Jim Cramer: Robinhood's IPO Debacle Shows How Little Has Changed Over the Decades_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Jim Cramer: Robinhood's IPO Debacle Shows How Little Has Changed Over the Decades

The Street2021-07-31

Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood (HOOD) -Get Report have done to avoid the IPO debacle? I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge,...

网页链接

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

869

winsolutions
·2021-08-01
Robinhood is a good platform because of free transaction fee, but no so attractive for investor bcos will be very challenging to sustain positive bottoming.
回复
点赞
举报
Shop
·2021-08-01
ok
回复
1
举报
LeeWan
·2021-08-01
Good
回复
1
举报
收起
- Shop:
  ok
  2021-08-01
  回复
  举报
Chrystle
·2021-08-01
Greed & stupidity, the fundamentals of humanity 😅
回复
点赞
举报
Vincentlow
·2021-08-01
Can buy and hold?
回复
点赞
举报
收起
- LeeWan:
  Buybuybuy
  2021-08-01
  回复
  举报
Melvinleong
·2021-08-01
Interesting.
回复
4
举报
kukumolu
·2021-08-01
Short
回复
2
举报
moyj01
·2021-07-31
Oo ic
回复
2
举报
收起
- kukumolu:
  ik
  2021-08-01
  回复
  举报
Chasiu
·2021-07-31
Good
回复
1
举报
7a1f5064
·2021-07-31
What a disaster
回复
3
举报
lawrenceheng
·2021-07-31
Great
回复
1
举报
lawrenceheng
·2021-07-31
Nice
回复
1
举报
Rabbani
·2021-07-31
Like for like?
回复
2
举报
收起
- newbe1001:
  ok
  2021-08-01
  回复
  举报
WaiT
·2021-07-31
ok
回复
1
举报
收起
- Bhaga:
  [Miser]
  2021-07-31
  回复
  举报
chong189
·2021-07-31
Ok
回复
1
举报
Bluetan
·2021-07-31
Hmm
回复
3
举报
收起
- spin37gy:
  Hmm....
  2021-08-02
  回复
  举报
- cuteypie:
  wolves of wall street
  2021-07-31
  回复
  举报
Alexwoo8487
·2021-07-31
Ok
回复
1
举报
收起
- Bluetan:
  Pls like and comment. :)
  2021-07-31
  回复
  举报
- Alexwoo8487:
  Hi
  2021-07-31
  回复
  举报
Qinfeng
·2021-07-31
.
回复
1
举报
IcySilver
·2021-07-31
Going IPO always has its risks. It’s the ultimate free market concept where true demandand supply comes in but it also attracts a lotof speculators. As the saying goes, speculation is the name of the game! Just need to beon the right side of the game if you’re market participants.$DiDi Global Inc.(DIDI)$
回复
8
举报
收起
- pop3:
  Agreed totally, excabated if intial investors have a lock up period and let go by then. 75% of IPOs always underperform
  2021-07-31
  回复
  举报
- Meowlisa:
  Nice work
  2021-07-31
  回复
  举报
- 100EMAS:
  Bear market now. Will crash after IPO.
  2021-07-31
  回复
  举报
Redbull97
·2021-07-31
Ok
回复
2
举报

热议股票

7x24

全部

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1152039134?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-07-31 07:50","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1152039134","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Jim Cramer: Robinhood's IPO Debacle Shows How Little Has Changed Over the Decades","media":"The Street","content":"<div>\nTake 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,...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1610613172068","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</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: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\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\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-31 07:50 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21>The Street</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nTake 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,...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"HOOD","symbol_name":"Robinhood","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21","article_id":"1152039134","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1152039134","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"lsy1610613172068","name":"The Street"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed.\n\nWhat should Robinhood (HOOD) -Get Repor","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"thestreet.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"HOOD":"Robinhood"},"translate_title":"吉姆·克莱默：罗宾汉的IPO失败表明了几十年来变化是多么的小","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"HOOD":0.9},"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.","kind":"news","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":0,"need_auth":false,"code":"91000000","status":"200"},"commentList":[{"id":802249714,"gmtCreate":1627784409438,"gmtModify":1633756432163,"author":{"id":"3575266857809379","authorId":"3575266857809379","name":"winsolutions","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c8492fc9bd10e2e8776eef02572e8fca","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3575266857809379","idStr":"3575266857809379"},"htmlText":"Robinhood is a good platform because of free transaction fee, but no so attractive for investor bcos will be very challenging to sustain positive bottoming.&nbsp;","listText":"Robinhood is a good platform because of free transaction fee, but no so attractive for investor bcos will be very challenging to sustain positive bottoming.&nbsp;","text":"Robinhood is a good platform because of free transaction fee, but no so attractive for investor bcos will be very challenging to sustain positive bottoming.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802249714","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802218408,"gmtCreate":1627782190304,"gmtModify":1631893911577,"author":{"id":"3582022994702843","authorId":"3582022994702843","name":"Shop","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d361fd3c4c5677fff3957e6d430ecb52","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3582022994702843","idStr":"3582022994702843"},"htmlText":"ok","listText":"ok","text":"ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802218408","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802232720,"gmtCreate":1627781726760,"gmtModify":1633756484934,"author":{"id":"3558097748623340","authorId":"3558097748623340","name":"LeeWan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88769849d29a340fce73355c249755a4","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3558097748623340","idStr":"3558097748623340"},"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802232720","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5391347,"gmtCreate":1627782201463,"gmtModify":1635163076505,"authorId":3582022994702843,"author":{"id":3582022994702843,"idStr":"3582022994702843","authorId":3582022994702843,"name":"Shop","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d361fd3c4c5677fff3957e6d430ecb52","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802232720,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"ok","text":"ok","html":"ok"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802624538,"gmtCreate":1627778338724,"gmtModify":1631891000299,"author":{"id":"3581937435371995","authorId":"3581937435371995","name":"Chrystle","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/80b86f795c68307e6ba22af2f6ae6a67","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3581937435371995","idStr":"3581937435371995"},"htmlText":"Greed &amp; stupidity, the fundamentals of humanity 😅","listText":"Greed &amp; stupidity, the fundamentals of humanity 😅","text":"Greed & stupidity, the fundamentals of humanity 😅","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802624538","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802695823,"gmtCreate":1627774807762,"gmtModify":1633756593469,"author":{"id":"3585213163276185","authorId":"3585213163276185","name":"Vincentlow","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/003f31cdc98268304d3b8164769c3e16","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3585213163276185","idStr":"3585213163276185"},"htmlText":"Can buy and hold?","listText":"Can buy and hold?","text":"Can buy and hold?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802695823","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5391276,"gmtCreate":1627781742922,"gmtModify":1635163084133,"authorId":3558097748623340,"author":{"id":3558097748623340,"idStr":"3558097748623340","authorId":3558097748623340,"name":"LeeWan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/88769849d29a340fce73355c249755a4","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802695823,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Buybuybuy","text":"Buybuybuy","html":"Buybuybuy"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802696892,"gmtCreate":1627774490716,"gmtModify":1633756595282,"author":{"id":"4089547170637760","authorId":"4089547170637760","name":"Melvinleong","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c77ae67b370b71710abcb7f140ebfe3e","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"4089547170637760","idStr":"4089547170637760"},"htmlText":"Interesting.&nbsp;","listText":"Interesting.&nbsp;","text":"Interesting.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802696892","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802885098,"gmtCreate":1627751721714,"gmtModify":1633756654775,"author":{"id":"3581984006176179","authorId":"3581984006176179","name":"kukumolu","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/968c9b6dacd85f184faef66f2db6a7a7","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3581984006176179","idStr":"3581984006176179"},"htmlText":"Short","listText":"Short","text":"Short","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802885098","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802890350,"gmtCreate":1627744902070,"gmtModify":1633756686569,"author":{"id":"3578449019915874","authorId":"3578449019915874","name":"moyj01","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/557103bfe5f7a61991148045d25babf3","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3578449019915874","idStr":"3578449019915874"},"htmlText":"Oo ic","listText":"Oo ic","text":"Oo ic","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802890350","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5389611,"gmtCreate":1627751730041,"gmtModify":1635163251305,"authorId":3581984006176179,"author":{"id":3581984006176179,"idStr":"3581984006176179","authorId":3581984006176179,"name":"kukumolu","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/968c9b6dacd85f184faef66f2db6a7a7","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802890350,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"ik","text":"ik","html":"ik"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802127441,"gmtCreate":1627737842583,"gmtModify":1633756720885,"author":{"id":"4089870956727770","authorId":"4089870956727770","name":"Chasiu","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/74c3d711eeaf968a5bdba4ff5db8150b","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"4089870956727770","idStr":"4089870956727770"},"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802127441","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802187755,"gmtCreate":1627734508777,"gmtModify":1633756738553,"author":{"id":"4089720653683940","authorId":"4089720653683940","name":"7a1f5064","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"4089720653683940","idStr":"4089720653683940"},"htmlText":"What a disaster&nbsp;","listText":"What a disaster&nbsp;","text":"What a disaster","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802187755","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802187685,"gmtCreate":1627734428147,"gmtModify":1633756738919,"author":{"id":"4090836998063400","authorId":"4090836998063400","name":"lawrenceheng","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/027ab24dc25029d9fb26480627b77867","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"4090836998063400","idStr":"4090836998063400"},"htmlText":"Great","listText":"Great","text":"Great","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802187685","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802187901,"gmtCreate":1627734367503,"gmtModify":1633756739280,"author":{"id":"4090836998063400","authorId":"4090836998063400","name":"lawrenceheng","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/027ab24dc25029d9fb26480627b77867","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"4090836998063400","idStr":"4090836998063400"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802187901","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802139550,"gmtCreate":1627729624570,"gmtModify":1633756763053,"author":{"id":"4088680581294190","authorId":"4088680581294190","name":"Rabbani","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fa0dc93a68fa410249f2e529f3acf988","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"4088680581294190","idStr":"4088680581294190"},"htmlText":"Like for like?","listText":"Like for like?","text":"Like for like?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802139550","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5389959,"gmtCreate":1627770734058,"gmtModify":1635163221557,"authorId":3579598681489240,"author":{"id":3579598681489240,"idStr":"3579598681489240","authorId":3579598681489240,"name":"newbe1001","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4766ee30ada4a9df74dddcb9ae1d7131","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802139550,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"ok","text":"ok","html":"ok"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802390717,"gmtCreate":1627714430139,"gmtModify":1633756850804,"author":{"id":"3566113286181493","authorId":"3566113286181493","name":"WaiT","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/95e483a63eb4a16bf1bfd465b89d28b1","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3566113286181493","idStr":"3566113286181493"},"htmlText":"ok","listText":"ok","text":"ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802390717","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5387642,"gmtCreate":1627720580221,"gmtModify":1635163426163,"authorId":3585145250045622,"author":{"id":3585145250045622,"idStr":"3585145250045622","authorId":3585145250045622,"name":"Bhaga","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8df89f7cbf6306c898f1bc0eef701a29","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802390717,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"[Miser]","text":"[Miser]","html":"[Miser]"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802308209,"gmtCreate":1627713508501,"gmtModify":1633756855788,"author":{"id":"4089279707525330","authorId":"4089279707525330","name":"chong189","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9e54877e37a14aa4940efa52e3a31fe4","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"4089279707525330","idStr":"4089279707525330"},"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802308209","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802308164,"gmtCreate":1627713447858,"gmtModify":1631890004824,"author":{"id":"3574045310314391","authorId":"3574045310314391","name":"Bluetan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f08bbb20e6f394d74fc7020c446c6248","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3574045310314391","idStr":"3574045310314391"},"htmlText":"Hmm","listText":"Hmm","text":"Hmm","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802308164","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5400205,"gmtCreate":1627878502678,"gmtModify":1631890004846,"authorId":3574212983712096,"author":{"id":3574212983712096,"idStr":"3574212983712096","authorId":3574212983712096,"name":"spin37gy","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/97dfcecfb7a4ab4bcb3c2ae6bb551e51","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802308164,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Hmm....","text":"Hmm....","html":"Hmm...."},{"id":5387123,"gmtCreate":1627713923057,"gmtModify":1631890004825,"authorId":3546519093286207,"author":{"id":3546519093286207,"idStr":"3546519093286207","authorId":3546519093286207,"name":"cuteypie","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/324f57345522368552a82de3cf71ed5f","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802308164,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"wolves of wall street","text":"wolves of wall street","html":"wolves of wall street"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802309577,"gmtCreate":1627712998799,"gmtModify":1633756857986,"author":{"id":"4087825259171550","authorId":"4087825259171550","name":"Alexwoo8487","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"4087825259171550","idStr":"4087825259171550"},"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802309577","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5387088,"gmtCreate":1627713441831,"gmtModify":1635163473274,"authorId":3574045310314391,"author":{"id":3574045310314391,"idStr":"3574045310314391","authorId":3574045310314391,"name":"Bluetan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f08bbb20e6f394d74fc7020c446c6248","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802309577,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Pls like and comment. :)","text":"Pls like and comment. :)","html":"Pls like and comment. :)"},{"id":5388503,"gmtCreate":1627733641063,"gmtModify":1635163351395,"authorId":4087825259171550,"author":{"id":4087825259171550,"idStr":"4087825259171550","authorId":4087825259171550,"name":"Alexwoo8487","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802309577,"type":1,"supId":5387088,"prevId":0,"content":"Hi","text":"Hi","html":"Hi"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802961072,"gmtCreate":1627707810696,"gmtModify":1633756900539,"author":{"id":"4090810599054150","authorId":"4090810599054150","name":"Qinfeng","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2758f3b64df8d974fd47a9b4fb08ef67","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"4090810599054150","idStr":"4090810599054150"},"htmlText":".&nbsp;","listText":".&nbsp;","text":".","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802961072","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802903723,"gmtCreate":1627703477862,"gmtModify":1633756942617,"author":{"id":"3574577404599862","authorId":"3574577404599862","name":"IcySilver","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/484d3b69652c2ca3d6cd65bc1007a60b","vip":2,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3574577404599862","idStr":"3574577404599862"},"htmlText":"Going IPO always has its risks. It’s the ultimate free market concept where true demandand supply comes in but it also attracts a lotof speculators. As the saying goes, speculation is the name of the game! Just need to beon the right side of the game if you’re market participants.<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIDI\">$DiDi Global Inc.(DIDI)$</a>","listText":"Going IPO always has its risks. It’s the ultimate free market concept where true demandand supply comes in but it also attracts a lotof speculators. As the saying goes, speculation is the name of the game! Just need to beon the right side of the game if you’re market participants.<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIDI\">$DiDi Global Inc.(DIDI)$</a>","text":"Going IPO always has its risks. It’s the ultimate free market concept where true demandand supply comes in but it also attracts a lotof speculators. As the saying goes, speculation is the name of the game! Just need to beon the right side of the game if you’re market participants.$DiDi Global Inc.(DIDI)$","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802903723","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5386758,"gmtCreate":1627709313019,"gmtModify":1631895122304,"authorId":4090242229859660,"author":{"id":4090242229859660,"idStr":"4090242229859660","authorId":4090242229859660,"name":"pop3","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31b0c6e3208f47bb4772de4a61d92518","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802903723,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Agreed totally, excabated if intial investors have a lock up period and let go by then. 75% of IPOs always underperform ","text":"Agreed totally, excabated if intial investors have a lock up period and let go by then. 75% of IPOs always underperform ","html":"Agreed totally, excabated if intial investors have a lock up period and let go by then. 75% of IPOs always underperform "},{"id":5386452,"gmtCreate":1627705806411,"gmtModify":1631895122295,"authorId":3585789628360174,"author":{"id":3585789628360174,"idStr":"3585789628360174","authorId":3585789628360174,"name":"Meowlisa","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/58270741e0ab10cea7b2f37b150c6bef","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802903723,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Nice work","text":"Nice work","html":"Nice work"},{"id":5386386,"gmtCreate":1627705231929,"gmtModify":1631895122285,"authorId":3570479349727470,"author":{"id":3570479349727470,"idStr":"3570479349727470","authorId":3570479349727470,"name":"100EMAS","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1a7c31b79e7bff28841c5f18dca737f4","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":802903723,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Bear market now. Will crash after IPO.","text":"Bear market now. Will crash after IPO.","html":"Bear market now. Will crash after IPO."}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":802077142,"gmtCreate":1627703081286,"gmtModify":1631891948925,"author":{"id":"3560821847719018","authorId":"3560821847719018","name":"Redbull97","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d317a33208fcb7b6089b04f6bd63aa58","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3560821847719018","idStr":"3560821847719018"},"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802077142","repostId":1152039134,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152039134","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627689014,"share":"https://www.laohu8.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惨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":" Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>","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惨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惨败表明几十年来变化很小</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Street2021-07-31 07:50\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Take it from a guy who knows, the process is really flawed. What should Robinhood&nbsp;(HOOD) -Get Report&nbsp;have done to avoid the IPO debacle?<blockquote>听一个知道的人说，这个过程真的有缺陷。罗宾汉应该做什么（发动机罩)-获取报告为避免IPO失败做了哪些工作？</blockquote> I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, who was in charge, who argued for what.<blockquote>我不能说周四发生了什么，谁是负责人，谁为什么辩护。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我只能告诉你22年前TheStreet.com上市时我争论了什么。首先，作为创始人，我决心用股票奖励所有订阅者，以表明我对他们的忠诚。</blockquote> 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?<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。为什么不把很多留在桌面上，让新投资者做好呢？</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，我希望有足够多的股票交给好人，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流程中，通过批量市场订单、开仓过高然后做空股票来劫持开盘。一路下跌。</blockquote> I lost on every single point.<blockquote>我在每一点上都输了。</blockquote> The underwriters said we could not allocate to subscribers.<blockquote>承销商说我们不能分配给认购者。</blockquote> Second, the price of the deal would not be controlled to where we could have a small pop so everyone would win.<blockquote>第二，交易的价格不会被控制在我们可以有一个小的流行，这样每个人都会赢。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>第三，场外订单，即那些下市价订单的人，是由一家名为Knight Securities的机构分批的，而不是承销商高盛，开盘价是62美元——甚至不清楚开盘价是多少，太混乱了——交易到66美元，就像Robinhood交易到39美元然后改变，然后再也没有交易更高。</blockquote> Everyone who bought that day lost money.<blockquote>那天买的都亏了。</blockquote> Everyone who sold that day made money.<blockquote>那天卖出的每个人都赚钱了。</blockquote> No subscribers got in, most bought at the opening, from what I can tell, and I alienated everyone except the big dogs.<blockquote>据我所知，没有订户进来，大多数是在开盘时买的，我疏远了除了大狗之外的所有人。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>令人惊讶的是，我们现在是2021年，这个过程虽然让客户进入，但却未能定价，因此Robinhood将钱留在了桌面上。相信我，这是可能的。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，他们也知道现在是什么。</blockquote> 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.<blockquote>我一直对发生的事感到后悔。大多数人责怪我，因为我是这个过程的代言人。我被它的可怕程度震惊了，没有“从长计议”，因为从长计议很糟糕。</blockquote> 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.<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> 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.<blockquote>因此，我们坐下来，惊叹于这笔交易进行得有多糟糕，尽管它完全在承销商和委托人的范围内，所以罗宾汉留下了更多。</blockquote> Greed?<blockquote>贪婪？</blockquote> Stupidity?<blockquote>愚蠢？</blockquote> How about poor execution and a lack of transparency that shows how badly it was handled.<blockquote>糟糕的执行和缺乏透明度表明事情处理得有多糟糕怎么样？</blockquote> Just like the offering ofTheStreet.com.<blockquote>就像TheStreet.com的产品一样。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/cramer-robinhood-ipo-debacle-thestreet-7-30-21\">The Street</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\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,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":869,"commentSize":77,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false},"isCrawlerRequest":true}