Jyefey的个人主页 - 老虎社区

Jyefey

Jyefey

暂无个人介绍

IP属地：未知

56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>爱彼迎的盈利可能是一个惊喜。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 失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":56,"tweetSize":0,"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":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-3","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"偶像虎友","description":"加入老虎社区1500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b40ae7da5bf081a1c84df14bf9e6367","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f160eceddd7c284a8e1136557615cfad","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11792805c468334a9b31c39f95a41c6a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2026.04.22","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"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,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":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,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"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,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.28","exceedPercentage":"60.66%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"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,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":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,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0}],"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":[],"title":"","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.laohunote.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>爱彼迎的盈利可能是一个惊喜。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，爱彼迎将迎来盈利飙升。</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，并将短期住宿租赁业务的目标价定为 180 美元，比昨天的收盘价高出约 19%。这位分析师认为，该股即将迎来一段 “重大 ”盈利预期修正期，他相信 6 月份的季度业绩将远高于华尔街目前的预期。</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，高于一致预测的 12.5 亿美元，息税折旧摊销前利润（Ebitda）为 1.36 亿美元，同样远高于华尔街一致认为的 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（市场共识为收入 55 亿美元，Ebitda 为 7.38 亿美元），2022 年收入为 77 亿美元，Ebitda 为 17 亿美元，比市场共识的差距更大，市场共识分别为 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，公司的 “单位经济学 ”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% 的流量直接流向该网站，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 在最近接受采访时回答了这个问题<i>巴伦</i>指出，该业务最近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：”这不仅能让爱彼迎更好地免受数字广告通胀的影响，还能在收入加速增长时为利润率扩张提供更多空间。“这两个条件目前都存在，我们认为这将导致收入和 Ebitda 与同行相比有很大的修正潜力”。</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>爱彼迎的盈利可能是一个惊喜。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>爱彼迎的盈利可能是一个惊喜。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，爱彼迎将迎来盈利飙升。</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，并将短期住宿租赁业务的目标价定为 180 美元，比昨天的收盘价高出约 19%。这位分析师认为，该股即将迎来一段 “重大 ”盈利预期修正期，他相信 6 月份的季度业绩将远高于华尔街目前的预期。</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，高于一致预测的 12.5 亿美元，息税折旧摊销前利润（Ebitda）为 1.36 亿美元，同样远高于华尔街一致认为的 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（市场共识为收入 55 亿美元，Ebitda 为 7.38 亿美元），2022 年收入为 77 亿美元，Ebitda 为 17 亿美元，比市场共识的差距更大，市场共识分别为 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，公司的 “单位经济学 ”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% 的流量直接流向该网站，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 在最近接受采访时回答了这个问题<i>巴伦</i>指出，该业务最近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：”这不仅能让爱彼迎更好地免受数字广告通胀的影响，还能在收入加速增长时为利润率扩张提供更多空间。“这两个条件目前都存在，我们认为这将导致收入和 Ebitda 与同行相比有很大的修正潜力”。</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":550,"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":[],"title":"","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.laohunote.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 IPOed 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其首次上市公司财报时的预期。</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，也鲜明地提醒人们零售交易是多么的变化无常。</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>在经历了第一季度的激增之后，零售交易创纪录地激增，这转化为 Robinhood 的 orderflow 支付创纪录的 3.31 亿美元，其中大部分是期权订单流，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 月份以一声巨响结束，当时 Robinhood 为 orderflow 支付的款项仅为 6590 万美元，然后在 5 月份进一步下降，跌至 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那样，6 月份出现了温和的反弹，散户投资者将他们的伽马提升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 来自标准普尔和非标准普尔 500 股票订单流的收入同比下降 25%，Robinhood 向 Citadel 等内部化者提供的唯一价值是出售 it 期权流量，该流量从一年前的 1.111 亿美元增长了 48%。 2021 年第二季度的 1.648 亿美元。直到一些专门的期权做市商决定窃取Robinhood的市场份额，并开始积极地将期权流量数据倾销到世界的堡垒；<b>或者，当“伽马”交易不再是赚钱的摇钱树，而散户交易员厌倦了出售每周评级和看跌期权，而他们的溢价在市场大动荡后被抹去，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>抛开疑问不谈，第二季度零售交易热潮的消退在季度上尤为严重，PFOF 收入环比下降 34.4%，仅比去年同期零售交易热潮仍处于起步阶段的季度增长 20.4%。</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 8160 万美元，占该公司第二季度 PFOF 总额的 27.6%。也就是说，显然 Citadel 对 Robinhood 营收的贡献正在下降，6 月份它仅占 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：彭博社的以下图表显示，所有经纪商在第二季度的 PFOF 收入均大幅下降，主要经纪商的收入下降了约 27%，但没有一家经纪商受到的影响像 Robinhood 那样大。</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 的慷慨付款是该公司数十亿美元估值的原因 - 是否正在逐渐摆脱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？也许更重要的是：随着零售交易模式清楚地反映了刺激支付的流入，在大量“刺激”支票清算后达到顶峰，即在2020年6月和2021年第一季度，长长的罗宾汉论点是否只是对慷慨的拜登政府继续刺激支票的押注？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，Robinhood 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 是否会通过向 Citadel 出售客户订单数据来获得收入<b>来自目前正在增持 Robinhood 自己股票的散户交易员</b>在一次尝试的伽马挤压中。换句话说，Robinhood 是否创造了一种永动装置，并在以下情况下产生收入<i><b>它本身</b></i>成为大规模客户交易的目标，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——一旦被允许——然后等待。</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 IPOed 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其首次上市公司财报时的预期。</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，也鲜明地提醒人们零售交易是多么的变化无常。</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>在经历了第一季度的激增之后，零售交易创纪录地激增，这转化为 Robinhood 的 orderflow 支付创纪录的 3.31 亿美元，其中大部分是期权订单流，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 月份以一声巨响结束，当时 Robinhood 为 orderflow 支付的款项仅为 6590 万美元，然后在 5 月份进一步下降，跌至 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那样，6 月份出现了温和的反弹，散户投资者将他们的伽马提升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 来自标准普尔和非标准普尔 500 股票订单流的收入同比下降 25%，Robinhood 向 Citadel 等内部化者提供的唯一价值是出售 it 期权流量，该流量从一年前的 1.111 亿美元增长了 48%。 2021 年第二季度的 1.648 亿美元。直到一些专门的期权做市商决定窃取Robinhood的市场份额，并开始积极地将期权流量数据倾销到世界的堡垒；<b>或者，当“伽马”交易不再是赚钱的摇钱树，而散户交易员厌倦了出售每周评级和看跌期权，而他们的溢价在市场大动荡后被抹去，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>抛开疑问不谈，第二季度零售交易热潮的消退在季度上尤为严重，PFOF 收入环比下降 34.4%，仅比去年同期零售交易热潮仍处于起步阶段的季度增长 20.4%。</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 8160 万美元，占该公司第二季度 PFOF 总额的 27.6%。也就是说，显然 Citadel 对 Robinhood 营收的贡献正在下降，6 月份它仅占 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：彭博社的以下图表显示，所有经纪商在第二季度的 PFOF 收入均大幅下降，主要经纪商的收入下降了约 27%，但没有一家经纪商受到的影响像 Robinhood 那样大。</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 的慷慨付款是该公司数十亿美元估值的原因 - 是否正在逐渐摆脱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？也许更重要的是：随着零售交易模式清楚地反映了刺激支付的流入，在大量“刺激”支票清算后达到顶峰，即在2020年6月和2021年第一季度，长长的罗宾汉论点是否只是对慷慨的拜登政府继续刺激支票的押注？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，Robinhood 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 是否会通过向 Citadel 出售客户订单数据来获得收入<b>来自目前正在增持 Robinhood 自己股票的散户交易员</b>在一次尝试的伽马挤压中。换句话说，Robinhood 是否创造了一种永动装置，并在以下情况下产生收入<i><b>它本身</b></i>成为大规模客户交易的目标，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——一旦被允许——然后等待。</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":575,"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":[],"title":"","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":798,"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":[],"title":"","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.laohunote.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 失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>从一个知道这个过程的人那里，这个过程真的有缺陷。Robinhood应该做什么（<b>发动机罩</b>) - 获取报告是否采取了哪些措施来避免 IPO 失败？</blockquote></p><p> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.</p><p><blockquote>我不能谈论周四发生了什么，谁负责，谁主张什么。</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年前当TheStreet.com上市时我的论点。首先，作为创始人，我决心奖励所有订户股票，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。为什么不在桌面上留下很多，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由好手放置，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这个过程中，并通过批量市价订单和将股票开得太高，然后一路做空来劫持开盘价。</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订户。</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>其次，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小流行的地方，所以每个人都会赢。</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，超越横梁的订单，即那些下市价订单的订单，是由一家名为奈特证券（Knight Securities）的机构批发的，而不是承销商高盛（Goldman Sachs），它以 62 美元的价格开盘——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少。它是如此混乱——交易价格为 66 美元，就像 Robinhood 交易价格为 39 美元并进行变动一样，然后就再也没有卖得更高。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who bought that day lost money.</p><p><blockquote>那天买的人都赔钱了。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who sold that day made money.</p><p><blockquote>那天卖的人都赚了钱。</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，大多数都是在开幕式上买的，除了大狗，我疏远了所有人。</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，这个过程在让客户进来的同时，没有给它定价，所以Robinhood把钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是有可能的。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，他们就知道现在是什么。</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>我总是后悔发生的事。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它是多么可怕所震惊，没有“采取长远的观点”，因为长远的观点很糟糕。</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，而委托人只这样做一次。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，惊叹于这笔交易有多糟糕，尽管它在承销商和委托人的管辖范围内，所以罗宾汉在桌面上留下了更多。</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 失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 失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>从一个知道这个过程的人那里，这个过程真的有缺陷。Robinhood应该做什么（<b>发动机罩</b>) - 获取报告是否采取了哪些措施来避免 IPO 失败？</blockquote></p><p> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.</p><p><blockquote>我不能谈论周四发生了什么，谁负责，谁主张什么。</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年前当TheStreet.com上市时我的论点。首先，作为创始人，我决心奖励所有订户股票，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。为什么不在桌面上留下很多，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由好手放置，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这个过程中，并通过批量市价订单和将股票开得太高，然后一路做空来劫持开盘价。</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订户。</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>其次，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小流行的地方，所以每个人都会赢。</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，超越横梁的订单，即那些下市价订单的订单，是由一家名为奈特证券（Knight Securities）的机构批发的，而不是承销商高盛（Goldman Sachs），它以 62 美元的价格开盘——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少。它是如此混乱——交易价格为 66 美元，就像 Robinhood 交易价格为 39 美元并进行变动一样，然后就再也没有卖得更高。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who bought that day lost money.</p><p><blockquote>那天买的人都赔钱了。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who sold that day made money.</p><p><blockquote>那天卖的人都赚了钱。</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，大多数都是在开幕式上买的，除了大狗，我疏远了所有人。</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，这个过程在让客户进来的同时，没有给它定价，所以Robinhood把钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是有可能的。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，他们就知道现在是什么。</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>我总是后悔发生的事。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它是多么可怕所震惊，没有“采取长远的观点”，因为长远的观点很糟糕。</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，而委托人只这样做一次。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，惊叹于这笔交易有多糟糕，尽管它在承销商和委托人的管辖范围内，所以罗宾汉在桌面上留下了更多。</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":717,"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":[],"title":"","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":745,"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":[],"title":"","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":578,"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":[],"title":"","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.laohunote.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 IPOed 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其首次上市公司财报时的预期。</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，也鲜明地提醒人们零售交易是多么的变化无常。</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>在经历了第一季度的激增之后，零售交易创纪录地激增，这转化为 Robinhood 的 orderflow 支付创纪录的 3.31 亿美元，其中大部分是期权订单流，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 月份以一声巨响结束，当时 Robinhood 为 orderflow 支付的款项仅为 6590 万美元，然后在 5 月份进一步下降，跌至 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那样，6 月份出现了温和的反弹，散户投资者将他们的伽马提升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 来自标准普尔和非标准普尔 500 股票订单流的收入同比下降 25%，Robinhood 向 Citadel 等内部化者提供的唯一价值是出售 it 期权流量，该流量从一年前的 1.111 亿美元增长了 48%。 2021 年第二季度的 1.648 亿美元。直到一些专门的期权做市商决定窃取Robinhood的市场份额，并开始积极地将期权流量数据倾销到世界的堡垒；<b>或者，当“伽马”交易不再是赚钱的摇钱树，而散户交易员厌倦了出售每周评级和看跌期权，而他们的溢价在市场大动荡后被抹去，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>抛开疑问不谈，第二季度零售交易热潮的消退在季度上尤为严重，PFOF 收入环比下降 34.4%，仅比去年同期零售交易热潮仍处于起步阶段的季度增长 20.4%。</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 8160 万美元，占该公司第二季度 PFOF 总额的 27.6%。也就是说，显然 Citadel 对 Robinhood 营收的贡献正在下降，6 月份它仅占 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：彭博社的以下图表显示，所有经纪商在第二季度的 PFOF 收入均大幅下降，主要经纪商的收入下降了约 27%，但没有一家经纪商受到的影响像 Robinhood 那样大。</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 的慷慨付款是该公司数十亿美元估值的原因 - 是否正在逐渐摆脱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？也许更重要的是：随着零售交易模式清楚地反映了刺激支付的流入，在大量“刺激”支票清算后达到顶峰，即在2020年6月和2021年第一季度，长长的罗宾汉论点是否只是对慷慨的拜登政府继续刺激支票的押注？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，Robinhood 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 是否会通过向 Citadel 出售客户订单数据来获得收入<b>来自目前正在增持 Robinhood 自己股票的散户交易员</b>在一次尝试的伽马挤压中。换句话说，Robinhood 是否创造了一种永动装置，并在以下情况下产生收入<i><b>它本身</b></i>成为大规模客户交易的目标，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——一旦被允许——然后等待。</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 IPOed 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其首次上市公司财报时的预期。</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，也鲜明地提醒人们零售交易是多么的变化无常。</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>在经历了第一季度的激增之后，零售交易创纪录地激增，这转化为 Robinhood 的 orderflow 支付创纪录的 3.31 亿美元，其中大部分是期权订单流，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 月份以一声巨响结束，当时 Robinhood 为 orderflow 支付的款项仅为 6590 万美元，然后在 5 月份进一步下降，跌至 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那样，6 月份出现了温和的反弹，散户投资者将他们的伽马提升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 来自标准普尔和非标准普尔 500 股票订单流的收入同比下降 25%，Robinhood 向 Citadel 等内部化者提供的唯一价值是出售 it 期权流量，该流量从一年前的 1.111 亿美元增长了 48%。 2021 年第二季度的 1.648 亿美元。直到一些专门的期权做市商决定窃取Robinhood的市场份额，并开始积极地将期权流量数据倾销到世界的堡垒；<b>或者，当“伽马”交易不再是赚钱的摇钱树，而散户交易员厌倦了出售每周评级和看跌期权，而他们的溢价在市场大动荡后被抹去，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>抛开疑问不谈，第二季度零售交易热潮的消退在季度上尤为严重，PFOF 收入环比下降 34.4%，仅比去年同期零售交易热潮仍处于起步阶段的季度增长 20.4%。</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 8160 万美元，占该公司第二季度 PFOF 总额的 27.6%。也就是说，显然 Citadel 对 Robinhood 营收的贡献正在下降，6 月份它仅占 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：彭博社的以下图表显示，所有经纪商在第二季度的 PFOF 收入均大幅下降，主要经纪商的收入下降了约 27%，但没有一家经纪商受到的影响像 Robinhood 那样大。</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 的慷慨付款是该公司数十亿美元估值的原因 - 是否正在逐渐摆脱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？也许更重要的是：随着零售交易模式清楚地反映了刺激支付的流入，在大量“刺激”支票清算后达到顶峰，即在2020年6月和2021年第一季度，长长的罗宾汉论点是否只是对慷慨的拜登政府继续刺激支票的押注？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，Robinhood 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 是否会通过向 Citadel 出售客户订单数据来获得收入<b>来自目前正在增持 Robinhood 自己股票的散户交易员</b>在一次尝试的伽马挤压中。换句话说，Robinhood 是否创造了一种永动装置，并在以下情况下产生收入<i><b>它本身</b></i>成为大规模客户交易的目标，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——一旦被允许——然后等待。</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":575,"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":[],"title":"","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":745,"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":[],"title":"","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.laohunote.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>爱彼迎的盈利可能是一个惊喜。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，爱彼迎将迎来盈利飙升。</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，并将短期住宿租赁业务的目标价定为 180 美元，比昨天的收盘价高出约 19%。这位分析师认为，该股即将迎来一段 “重大 ”盈利预期修正期，他相信 6 月份的季度业绩将远高于华尔街目前的预期。</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，高于一致预测的 12.5 亿美元，息税折旧摊销前利润（Ebitda）为 1.36 亿美元，同样远高于华尔街一致认为的 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（市场共识为收入 55 亿美元，Ebitda 为 7.38 亿美元），2022 年收入为 77 亿美元，Ebitda 为 17 亿美元，比市场共识的差距更大，市场共识分别为 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，公司的 “单位经济学 ”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% 的流量直接流向该网站，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 在最近接受采访时回答了这个问题<i>巴伦</i>指出，该业务最近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：”这不仅能让爱彼迎更好地免受数字广告通胀的影响，还能在收入加速增长时为利润率扩张提供更多空间。“这两个条件目前都存在，我们认为这将导致收入和 Ebitda 与同行相比有很大的修正潜力”。</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>爱彼迎的盈利可能是一个惊喜。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>爱彼迎的盈利可能是一个惊喜。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，爱彼迎将迎来盈利飙升。</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，并将短期住宿租赁业务的目标价定为 180 美元，比昨天的收盘价高出约 19%。这位分析师认为，该股即将迎来一段 “重大 ”盈利预期修正期，他相信 6 月份的季度业绩将远高于华尔街目前的预期。</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，高于一致预测的 12.5 亿美元，息税折旧摊销前利润（Ebitda）为 1.36 亿美元，同样远高于华尔街一致认为的 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（市场共识为收入 55 亿美元，Ebitda 为 7.38 亿美元），2022 年收入为 77 亿美元，Ebitda 为 17 亿美元，比市场共识的差距更大，市场共识分别为 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，公司的 “单位经济学 ”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% 的流量直接流向该网站，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 在最近接受采访时回答了这个问题<i>巴伦</i>指出，该业务最近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：”这不仅能让爱彼迎更好地免受数字广告通胀的影响，还能在收入加速增长时为利润率扩张提供更多空间。“这两个条件目前都存在，我们认为这将导致收入和 Ebitda 与同行相比有很大的修正潜力”。</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":550,"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":[],"title":"","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":798,"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":[],"title":"","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":578,"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":[],"title":"","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.laohunote.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 失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>从一个知道这个过程的人那里，这个过程真的有缺陷。Robinhood应该做什么（<b>发动机罩</b>) - 获取报告是否采取了哪些措施来避免 IPO 失败？</blockquote></p><p> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.</p><p><blockquote>我不能谈论周四发生了什么，谁负责，谁主张什么。</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年前当TheStreet.com上市时我的论点。首先，作为创始人，我决心奖励所有订户股票，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。为什么不在桌面上留下很多，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由好手放置，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这个过程中，并通过批量市价订单和将股票开得太高，然后一路做空来劫持开盘价。</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订户。</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>其次，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小流行的地方，所以每个人都会赢。</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，超越横梁的订单，即那些下市价订单的订单，是由一家名为奈特证券（Knight Securities）的机构批发的，而不是承销商高盛（Goldman Sachs），它以 62 美元的价格开盘——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少。它是如此混乱——交易价格为 66 美元，就像 Robinhood 交易价格为 39 美元并进行变动一样，然后就再也没有卖得更高。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who bought that day lost money.</p><p><blockquote>那天买的人都赔钱了。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who sold that day made money.</p><p><blockquote>那天卖的人都赚了钱。</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，大多数都是在开幕式上买的，除了大狗，我疏远了所有人。</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，这个过程在让客户进来的同时，没有给它定价，所以Robinhood把钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是有可能的。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，他们就知道现在是什么。</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>我总是后悔发生的事。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它是多么可怕所震惊，没有“采取长远的观点”，因为长远的观点很糟糕。</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，而委托人只这样做一次。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，惊叹于这笔交易有多糟糕，尽管它在承销商和委托人的管辖范围内，所以罗宾汉在桌面上留下了更多。</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 失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 失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>从一个知道这个过程的人那里，这个过程真的有缺陷。Robinhood应该做什么（<b>发动机罩</b>) - 获取报告是否采取了哪些措施来避免 IPO 失败？</blockquote></p><p> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.</p><p><blockquote>我不能谈论周四发生了什么，谁负责，谁主张什么。</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年前当TheStreet.com上市时我的论点。首先，作为创始人，我决心奖励所有订户股票，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。为什么不在桌面上留下很多，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由好手放置，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这个过程中，并通过批量市价订单和将股票开得太高，然后一路做空来劫持开盘价。</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订户。</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>其次，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小流行的地方，所以每个人都会赢。</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，超越横梁的订单，即那些下市价订单的订单，是由一家名为奈特证券（Knight Securities）的机构批发的，而不是承销商高盛（Goldman Sachs），它以 62 美元的价格开盘——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少。它是如此混乱——交易价格为 66 美元，就像 Robinhood 交易价格为 39 美元并进行变动一样，然后就再也没有卖得更高。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who bought that day lost money.</p><p><blockquote>那天买的人都赔钱了。</blockquote></p><p> Everyone who sold that day made money.</p><p><blockquote>那天卖的人都赚了钱。</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，大多数都是在开幕式上买的，除了大狗，我疏远了所有人。</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，这个过程在让客户进来的同时，没有给它定价，所以Robinhood把钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是有可能的。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，他们就知道现在是什么。</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>我总是后悔发生的事。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它是多么可怕所震惊，没有“采取长远的观点”，因为长远的观点很糟糕。</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，而委托人只这样做一次。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，惊叹于这笔交易有多糟糕，尽管它在承销商和委托人的管辖范围内，所以罗宾汉在桌面上留下了更多。</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":717,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}