, or both, but there was a successful blueprint; believe me, if I knew what it was in 1999, they knew what it is now.\nI always regretted what happened. Most people blamed me as I was the face of the process. I was astounded by how horrendous it was and did not \"take the long view\" because the long view sucked.\nWhy do these things go wrong? I do blame the underwriter because they do this every day and the principals only do it once. They have to keep the management from betraying the shareholders because the shareholders think that it is management's fault. No underwriter is EVER going to say that they screwed up. That's not in the cards.\nSo, we sit back and we marvel about how badly the deal went even as it was well within the province of the underwriter and the principals to make it so Robinhood left more on the table.\nGreed?\nStupidity?\nHow about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.\nJust like the offering ofTheStreet.com.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"HOOD":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":435,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}