저자: Kevin · 외국인
요약 보기
게임스탑 사태 당시 증권결제 구조(DTC·Apex·청산기관)가 위험 관리를 위해 증거금을 올리면서 로빈후드가 매수 거래를 제한했다고 설명. 청산기관은 상대방 부도 위험을 막으려 했고, 결과적으로 공매도 측 위험은 줄고 매수 측 개인은 불리해졌다는 주장. 로빈후드는 투기적 옵션·밈주식 거래를 장려하면서 충분한 백엔드 유동성을 갖추지 못했다고 비판.
다듬은 글
Who, who calls you and says, "Hey, are you telling us to stop making profits on GME? This is getting out of hand ." Who is doing all this? Yes. So, how does the backend system work in the brokerage industry? There is a central clearing house called DTC. This word is now familiar even to those outside this field .
There are many clearing houses that process it . It can be with large brokerage firms or banks, or it can be independent, we use a separate company called Apex . Outside of those clearing houses , they serve broker dealers. So, those broker dealers serve customers. It starts with the customer, then the broker, the clearing house, and then the central clearing house, all working in a circle.
Our clearing house, which provides us with a connection to the central clearing house, said they were going to stop trading in those three securities , and they are also the clearing house for many fintech companies . That means, even though we, Stash, SoFi, Weeble, Betterment , Betterment do not support individual trading .
So, they informed us that they were going to stop the facility to clear those trades . So, we had no choice but to either limit the convenience for our users or let them know that we were going to limit it . So, you ca n't do anything about it . Apex called you , and for whatever reason, they have full authority.
So, you felt like, "Oh, what are you doing?" and could only send a notification. Unfortunately . Yes. Yes. So, we're not trying to evade responsibility , we're just using Apex as a vendor , and we're assuming that we blocked access, but to be honest , it was our clearing house that blocked our access , and we had to block access for our users , and that's the truth.
Now Robinhood says, " We blocked access," does that mean anything to you? So, did Robin Hood do anything different? It seemed like they were negotiating about the money they needed, and then questions about cash flow arose. From what you know , can you explain this a little bit ? Of course, I know you don't work at Robin Hood.
Yes, well, it's obvious that Robin Hood is the biggest broker in this industry. It is one of the most prominent financial technology companies , with millions of users and high activity, and even before the recent funding, it had raised a lot of capital . They have grown to such a large extent that it makes sense to create their own clearing house .
I don't remember the names exactly , but there are two: Robin Hood Markets and Robin Hood Securities . So, their broker talks to their own clearing house , which talks to the central clearing house side . They were somewhat transparent, although not initially , but later stated that the central clearing house had forced them to raise deposits due to the risk in the system .
I think many people didn't realize that the danger in the system was that the counterparty could go bankrupt and be unable to complete the other side of the trade. They were worried about people buying GameStop stock and sellers not being able to deliver it or people holding large option positions losing money .
So, the clearing house said, "If Robin Hood goes bankrupt , all members will have to make up the difference ." As a result, they began to increase deposits for some clearing houses . They significantly increased their deposits to Robin Hood. At that time, Robinhood did not have the liquidity to post the collateral needed to complete the trade.
This was the reason they controlled one side of the trade , because when people sold shares their risk decreased and the deposit requirements also decreased, whereas if people had bought it would have continued to increase and created a spiral effect . So, it looks like they cut off access . We can discuss whether what happened in stocks at that time had a big impact on the overall market .
Later, they received a billion and 2.4 billion in capital to strengthen their cash flow to handle such situations. Amazing . This is interesting . When you say that the other party will go bankrupt, can you explain a little about that? It might be helpful to someone who asks. Of course. Some of these involve stocks and equities , while most involve options .
The only ones in focus were the DTC and the SEC . They deal in securities. There is also the OCC, or Options Clearing Corporation, which deals with options. I think they were a part of this too, but may have gone unnoticed. The important thing is that now we know about short selling , so the people who shorted GameStop sold it .
They do n't have it. They may have borrowed it , but it only exists as a ledger balance . It's just a database record that says it's a loan, but we sold it somewhere else . If GameStop is 10% of their portfolio and it goes up 15 times, they lose money when the stock price goes up , so they will have lost more money than they have in their account .
So, the person on the other side of the trade says, " I do n't have the money to pay for this GameStop." Therefore, the person who bought it will not be able to receive the money or receive that share . Counterparty risk is when a counterparty fails to fulfill its obligation due to insolvency . It gets even worse in options, where many people buy out-of- the-money calls , and there is a seller on the other side .
If GameStop is trading at $20 , you buy an out-of-the-money stock for $100 , and someone else has to sell it . Typically, market makers , companies like Citadel, do this , they buy stocks and hedge . It's kind of like buying a lottery ticket, they can get a huge amount of money if the stock price goes up .
The problem is that the person on the other side only charges a small amount of money , but you may be forced to pay them a huge amount. Because there was so much risk in the system, the question arose whether those who were supposed to provide that amount, such as a lottery, could actually provide it or whether it would completely bankrupt them.
In that case, the impact spreads to the central clearing firm, other clearing houses, brokerage firms, etc., and it would be accurate to say that it is a disaster . To put it bluntly, if you take the Citadel company as an example, there was a real danger there. If GameStop 's stock had skyrocketed, Citadel might have gone bankrupt .
Let's say it went for a thousand dollars . It can be said that there was a real risk of the Citadel going bankrupt . Because they were writing these options or had to cover short-term investments . Therefore, it seems that the clearing houses believed that if they, the market makers, went bankrupt, it would disrupt the entire system .
But as a user , it seemed like the goal was to bankrupt Citadel. Because they have made a short-term investment in this company that everyone loves . Why not let them go bankrupt? Let this be a lesson to them . Of course. So, I want to be clear , I have no loyalty to Citadel. Citadel is a very large company, they are not in danger of bankruptcy, but many of the hedge funds or other parties at the same table were in danger of bankruptcy.
What I think is, yes, Melvin's company, I do n't know the details of their risk limit or reserves, but it is common knowledge that they suffered heavy losses in short-term investments . If an account has 10 million, or in their case 10 billion, in equity, and they lose 12 billion , they are in debt .
They have gone bankrupt . The problem here is who will cover that $2 billion . What usually happens is that Melvin's client account with one of the large brokerage firms will be compensated for the difference by that broker or brokerage firm. Then, if the settlement company itself goes bankrupt, the entire system will cover the difference.
So, it was basically like DTC was trying to prevent an environment. They said, "Hey clearing houses, you need to prove that you have enough capital to cover these trades and that the losses won't be passed on to other parties," so that all the losses don't spread to others. That's why all the requirements were greatly increased .
Regarding the Robinhood platform , I think there is a significant amount of risk in the system due to their open positions and option positions. It is essential that clearing houses have strong capital to withstand such unexpected events (black swan events). Got it. What you're saying is that the DTC, that is, the people in the middle of the central system you mentioned, thought that Melvin, a short seller, shouldn't go bankrupt .
Because it would have caused financial losses for other clearing houses . So, in a way, the clearing companies, or DTC, tried to prevent Melvin from going bankrupt . Because they don't want to be responsible for any financial loss . Instead, they changed the requirements to make it harder for Melvin to go bankrupt .
So, it's a situation where the people in suits are protecting Melvin because they don't want to lose money . I'll be a little more specific about this , and I hope I don't cause any problems. I don't think there was any malicious intent in trying to help this situation by being at the hands of those wearing the TDC suit .
I think the DTC is emphasizing that all parties involved in trade must have the necessary capital to cover those trades. It's not clear if they have that capital, so they, as the central body that makes the rules , said you have to prove you have the capital to make these trades . I think this is why the unintended consequence you mention occurred; This left one segment of the market, retail investors , the ones who buy in large quantities , unable to buy .
This had a negative impact on the bond and put pressure on its price. In short , as you said, it had the effect of reducing the risk to suit wearers or short sellers . This reduced the exposure or risk for clearing houses , so that they would not suffer financial losses and damages . But, I don't think this was a decision made in some secret room .
I think there was an incredible amount of risk involved in the system . The central agency said you need to prove that you can handle this risk . The way brokers or clearing houses operated affected those on one side of the transaction, but it ultimately reduced risk and benefited those who sold or shorted, while hurting those who bought or longed the stock .
Got it. So, overall, the retail investors performed so well that the entire system could have been insolvent, with multiple bankruptcies and excessive exposure . We do n't know what the consequences of those impacts would have been, but of course, clearing houses, which are businesses, are looking out for their own interests .
They don't want to go bankrupt . So, they felt we needed to control this before it was too late. Although no one wants to be seen as controlling retail investors. That's basically what had to happen . Yes. No, that is a correct assessment . Many clearing houses are companies that cover losses if customers go bankrupt .
When you short trade or trade leveraged options , there is a chance that you will lose more than you have in your account. So, they always have an incentive to keep their customers from going bankrupt . So, this could be due to regulations or decisions made by companies on their own. They tried to relieve the pressure on the system a little.
So, it's not just that the SEC or the government is saying that this can't be allowed . This was actually a selfish decision by the clearing houses, they thought we would lose money if we didn't do anything. So I think it has two reasons . This means that clearing houses must meet the capital requirements of the DTC .
It is a regulated entity and shares are cleared accordingly . If DTC tells you not to do it , that's the only way to buy and sell shares and clear them. Therefore, they have to abide by their standards . When they say, "You must submit this collateral or you will be blocked, " they mean you must submit the collateral or you will be blocked .
If they don't have that network , they will decide for themselves what to do . Well, it's firstly about meeting regulatory requirements, and secondly, about reducing their risk exposure, which I don't think is a coincidence . For example, people selling GameStop shares reduced the risk exposure of these clearing houses , so it helped their regulatory needs while also helping them themselves .
It acts as a clearing house to reduce overall risk . Got it. Yes, the incentives were conflicting, and I think that hurt retail customers in this situation. You know, sometimes the opposite can happen. But I don't think this is an evil, planned perspective to lead to that conclusion . But the way the situation unfolded, actions were taken to hurt retail investors for the benefit of those on the other side of the trade .
Got it. This is a very strong opinion. You mentioned this , I don't know if this is what happened or if this is just an example , but you mentioned counterparty risk, and you said that clearing houses said that if Robinhood went bankrupt, all the other members would have to cover that loss. So, is it fair for other brokerages to blame Robinhood for the trades that took place and the risk of those options ?
I think others should come to a conclusion on that. To me , Robinhood, of course, they promote themselves as democratizers of finance , but in many ways, they promote short-term trading, meme stocks, and high-risk options trading , and that's fine, there's a need for that and people can do whatever they want with their money, but I think it's a little hypocritical to say that they're doing anything else beyond that .
And, while they encourage such behavior, I think they should be a big enough company to withstand it when it's truly necessary . So, you know, during major fluctuations like what we saw last March or during the coronavirus in February and March, they need to have the liquidity they need when these kinds of events happen , and only then can they provide the collateral to complete the trades.
So, when they take a position that supports credit- based short-term options trading and things like that , I think they need to have the business backend infrastructure to support that .
Comments 0