In 2023, the GDP will be 5In the case of 2% growth beyond expectations, A-shares continue to **; In the context of the financial work conference emphasizing the need to accelerate the construction of a financial power, A-shares continue to be a-shares; At the moment when neighboring countries have repeatedly hit new highs, A-shares have continued; In the case of the management constantly coming up with favorable policies, A-shares continue to be **....
There is a view that the reason for the downward trend is refinancing, quantitative trading, T+1 trading model, major shareholders and even public lending, etc. Lawyer Wang has not studied this matter and does not dare to speak out. However, it is also believed that the shareholders of listed companies violated the relevant provisions and commitments of the restricted sale period and lent the restricted sale through refinancing, which is indeed suspected of violating the rules. The focus of today's discussion is not on this issue.
Last night, I saw a clip of Professor Liu Jipeng's speech on my mobile phone, and the general content was that Professor Liu realized from his exchange with Liu Mouyu, the former head of the regulator, that Liu Mouyu did not want to ***
Beating people is all about hanging and beating, I don't let you hang me, how can you beat me? Professor Liu said, "He (Liu Mouyu) often expressed this point of view with me." Therefore, when the Shanghai Composite Index reaches 3,200 points, the China Securities Finance Company under the regulator will sell** and guide the market**; When the Shanghai Composite Index falls to 2,800 points, the China Securities Gold Company under the regulator will guide the index.
In other words, if the regulator thinks that the market index is high, it will let the China Securities Gold Company under its management choose to sell; If the regulator believes that the market index is low, it will let the China Securities Gold Company under its management choose**. In fact, this is equivalent to the regulator in the case of plus or minus 200 points around 3,000 points, that is, about 7% of the rise and fall, the regulator will operate and act as an athlete to adjust the index. But how this works has never been announced.
I finally know why there have been dozens of "3,000 point defense battles" over the years.
Judging from the information revealed in Professor Liu's speech, the regulators delineate the operating range of the stock index, which seems to be for the smooth operation of the market, but from the perspective of the overall trend of the country's economic operation, it has been upward for decades. As an economic barometer, how can it be limited to 7% of the upper and lower amplitudes? What is the legitimacy of the regulators to control the operating range of the stock index? Is it just for regulatory convenience?
Judging from the 16 main responsibilities published on the official website of the regulator, supervision and risk monitoring, analysis, evaluation, early warning, inspection, and disposal are its key points, and none of them involve the control of market indexes. In other words, the regulator's role does not include stabilizing the market index, let alone delineating the fluctuation range for the operation of the market index. Such an understanding of regulatory responsibilities reflects "fatherly" care, but it distorts the market and delineates the index operating range, which is tantamount to manipulating the market.
Article 182 of the Criminal Law stipulates the crime of manipulation and market manipulation. One of the circumstances that constitute a crime is "a person who, alone or in conspiracy, concentrates a financial advantage, a shareholding or position advantage, or uses an information advantage to jointly or continuously buy and sell". Assuming that the views held by Liu Mouyu, the former head of the regulatory agency mentioned in Professor Liu's speech, are true, and the China Securities Finance Company, which is affiliated to the regulator, does indeed operate in that way, but does not announce it, isn't that "taking advantage of information advantages" to buy and sell**?
At this point, I feel that the problem is really unusual, because the regulator or its company is suspected of committing a crime. This is because the second paragraph of Article 182 of the Criminal Law stipulates that "where a unit commits the crime in the preceding paragraph, the unit shall be fined, and the directly responsible managers and other directly responsible personnel shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph." ”