Recently, A-shares have not been good, and the index is hovering at 3,000 points. Shareholders were outraged.
The refinancing system has become the focus of online verbal criticism. Because under the refinancing system, large investors and institutions can borrow and lend securities to make profits, and some major shareholders can also take advantage of this loophole in disguise.
* They do not have this tool, and they become lambs to the slaughter, to be slaughtered.
This argument sounds reasonable, but when analyzed on closer inspection, it is nonsense.
The refinancing system, i.e., margin financing and securities lending, was piloted in 2010 and officially expanded and implemented in 2011. So before that, isn't it a leek?
The launch of margin financing and securities lending business itself also draws on the experience of the previous sharp rise and fall and the cutting of stock leeks. To provide institutions with a short-selling tool to stabilize the index** and avoid **suffering greater losses. It is also a measure to protect shareholders at the request of **.
In the A-shares before 2011, especially in the wave of 2007, because there was no short-selling mechanism constraints, a lot of garbage was pulled to a high level of dozens of times by the bookmaker, attracting **to take over and then **cut leeks. The introduction of the securities lending system is to create counterparties for these market makers and limit the speculation of market makers. If there is no skyrocketing**, it is not easy to be cut.
However, after all, a system is a system, and if there is a system, there will be loopholes. No matter how good the system is, it protects investors, not gamblers.
The dealer cuts the leeks, and the gamblers who cut the **, which cannot be cut by real investors. Because a company is made up of value, it can only fluctuate around value. Real investors will no longer buy when they are far above the value, nor will they sell when they are below the value. No matter how high the stock price is, the dealer will not take the order, and no matter how low it is smashed, he will not be afraid to sell, how to cut?In the end, we still have to return to value.
Similarly, ** blames the CSRC for lax regulation, and some junk companies go public. But if it's a value investor, why would a company buy it if you know it's junk?
Some people say that the information is blocked, and they don't know that it is a garbage company. Then the question comes again, you don't know what kind of company this company is, why do you want to buy him for the company?So many large state-owned enterprises with clear fundamentals, why don't they buy good companies that pay dividends every year?
* That's it, if you invest in the market and follow the development of the enterprise to make money, you won't lose money.
On the contrary, if you treat ** as a casino and expect to get rich overnight, you are a gambler. It's going to be lost.
Expecting any system to protect it is and self-consolation.