TD Ameritrade sti can freely t-To The Moon - Tiger Brokers Online Investing Community - To The Moon

Like
1
Favorite

Beibeier
2021-01-29

TD Ameritrade sti can freely trade

"Unplugging the network cable" to bully retail investors, Wall Street was surprised by the ugliest day in history

今天是华尔街丑陋的一天。Gamestop引发的散户暴动肯定会收场，但是我干算万算，万万想不到会以今天的方式收场：以 Robinhood为首的所有电子交易平台，在上年10点几乎同时限制散户买入GME，A

"Unplugging the network cable" to bully retail investors, Wall Street was surprised by the ugliest day in history

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Like

Report

Comment（1）

Top
Latest

社区成长助手
·2021-01-29
终于等到了您的初发帖[比心][比心]希望您能在老虎社区玩得愉快、赚得开心！如果您想创作优质文章，请查看老虎社区创作指引
Reply
Like
Report

Most Discussed

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":316030010,"tweetId":"316030010","gmtCreate":1611899925830,"gmtModify":1704865431936,"author":{"id":3565321567361366,"idStr":"3565321567361366","authorId":3565321567361366,"authorIdStr":"3565321567361366","name":"Beibeier","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8193a35e5d394f803bb5b4dc1a364677","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":0,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>TD Ameritrade sti can freely trade&nbsp;</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>TD Ameritrade sti can freely trade&nbsp;</p></body></html>","text":"TD Ameritrade sti can freely trade","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/316030010","repostId":2107429437,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2107429437","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1611885824,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2107429437?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-01-29 10:03","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"\"Unplugging the network cable\" to bully retail investors, Wall Street was surprised by the ugliest day in history","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2107429437","media":"海通国际","summary":"今天是华尔街丑陋的一天。Gamestop引发的散户暴动肯定会收场，但是我干算万算，万万想不到会以今天的方式收场：以 Robinhood为首的所有电子交易平台，在上年10点几乎同时限制散户买入GME，A","content":"<p>Today is an ugly day on Wall Street.</p><p>The retail investor riots triggered by Gamestop will definitely end, but I did all the calculations, and I never imagined that it would end in today's way: all electronic trading platforms headed by Robinhood restricted retail investors from buying GME, AMC and other stocks at almost the same time at 10 o'clock last year. In an instant, GME's stock price began to fall off a cliff from nearly $500 to $110. Look at the chart below first.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/68ba09b996878b13a7be28686db3dd26\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><b>Ugly point one:</b>Retail investors are deprived of the right to (buy) trade and can only sell existing positions, but Wall Street institutions can still short, close positions, buy, sell, etc. without any restrictions. It's like two boxers coming to the stage to compete. When one side is about to lose, the referee suddenly rushes out and ties the hands of the winning side, on the grounds that \"boxing is a dangerous sport. For your own good, I will tie your hands\".</p><p><b>Ugly point two:</b>Robinhood, which restricts retail investors from buying transactions, is inextricably linked to Wall Street hedge funds. First of all, investor D behind Robinhood (managed $20 billion and invested $200 million in Robinhood) also suffered a huge loss of 20% this month. The Wall Street Journal didn't say the reason for the huge loss, except that D's huge loss was caused by the recent market chaos. But is there any chaos in the market recently, except for a few stocks being arched into the sky by retail investors? Secondly, Robinhood and other electronic brokerages will send retail investors' trading orders to C in exchange for cash. In other words, C is the money owner who continuously provides cash to Robinhood and other electronic brokerages. In this short squeeze incident, C was the financial owner who stood behind and supported M. I don't know if closing the retail buying transaction to Robinhood has been hinted by the two financial owners C and D. I can't make a judgment, I just lay out some facts.</p><p><b>Ugly point three:</b>Bears on Wall Street, before retail investors restricted trading and buying trades, finally did not forget to cut off retail investors (this is the ugliest point in my opinion). Let's look at the picture below.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b3950da7bdffcd19e360e577df249142\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"365\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>The red paragraph is the stock price change after electronic brokerages collectively restricted retail investors' purchases, and the price instantly fell from $483 to $112. I believe that for more than an hour, retail investors were desperate and fled, and the stock price experienced many suspensions. However, after reaching a low of $112, the stock price rose all the way to more than $300 (green line segment). Note: Retail investors no longer have the ability to buy at this time, only institutions can buy. Could it be that institutions are optimistic about this stock and think that stocks with more than $100 are valuable? Of course not, institutions are just closing their short positions. In other words, in the long-short war, institutions did not stop building their short positions at all, but were beaten out of the water by retail investors all the way, and did not stop losing new short positions. In the end, while the retail investors ran away, they finally cut a short position of $450 in leeks, and closed the position with an average of $225, with a return of 50%. I didn't know that before the institution finally opened a short position, it knew in advance that the electronic brokerage would attack retail investors. Again, I don't make guilty inferences, I just present the facts.</p><p>This ugly scene on Wall Street is far better than the 2008 financial crisis. The seller asked the government for a rescue plan and transferred hands to senior executives to pay huge bonuses. Public opinion, at least the public opinion of retail investors, was extremely angry, and the Senate immediately said it would hold a hearing. I specifically checked all the policies introduced by China's stock market crash in 2015. The most radical one was to restrict companies from selling their own stocks, but none of them were aimed at retail investors. If a policy was introduced in 2015 that retail investors were not allowed to sell stocks, or if brokerages directly blocked retail investors and could only buy but not sell, what kind of verbal criticism would it attract? Do you think if the Senate holds a hearing, public opinion or justice will be served? Think too much. Senate hearings have always been to rub the wounds of the people and tell them that we have heard your grievances, and we will further supervise them in the future. If there is really any action, the United States should immediately announce an investigation into the motives of electronic brokerages to ban retail investors from paying orders, and who built short positions before the sharp drop. In fact, it is not difficult at all, but no one will do it.</p><p>I don't think it makes sense for retail investors to fire a company on the verge of bankruptcy into the sky. But the means to end this farce are really ugly.</p>","source":"lsy1594264741347","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>\"Unplugging the network cable\" to bully retail investors, Wall Street was surprised by the ugliest day in history</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\">\n\"Unplugging the network cable\" to bully retail investors, Wall Street was surprised by the ugliest day in history\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">海通国际</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-01-29 10:03</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Today is an ugly day on Wall Street.</p><p>The retail investor riots triggered by Gamestop will definitely end, but I did all the calculations, and I never imagined that it would end in today's way: all electronic trading platforms headed by Robinhood restricted retail investors from buying GME, AMC and other stocks at almost the same time at 10 o'clock last year. In an instant, GME's stock price began to fall off a cliff from nearly $500 to $110. Look at the chart below first.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/68ba09b996878b13a7be28686db3dd26\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><b>Ugly point one:</b>Retail investors are deprived of the right to (buy) trade and can only sell existing positions, but Wall Street institutions can still short, close positions, buy, sell, etc. without any restrictions. It's like two boxers coming to the stage to compete. When one side is about to lose, the referee suddenly rushes out and ties the hands of the winning side, on the grounds that \"boxing is a dangerous sport. For your own good, I will tie your hands\".</p><p><b>Ugly point two:</b>Robinhood, which restricts retail investors from buying transactions, is inextricably linked to Wall Street hedge funds. First of all, investor D behind Robinhood (managed $20 billion and invested $200 million in Robinhood) also suffered a huge loss of 20% this month. The Wall Street Journal didn't say the reason for the huge loss, except that D's huge loss was caused by the recent market chaos. But is there any chaos in the market recently, except for a few stocks being arched into the sky by retail investors? Secondly, Robinhood and other electronic brokerages will send retail investors' trading orders to C in exchange for cash. In other words, C is the money owner who continuously provides cash to Robinhood and other electronic brokerages. In this short squeeze incident, C was the financial owner who stood behind and supported M. I don't know if closing the retail buying transaction to Robinhood has been hinted by the two financial owners C and D. I can't make a judgment, I just lay out some facts.</p><p><b>Ugly point three:</b>Bears on Wall Street, before retail investors restricted trading and buying trades, finally did not forget to cut off retail investors (this is the ugliest point in my opinion). Let's look at the picture below.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b3950da7bdffcd19e360e577df249142\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"365\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>The red paragraph is the stock price change after electronic brokerages collectively restricted retail investors' purchases, and the price instantly fell from $483 to $112. I believe that for more than an hour, retail investors were desperate and fled, and the stock price experienced many suspensions. However, after reaching a low of $112, the stock price rose all the way to more than $300 (green line segment). Note: Retail investors no longer have the ability to buy at this time, only institutions can buy. Could it be that institutions are optimistic about this stock and think that stocks with more than $100 are valuable? Of course not, institutions are just closing their short positions. In other words, in the long-short war, institutions did not stop building their short positions at all, but were beaten out of the water by retail investors all the way, and did not stop losing new short positions. In the end, while the retail investors ran away, they finally cut a short position of $450 in leeks, and closed the position with an average of $225, with a return of 50%. I didn't know that before the institution finally opened a short position, it knew in advance that the electronic brokerage would attack retail investors. Again, I don't make guilty inferences, I just present the facts.</p><p>This ugly scene on Wall Street is far better than the 2008 financial crisis. The seller asked the government for a rescue plan and transferred hands to senior executives to pay huge bonuses. Public opinion, at least the public opinion of retail investors, was extremely angry, and the Senate immediately said it would hold a hearing. I specifically checked all the policies introduced by China's stock market crash in 2015. The most radical one was to restrict companies from selling their own stocks, but none of them were aimed at retail investors. If a policy was introduced in 2015 that retail investors were not allowed to sell stocks, or if brokerages directly blocked retail investors and could only buy but not sell, what kind of verbal criticism would it attract? Do you think if the Senate holds a hearing, public opinion or justice will be served? Think too much. Senate hearings have always been to rub the wounds of the people and tell them that we have heard your grievances, and we will further supervise them in the future. If there is really any action, the United States should immediately announce an investigation into the motives of electronic brokerages to ban retail investors from paying orders, and who built short positions before the sharp drop. In fact, it is not difficult at all, but no one will do it.</p><p>I don't think it makes sense for retail investors to fire a company on the verge of bankruptcy into the sky. But the means to end this farce are really ugly.</p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/usstock/c/2021-01-29/doc-ikftssap1640500.shtml\">海通国际</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/50f0a252f951b7accc03d40bda92a3b2","relate_stocks":{"AMC":"AMC院线","GME":"游戏驿站"},"source_url":"https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/usstock/c/2021-01-29/doc-ikftssap1640500.shtml","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2107429437","content_text":"今天是华尔街丑陋的一天。Gamestop引发的散户暴动肯定会收场，但是我干算万算，万万想不到会以今天的方式收场：以 Robinhood为首的所有电子交易平台，在上年10点几乎同时限制散户买入GME，AMC等股票。一瞬间，GME股价从近$500开始断崖式下跌至$110，先看下图。丑陋点一：散户被剥夺了（买入）交易的权利，只能卖出已有的仓位，但华尔街机构却依然可以做空、平仓、买入、卖出等等，没有任何限制。这就好比两个拳击选手上台比赛，当一方快要输的时候，裁判突然冲了出来，把即将取胜一方的双手捆上，理由是“拳击是危险运动，为了你好，我把你的双手捆上”。丑陋点二：限制散户进行买入交易的 Robinhood，和华尔街对冲基金们有着千丝万缕的联系。首先， Robinhood后面的投资人D（管理$200亿，向 Robinhood投资了$2亿），本月也是巨亏20%。华尔街日报并没有说巨亏的原因，只是说D的巨亏是由于最近市场混乱造成的。但最近除了几个股票被散户拱到天上以外，市场还有什么混乱吗？其次， Robinhood和其它电子券商，会把散户的交易单发给C，換取现金。也就是说，C是源源不断给Robinhood和其它电子券商提供现金的金主。在这次逼空事件中，C又是站在后面支持M的金主。我不知道向Robinhood关闭散户买入交易有没有得到两位金主C和D的暗示，我没法做判断，我只是把一些事实摆出来。丑陋点三：华尔街的空头们，在散户限制交易买入交易之前，最后还不忘割散户非菜一把（这是我认为最丑陋的一点）。我们看下图。红色的那一段，就是电子券商集体限制散户买入之后的股价变化，价格瞬间从$483跌到了$112。我相信这一个多小时的时间，散户们是绝望的，夺门而逃，股价经历了多次暂停。但是股价在到达低点$112之后，却一路上扬到$300多（绿色线段）。注意：散户们这时候已经没有买入的能力了，能买的只有机构。难道是机构在看好这个股票，觉得$100多的股票有价值？当然不是，机构只是在平他们的空仓而已。也就是说，在一路多空大战中，机构们根本就没有停止过建他们的空仓，只是一路被散户打得落花流水，不停止损开新的空仓。最后趁着散户们逃跑的时候，终于割了韭菜$450空仓，平均$225平仓，收益50%。我不知道机构最后开空仓之前，事先知道了电子券商要对散户下手。同样，我不做有罪推断，我只是摆事实。华尔街这丑陋一幕，远远胜过2008年金融危机卖方找政府要了救援计划，转手给高管发巨额奖金。民意，至少是散户的民意，异常愤怒，参议院立刻表示要召开听证会。我专门去查了一下2015年中国股灾出台的所有政策，最激进的就是限制公司出售自己的股票，但没有一条是针对散户的。要是2015年出台政策说散户们不准卖股票，或者直接让券商封了散户，只能买不能卖，那会招来什么样的口诛笔伐？是不是觉得参议院召开听证会，民意或者正义就会得到伸张了？想多了，参议院的听证会向来就是给民众揉揉伤口，告诉民众你们的冤屈我们听到了，我们以后会进一步监管。真要有动作，美国应该马上宣布调查电子券商封禁散户买单的动机，以及大跌之前都有谁建了空仓，其实一点不难，但不会有人去做。我不觉得散户们把一个濒临破产的公司炒到天上，就有道理。但终结这场闹剧的手段，真的是丑陋。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9,"GME":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3015,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":29,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[{"id":3426918,"commentId":"3426918","gmtCreate":1611900380569,"gmtModify":1680774728499,"authorId":3527667803686145,"author":{"id":3527667803686145,"idStr":"3527667803686145","authorId":3527667803686145,"name":"社区成长助手","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2b7c7106b5c0c8b0037faa67439d898f","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":316030010,"objectIdStr":"316030010","type":1,"supId":0,"supIdStr":"0","prevId":0,"prevIdStr":"0","content":"终于等到了您的初发帖[比心][比心]希望您能在老虎社区玩得愉快、赚得开心！如果您想创作优质文章，请查看<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/TW/934879903\">老虎社区创作指引</a>","text":"终于等到了您的初发帖[比心][比心]希望您能在老虎社区玩得愉快、赚得开心！如果您想创作优质文章，请查看<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/TW/934879903\">老虎社区创作指引</a>","html":"终于等到了您的初发帖[比心][比心]希望您能在老虎社区玩得愉快、赚得开心！如果您想创作优质文章，请查看<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/TW/934879903\">老虎社区创作指引</a>","likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"subComments":[],"verified":10,"allocateAmount":0,"commentType":"valid","coins":0,"score":0,"disclaimerType":0}],"hasMoreComment":true,"orderType":2}