5 ms·

I'm not really sure they need to be more transparent. In this day and age you have to realize if you aren't paying for the product you are the product. Basicall

by s0rce 8y ago

I'm not really sure they need to be more transparent. In this day and age you have to realize if you aren't paying for the product you are the product. Basically the same with Facebook and Google. They are making money off of your use of the service. If this isn't obvious you shouldn't be buying and selling stocks!

wahern 8y ago
Yeah, I don't see the problem. Unless and until customers are manifestly paying exorbitant effective fees compared to typical brokers, there's nothing to be upset about and little reason to intervene. Transparency is concerning (as are all pricing strategies that try to hide the ball), but in the world of finance this doesn't rank very high in the opaqueness department. As you say, if you're not the customer you're the product. Especially in the context of a service that is actually performing real-world, meaningful transactions on your behalf (as opposed to publishing funny comments to internet memes), you have to be hopelessly naive to believe you're not remunerating them with your own money. There are plenty of hopelessly naive people out there, but you don't slap down a business strategy simply because it could steal from these people. You wait around until its clear the harms outweigh the benefits, otherwise the market in every product or service would be limited to minimizing the potential harm to the dumbest among us.
wonthegame 8y ago
That's a very negative and dangerous view to hold. You're blaming someone for being exploited because of their lack of knowledge. Not everyone can know everything and they shouldn't be expected to in order to participate in the global economy. Robinhood markets themselves that they are taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Their behaviour is the exact opposite of that! They're actually more like loan sharks or payday loans.

by s0rce 8y ago

wahern 8y ago

Yeah, I don't see the problem. Unless and until customers are manifestly paying exorbitant effective fees compared to typical brokers, there's nothing to be upset about and little reason to intervene. Transparency is concerning (as are all pricing strategies that try to hide the ball), but in the world of finance this doesn't rank very high in the opaqueness department. As you say, if you're not the customer you're the product. Especially in the context of a service that is actually performing real-world, meaningful transactions on your behalf (as opposed to publishing funny comments to internet memes), you have to be hopelessly naive to believe you're not remunerating them with your own money. There are plenty of hopelessly naive people out there, but you don't slap down a business strategy simply because it could steal from these people. You wait around until its clear the harms outweigh the benefits, otherwise the market in every product or service would be limited to minimizing the potential harm to the dumbest among us.

wonthegame 8y ago

That's a very negative and dangerous view to hold. You're blaming someone for being exploited because of their lack of knowledge. Not everyone can know everything and they shouldn't be expected to in order to participate in the global economy. Robinhood markets themselves that they are taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Their behaviour is the exact opposite of that! They're actually more like loan sharks or payday loans.