"Save The Market" Measures Should Follow Market Rules

In the case of a stock market crash, because of the fall from 15 in June 15th to 30% in early July, and the market capitalization of 20 trillion yuan, the wealth still exists, but it has left the stock market, and the people who earn money are no longer in the market. They take foreign houses to buy money and go away to earn money. This is the wealth pfer, the people who are in the stock market, and why the Chinese stock market is so cattle. It is because the foreign funds come in, this time they move the funds out of the field, and the wealth goes to other people's hands, including the illegal reduction of the executives, and their resignation is not subject to this restriction.

Why, profit, no run, and they know it's going to fall.

So in this case, the stock market has dropped, and the rate of decline has been very fast. It is faster than 2007 to 2008. The rate of 2008 should be deeper than that, because it dropped one thousand points from six thousand points, but the time is a little longer. This year is a month to drop so much, so everyone is in a panic. The government also says that measures should be taken to save the market quickly.

On Monday, July 6th, we officially started the "bailout".

First, suspend the issue of new shares, and second support the company to buy shares from the market.

Third, support brokers buying stocks.

The securities and Futures Commission held a meeting with the securities dealers. The 21 brokerages issued a statement saying that before 4500 o'clock, our own funds would not be sold, but this led the retired chairman of CITIC Securities, Wang Dongming.

Is this the same thing? It's not the same thing at all. The deal is on both sides. Do you buy it or not? What do you buy, what you buy, the paction is on both sides, so this statement is simply unthinkable, and actually it has not been observed.

Has the state owned company maintained its stock holdings, cleaned up the illegal distribution of funds on the off-site, standardized margin trading, restricted stock index futures trading, combating and punishing insider trading, rigging market and securities fraud, and stabilizing the stock market?

To achieve what purpose, who can say clearly what to achieve? Is it to pull the stock market 5000 points, or to solve the problem of lack of liquidity or restore investor confidence? No one can tell.

I also put forward 6 measures, which I mentioned in a meeting of Tsinghua University, and the newspapers also came up. The 6 measures I mentioned were similar to this, but I did not mention administrative solutions to these problems.

We have to follow the rules of the market, so the question of whether the "rescue market" can be summed up, so we began to "save the market" in July 6th. In August 6th, I wrote an article on my blog. All the websites were reprinted. The title is "the fundamental problem of China's capital market lies in the institutional defects". I began to say this paragraph. I said that the measures to maintain the stability of the stock market were put forward in July 6th for a whole month. It should be said that these measures to stabilize the market will play a certain role in stabilizing the market and restoring investor confidence. It can not be said that it has not worked, but it is too early to say that the market has been stable. There is still more work to be done to maintain the long-term development of the capital market.

Over the past year, the stock market roller coaster market, as well as the stability measures taken in recent months, need to think, reflect and summarize.

So where is the argument here? My "bailout" is quotes. When the central government said "save the market", it was said that it must be saved, and the stock market would not be saved. After the investor finished, I lost all of it. As a management level, it would not "save the market", and the collapse of China's stock market would cause systemic risk.

And to combat domestic and foreign forces, we must maintain stability, but there are different views on the issue of "bailout" instead of "bailout".

But at that time, everyone had to say "save the market". I said no, "rescuing the city" people must curse me on the Internet. If you speak for someone, you will not speak for our investors.

In my view, stabilization measures are necessary, but not to save the market.

As China's stock market did not collapse, from more than 5000 to 3500, we increased 75% from 2000 last year.

The 3500 point is how it ends. At 1664 o'clock in 2008, I said, "save the market".

Actually, it is not "rescuing the market". It is to stabilize confidence. This should be the way to look at this problem. I also have 6 measures. My 6 points are not here, so it can not say "save the market".

The second "bailout" should be based on market rules.

But do we do it according to the market rules? It's called "strong bailout". Some people say that violence is "bailout", and the most typical thing is to suspend the issue of new shares.

China is the ninth time now.

If the stock market is not good, it will be suspended. What is the relationship with the primary market? Those stocks that have been issued in the first half of this year are all grabbed. How can they say that there is a problem in the first tier market distribution? It is a problem with the issuing system, not the issue itself.

In the fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, the rule of law was said. On Friday, ten shares had been handed over to the investors, that is, they signed the contract with the investors. The result is not a word on the top, but a refund on Monday. This is a violation of the contract law. Why do you violate the contract law casually and what is the reason for the refund? I really don't understand.

If the stock market is not ready for sale, it will happen again. If the stock market is not good enough, it will be issued again after the stock market is bad. The stock market will be finished. It's not the case. It's all the administrative power. It's a whim. China's 8 time stop issuing new shares has not had a good effect. Then, there are many problems in the restart of the IPO. In 2013, the new stock market stopped issuing new shares, and more than 800 of the trial companies, the dammed lake, the Securities Regulatory Commission said what to do. You can't do that, you can't do that. What can't you do? What can't be done? What can't be done? Can we get ten?

Then who will rely on it?

"Who will operate the securities and Futures Commission, and then entrust securities companies, including meetings, if there are no problems? Insider trading, manipulation of the market, disclosure of secrets, full of private pockets, and holding of state money. As a result, these people have mastered these rights. Some brokerages, including the leading CITIC Securities, earn more. In the past, regulators and supervisors were the relationship between cats and rats.

It can not be said that our broker is "big mouse", but there is always, how can we save the market? The cat meets the mice and says that we will defend the barn together. Then the mouse looks at the cat and asks us to protect the barn, so we have to pull it into the water, so the cat becomes a rat or a good cat becomes a bad cat.

People wonder what happened to Zhang Yujun. They knew which stocks to buy and which stocks to sell. They called in advance. This is not called Infernal Affairs. It's called stealing.

这么“救市”可以吗，所谓“救市”救了吗?大家看我们当时的走势的图形，这是7月6号的，开盘3900点，最低3600点、3700点，我们涨了240点，实际7月6号开始跌，那时候3500点，中间有一天没什么重要的消息，一下子那天跌了8.46%，这是7年多来没有过的事，还是“救市”，怎么一下跌了8%?到了8月18号又跌了6.5%，那是什么呢，这就这些人在玩国家资金，把它拉起来再打下去，打下去再吸收筹码，谁有力量一下打下去8%、6%呀，到了18号以后一看，国家要撤出，这一撤坏了，后来辟谣说不撤，不撤但不再救了，几个大阴线下来了，最低2850点，那么从那儿以后没救，不救了，不救又上来了，年底还得上，那么什么意思呢?实际上跟大家说句心里话，我们在7月初的时候在清华开会的时候，我们已经说了这个市场不能用政府行政办法去救，肯定效果不好，这是第一。

Second, we think China.

If we do not save, the minimum fall to 2800 points is bound to rebound. That's what I said before. I will not save the lowest to 2800 points.

To understand what is going on, the 2800 point from the price earnings ratio is almost low from all aspects. Last year, it rose from 2000 points. This is not the case. Last year, the bailout brought out so many problems and lost many cadres. And CITIC Securities was almost all over the market. How did China go on the market? Is it based on administrative power? Or is it going to depend on it? Can the market do well? Give it to the market, you are not the Savior, you can't save the city, and you have become a trader, and the national team and others are playing games with the national team. The people have lost. Do you save the people this time? You can't save the people, you can't save the people, they are the broker. Do we actually fall to the 2800 point? I don't know the model, but I understand the trend. I will see it.

So I say here that I hope that you will be careful when you report, and don't say that Cao is opposed to the central policy. That's not what I mean. I said we need to sum up our experience and lessons. I agree with stability measures. But how to act according to the market rules, the market rule is not changed by the will of the government, but the heart of the government is good. But in doing so, we turn the market into a policy market.

Comrades, so this so-called "bailout" or these stabilizing measures you look back to see what we have done, in fact, many may be useless, I said that if saved, it should not go in at 3600 or 3500, that is not the bottom.

If you save the market, don't be so big. Don't make policies and strategies public. Sudden attacks can be done. 2800 points go in and the government will make big profits. Investors will make money. Why do 3500 points go in?

So I have to sum up my experience from the point of view of summing up experience, so let's make a joint statement to save the market. I said I didn't agree to do so. I didn't agree with you. I said I didn't say I didn't agree with what I said, so I did not sign this time. I don't think they have any new tactics. What we most admire is the suspension of new shares. Is that from you? I said that the suspension of new shares should not be mentioned, not the "bailout" measures.