Is it a written stipulation at the beginning of the establishment of this stock or the result of temporary adjustment in the middle that the exchange announces that the transaction can be negative? If there is no provision at the time of establishment, but it is revised halfway, the consent form of large investors should not be just a revelation, and stock trading should be suspended to warn of risks. However, if the rules are modified midway, it is also necessary to evaluate that the exchange should be responsible for compensation to the untrustworthy party.
China Bank's crude oil futures trading problem has finally been properly solved. We should thank the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission for its positive attitude and responsibility, and the decision made by the China Financial Committee at its18th meeting in 2002-2005. China Bank is required to handle international business and exchange rate business. It should be said that China Bank's crude oil futures trading is the result of China Bank's re-decomposition and partial combination of American crude oil futures products. It should be said that the starting point of China Bank should be good, but in the process of product design, the consideration of risks is not enough, especially the market fluctuation caused by the epidemic is unexpected and unpredictable. In particular, crude oil futures were bought too much, and there was an incident of reselling money. This led to the problem that the crude oil futures of China Bank broke through the positions in 20200420.
I believe that the initial attitude of Bank of China is extremely tough, requiring customers to return all the funds in other accounts of Bank of China to Bank of China, which means that it has broken through the crude oil futures margin system, which is the bottom line. Because the bottom line of the futures trading margin system is that when the margin is less than 20%, the margin required by customers is insufficient. If this cannot be done, Bank of China, as a platform and counterparty, has the right to close the position. However, as a bank of China, it did not do what the law required. Therefore, in the loss of China Bank's crude oil futures trading products, the CBRC and the Finance Committee intervened and handled it very differently! This is the protection given to investors by law! It is an effective case of investor's rights protection. Let us all remember our legal responsibilities, or the responsibilities that banks, securities and futures companies should carry out in product design, risk description and education.
At first, it was said that it should be included in the credit report, which made customers very scared. Then the customer feels that it is good to lose the principal. In the next 20%, customers must be grateful for these huge losses. If it is not a virtual disk, it will greatly harm the interests of bank shareholders. If it's just a virtual disk, you'll earn a lot of money and win a reputation, master.
The customer sentiment of Crude Oil Bao has been painstakingly calmed down to a certain extent. The losses of BOC are borne by the majority of shareholders, and the income tax at the end of the year has also been affected. Among them, because shareholders include Admiralty and so on, the tax is paid by the state and the whole people, so in the end, shareholders pay the bill, the state pays the bill, and the whole people pay the bill. It's just that some crude oil treasures have become a broader group and political body to undertake. Yes, banks operate risks, but they must establish risk control wit and avoid risks efficiently, instead of? A series of magical operations in the crude oil treasure incident did not fully prompt the risks, did not move the warehouse, closed the platform and so on. If it weren't for these? God operation? Will there be such a big loss? Who is the decision maker? Why is the reflex arc so slow and long? Therefore, we should be responsible for this. Are we being held accountable? When will the responsibility be investigated?
Personal opinion: BOC, a wealth management product, does not really buy crude oil futures, but is linked to the US crude oil futures price. It's essentially spinach, just like football lottery. We don't really play football, but also draw a lottery according to the scores of the two teams. I think BOC is not the so-called intermediary or brokerage company in this market, but the banker. Under normal circumstances, it is people who buy more and buy less. Although the two sides may not each account for 50%, the ratio gap should not be too big. Unexpectedly, the original oil price futures price fell by a point that day, so no one shorted it, because everyone subconsciously dared not fall to a negative number. Bank of China's system probably doesn't have this option.
This means that when crude oil futures fall to negative numbers, then everyone is losing money. Where is the loss? Did you really pay the crude oil buyer? The Bank of China only linked the price and didn't really buy crude oil. Obviously, the money went into the pocket of the Bank of China. At first, I thought BOC made a lot of money here. If investors' losses can be explained by a piece of paper, BOC's gains can be described as considerable. Now the Bank of China has offered money to compensate, which just shows that the Bank of China is the biggest beneficiary, so it is easy to compensate. If more than 30 billion yuan goes into the pockets of other investors, it will definitely be a protracted tug-of-war to take it out again. Of course, this is just my layman's opinion.