????ETF市場中也潛藏著其他邪惡的交易員。最近有一筆8億美元的ETF交易：一家未表明身份的機構(gòu)贖回了2,000萬份SPDR巴克萊資本高收益?zhèn)鵈TF（SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF）。據(jù)ETF Trends稱，這位投資者沒有選擇變現(xiàn)，而是拿債券，“以貨代款贖回”——由此該投資者繞過了公開市場，避開了流動性瓶頸以及大訂單執(zhí)行時不可避免地出現(xiàn)中小交易員搭便車賺些小錢的威脅。一位巴克萊分析師稱，“這一做法進一步印證了現(xiàn)貨市場流動性依然嚴峻的事實，一些不那么傳統(tǒng)的獲取現(xiàn)金流動性的方式已變得更有吸引力?！盓TF成為新的第三市場。

????我們可以想到有多種方式，可以將這一交易用作操縱市場的工具。下單機構(gòu)可以利用這筆交易推高自有頭寸的價格，為流動性較差的頭寸創(chuàng)造一些流動性，或者僅僅是通過賣空獲取小額利潤。

????由于摩根大通提議設立的ETF可能吸納倫敦金屬交易所約30%的銅——再加上中國數(shù)量不明的持有量——銅已經(jīng)變成了錢，作為人們交易中所接受票據(jù)的抵押實物。美國人不是擔心中國控制了太多美國國債嗎？那么，太多的全球自然資源呢？太多的世界可耕地（中國在巴西和非洲各地已進行了眾多農(nóng)業(yè)投資）？我們應當?shù)钟蚪?jīng)濟入侵，還是繼續(xù)賤賣資產(chǎn)，把美國一點點賣掉？

????此案的政治影響值得關(guān)注。SEC聯(lián)同CFTC對ETF做出的裁定，將改變整個ETF行業(yè)——當然，這也是個燙手山芋。ETF市場擁有超過1,000種投資工具，涉及資產(chǎn)遠遠超過1萬億美元，而且發(fā)行人都是金融業(yè)內(nèi)赫赫有名的公司，包括花旗（Citigroup）、太平洋投資管理公司（PIMCO）、瑞銀（UBS）、摩根大通、摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）和高盛（Goldman Sachs）。如果SEC做出不利裁定，當初監(jiān)管機構(gòu)批準這些基金銷售的行為是否正當就會引發(fā)爭議，這可能是朝著政府正式承認“推動大宗市場價格波動的是投機，而不是供需”邁出的第一步。沒人指望一個級別不高的政府機構(gòu)能挑戰(zhàn)如此實力強大的行業(yè)。

????在這個大選年，現(xiàn)任總統(tǒng)奧巴馬愿意放手一試嗎？既要敲打華爾街，又想獲得華爾街的支持，辦得到嗎？

????譯者：早稻米

????Other sinister players lurk in the ETF markets. There was the recent $800 million ETF trade as an unidentified institution redeemed 20 million shares of SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF. Rather than cash out of the instrument, according to ETF Trends, the investor took the bonds, a "customized in-kind redemption" where the investor bypassed the open market, protecting against liquidity bottlenecks and the ever-present threat of smaller traders looking to pick off small profits while working the large execution. Said one Barclays analyst, "the maneuver adds to the already strong evidence that cash market liquidity remains challenged, as less traditional avenues for accessing cash liquidity have become more attractive." ETFs, the new Third Market.

????We can think of multiple ways in which this trade could have been used to manipulate the markets. The institution placing the ETF order could have used the trade to mark up prices in its own holdings, to create liquidity for its own illiquid positions, or simply to skim small profits on a short sale.

????With the potential for a drain of 30% of the LME's copper for the proposed ETF – plus China's unknown holdings – copper has become money, a physical good held as inaccessible collateral for bits of paper that people accept in trade. Is America worried that China controls too much of our Treasury debt? How about too much of the world's natural resources? How about too much of the world's arable land, with massive farming ventures already established in Brazil and across Africa? Will we push back against global economic encroachment, or will we continue the fire sale as America sells itself off piece by piece?

????The political fallout from this case is worth watching. A joint SEC-CFTC decision against the ETF would change the entire ETF industry – obviously a hot potato. The ETF market has over a thousand vehicles with well over a trillion dollars in assets, and issued by the biggest names in finance, including Citigroup (C), PIMCO, UBS (UBS), JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley (MS), and Goldman Sachs (GS). An adverse SEC decision would call into question the regulatory justification for marketing these funds and could be a first step towards an official government position that speculation, not supply and demand, drives price volatility in the commodity markets. One would not expect a lowly government agency to challenge such a powerful sector.

????In an election year, is President Obama willing to bet he can eat Wall Street's cake and still have it?