Huang Xiangyuan: To Curb Excessive Trading Of Index Futures, "Timely Rain" Should Go Down.

The vision of CICC finally discovered "abnormal" and "unhealthy" from "normal" and "healthy", and put the prevention and suppression of excessive intra day trading on the agenda.

Stock index futures are essentially risk management tools. As a result, they ignored the function of the hedging function and the guidance of the hedging culture at the beginning, especially the institutional investors who did not allow the hedging requirements to enter the market in time.

From this point of view, regulators need to accelerate the opening of the gate guidance mechanism.

Excessive intra day trading makes China's stock index futures only reach a short time in some short time, and even exceeds the volume of volume that some mature markets have realized for ten years or even more. However, the rise in volume is not a reflection of investors' willingness to hold positions, but rather an astonishing high turnover rate.

That is to say, a trader's purchase of a futures contract is not to achieve the intrinsic value of the contract through the future due delivery, but to sell it in order to make a difference in the short line game with others.

Objectively speaking, the current trading mechanism means that the short-term arbitrage paction can not only be repeated pactions, but also can be frequently traded, and even frequently "more than 10 pactions per second in the market".

Over - day trading makes traders who enter the futures market earns a full bowl.

It has been reported that a ten million level margin trader made 9 million of the day's entry into the market. This fully reflects the leverage significance of the index, which is different from the traditional stock market, but to some extent, it may lead to misleading the arbitrage function of the index.

Because traders themselves do not have stock or spot, they can arbitrage speculation through excessive intraday pactions of futures contracts, which makes traders think that futures trading is a super big bet of "meeting each other with courage".

The indulgence of excessive intra day trading is not only the market function of futures trading, but also the risk impulse of price manipulation.

Not long ago, CIC's timely discovery and processing of self purchase cases was a good illustration.

In fact, in addition to buying and selling itself, the greater risk of futures trading will lurk in procedural pactions.

Because programmed instruction is more rapid, the procedural price manipulation behind the flash trading and decentralized instruction, bidding price raising and continuous trading is more fraudulent and dangerous.

Procedural trading has opened up high frequency trading space for institutional investors, but for relatively vulnerable investment groups, it means greater risks.

Therefore, to prevent and curb excessive intra day trading, we need more eyes to focus on procedural trading.

So, to prevent and curb excessive intra day trading does not mean that it is necessary to abandon the T+0 and implement the T+1? If the futures trading can only take a step back to the T+1 of the stock market, it obviously does not meet the requirements of the hedging balance risk of the index futures.

In fact, T+0 should not be simply equivalent to frequent frequent trading in the same trading day. According to foreign experience, T+0 has limited restrictions on swing trading.

The United States not only identifies traders who trade more than a certain number of times in 5 trading days as "typical frequent traders", but also has a minimum net value restriction and strict monitoring of typical frequent traders, but also does not allow for a revolving paction in cash accounts, and can only turn pactions in credit trading accounts.