A Shares Four Trading Days Fusing Four Times May Be Really Wrong.

Why many policies and measures were introduced from last year to clean up the over-the-counter allocation and investment, and the two financial crisis, to crack down on the futures market's malicious shorting, which has repeatedly demonstrated the loss of the regulators and the painful cost of the return. The cost is always borne by the market and borne by the investors. In the event of a slight fuse, the regulators made five mistakes in the five major mistakes.

Who says there is nothing new in the sun? A shares fuse four times in four trading days, and 14 minutes complete a day's trading.

At the beginning of the year of monkey, A shares played a unique role in monkey production, and it was just a trick of learning - fusing.

On the first trading day of the new year, the fusing new game was played out, though it was somewhat strange, which led to complaints among investors. But then a group of experts helped to remove the blame for the fusing mechanism. "The collapse of the A shares can not be blamed on the fusing mechanism". "The slump comes from the lack of confidence rather than the fuse." the stock market decline has nothing to do with the fusing mechanism.

As a result, A shares had the courage to continue to "drill" the technology of fusion after three days.

In January 7th, 13 minutes into the opening, it quickly entered the "fuse" role, and from 5% fusing threshold to 7% second threshold in only 1 minutes, only 14 minutes to complete the standard action of fusing.

This kind of "magic skill" is also unprecedented in China and the world stock market.

When the fusing mechanism was finally declared suspended in the voice of condemnation of the national stock market, perhaps the anxious shareholders may be following the public opinion with the help of hand and thank God.

But from the perspective of investors or financial observers, I can not feel at ease.

Despite the sober analysis, there are many factors behind the two fuses, such as exchange rate policy, insurance regulation policy, reduction policy and fusing new deal. However, the fusing mechanism is undoubtedly a catalyst for the stock market crash and even a fuse.

In the absence of major bad news, A shares ended in just a half hour. Is it not a major accident? Or there are investors who joke that the four fuses are a "test". So the cost of such a test is too luxurious. Is the eight regulation OK?

Indeed, fusing is a mechanism for preventing market risks.

Through the setting of fusing threshold value, investors can have sufficient time to digest market information and sober thinking, reduce the impact of irrational factors, prevent irrational fluctuations of market or product, and maintain market stability from the perspective of trading mechanism.

Moreover, this mechanism is also a common practice in the securities market all over the world.

Therefore, the original intention of regulators to protect investors is undeniable.

"I am going to go to the bright moon, how can the moon shine on the ditches"? Is this the sorrow of the regulators? The A shares are not only the vast majority of investors but also the wisdom of regulators.

Since melting is a good mechanism, why do we get the A share market in China? The experts immediately gave various explanations: the setting of fusing threshold is unreasonable, the interval is too narrow, the time of fusing "rest" is too short, the A shares T+1 and the 10% rise and fall limit are contrasted with the international mature market T+0 and no rise and fall restrictions.

But I think the collapse of the fusing mechanism actually reflects the level and efficiency of the regulators again. The regulators lack the basic prediction and prevention ability for the problems that may arise in the stock market, and reflect the slow lag. They show numbness and stagnation in advance, the lack of hands and feet in the matter, and the pale and weak afterwards.

Should regulators not be pushed by the "accident" to reflect profoundly, where is the problem of supervision? Why is it repeatedly criticized by shareholders?

Apart from the various possible benefits of rent-seeking, from the point of view of regulatory technology, the author believes that when regulators learn various advanced experiences in the West and introduce various advanced tools, they lack adequate research and analysis of their market and their own regulatory objects, and show a strange sense of strangeness to the "ecology" of their stock markets, which is the key to the problem.

The overall performance is five major defects:

One is that China's stock market is a retail market, and thus lacks the foresight of big probability events.

The biggest hidden danger in the retail market is the avalanche and stampede behind herding.

This lesson has been most vividly demonstrated in last year's stock market crash caused by the over-the-counter allocation and the two financial integration.

It is vaguely clear that every time cleaning up the distribution of funds outside the stadium and the voice of the two financial melts will trigger a wave of tragic decline in the market, and the injured are always scattered.

In the sharp shock of the stock market, the image of the black sheep with the capital market has long been revealed.

The crux of the matter is, why can not we carefully study the dangerous characteristics of OTC distribution before making a decision?

If we really study, we should not and should not choose to sell when the market is extremely fragile. If the reason for cleaning up is reasonable, then where is the supervision at the beginning and then when the signs are in the first place?

Two, it ignores the fact that Chinese stock market lacks the "fixed sea god needle". The listed companies lack the concept of market value management, and investors lack the concept of value investment.

This is probably the root cause of A shares fluctuating and unable to withstand a storm.

When it comes to the volatility of A shares, experts may also blame the retail investors for their speculative, greedy and unstable mentality.

But we may have overlooked an important fact that the speculation of retail investors or the speculative nature of A shares came from the irregularities and dishonesty of listed companies.

Compared with other mature markets, the listed companies in the A share market can not pay dividends for a long period of time. They can perform well and maintain a lower share price. Executives of listed companies can immediately violate their commitments and reduce their holdings on a large scale after the listing of shares.

Listed companies lack the market value management concept. Once executives have reduced their holdings, they will be indifferent to the market value of the company, and "manage him to flood". Imagine that such a market, the value investment concept is safe, this situation will inevitably lead to speculation of investors, and inevitably make the market "in a stormy way" in speculation.

Three is the neglect of universal existence.

False phenomenon.

There is no doubt that the fraud of listed companies is common among A shares. It is common to compile false annual guarantees, carry out false restructuring and malicious heavy phenomena.

Some listed companies are not to revitalize quality assets and expand investment, but to restructure their stock prices.

Some listed companies are over

But there is no specific project or investment direction, and even raise funds for the two level market speculation.

What I always do not understand is why many problems have long been exposed. For example, how can the "monster stocks" of all day technology, such as stormy technology and all day technology, become arrogant? For example, how can some zombie enterprises become the "undead" of the stock market, and, for example, the performance falsification of listed companies exposed frequently? Why should we wait until the problem has already violated the public anger and has been covered up?

The "Devil share" storm technology that once made investors staggering, 39 trading boards on 54 trading days, 39 pedal ups and downs, who could believe that regulation would not be heard at all? What's more, in accordance with the rules of exchange pactions, the closing price of 3 consecutive trading days deviated more than 20% (ST, *ST is + 15%). Abnormal fluctuations need temporary suspension.

Four, the timing of relevant policies is not mature enough, and the consequences are foreseen.

The key is that there is a lack of estimation and avoidance of events and consequences that may foresee and will resonate.

For example, for the coming of the major shareholder's trillion dollar reduction in January 8th, the "reduction ban" issued in July 8, 2015 should be foreseen. Why should the implementation of the fusing mechanism be arranged in this "sealing wave"?

Moreover, in the setting of fusing thresholds 5% and 7%, there is also a lack of basic estimation of the state of the market hitting the melting point.

People familiar with the A share market know what the situation is when the Shanghai and Shenzhen 300 index falls below 5% and what is the situation when it falls below 7%. At this time, thousands of shares of the stock market will inevitably show up. Most of the stocks are already on the down board.

Some reversal opportunities are completely strangled?

Will not lead to the market "blood loss"? Moreover, the two set of fuses threshold value, for the already strung A shares investors, is equivalent to adding a panic line, will inevitably produce magnetic attraction effect.

These are obviously unforeseen and unwise practices.

The five is blind confidence, lack of judgement on the development trend of the market.

After the stock market crash last year, the performance of regulators should be remembers: after the collapse of the market, the rescue measures of the regulatory authorities were very painful. Not only did they not suspend or reduce IPO, but they were still at the critical time of the third week of the stock market crash. They also stubbornly announced the issuance arrangements of the 28 stocks, which made the market extremely disappointed, so that the funds accelerated to withdraw and the stock market crash intensified.

From the international experience, it is generally necessary to take account of market trading demand and supervise the time needed for emergency disposal. Mature markets are generally over 6.5 hours, and the main Asian Pacific markets are generally more than 5 hours, such as the NYSE and Nasdaq trading time is 6.5 hours, and the Korea Exchange and Brazil are 6 hours and 7.5 hours respectively. A

Therefore, these markets have relatively large elastic space when they fuse.

How can He Lai, a regulator of the regulator, think in 15 minutes and understand what has happened in the market?

Behind the regulatory omission and regulatory chaos, the regulatory gap and excessive supervision is the lack of regulatory accountability system.

Not only the stock market, but also the problems in other fields, such as finance, health care, food safety, and so on, which are closely related to the regulatory ineffective and omission of the regulatory departments. The deep-seated reason is the lack of accountability for supervision, or even the accountability clause.

The regulation of market chaos calls for regulation, and the enhancement of regulatory effectiveness needs to be rooted in accountability.

When supervision accountability is truly landed, the market side must be clear.

Sleepless night.

A sleepless night is looking forward to the dawn of A shares.

Economics has an opportunity cost increasing rule: under the established economic resources and production technology conditions, the opportunity cost generated by the increase in the output per unit of a product increases.

When problems continue to accumulate and risks continue to accumulate, the cost of regulation will inevitably conform to the incremental rule.

Just imagine, if the regulatory authorities can really perform their duties at the very beginning and make decisive decisions against the chaos of the market, how can they harm the innocent retail investors?

It is worth reflecting on why the introduction of many policy measures, from last year's clearance of the OTC capital allocation to the two financial crisis, to the blow up of the futures market, has led to the loss of the regulators and the painful cost of the return. The cost is always borne by the market and borne by the shareholders.