13 ms·

I look forward to the investigations on market manipulation that RH, Schwann, and TD did by not allowing their customers to trade on that stock. Or is it norma

by josho 6y ago

I look forward to the investigations on market manipulation that RH, Schwann, and TD did by not allowing their customers to trade on that stock. Or is it normal for brokers to independently halt trades on stocks they deem too risky?

shakezula 6y ago
Idk if it is or not but it feels like crazy levels of illegal to be able to just halt buy orders like that. Imagine the inverse, if they just halted sell orders on a stock they were deeply invested?
- inlined 6y ago
  If not criminal it sounds like a class action lawsuit.
  - shakezula 6y ago
    Others in this thread are pointing out issues with arbitration, which really muddies the water on how this can be handled. Definitely complaining to the SEC though. Imagine if they did the inverse of this, and stopped anyone from being able to sell a stock they were heavily invested in. That would be absolute madness. It’s the exact same ass-covering.
    - twadfas 6y ago
      Arbitration is usually bad for consumers but in volume it can be terrible for the offending company. Ususally folks dont go through it with but if you get WSB to ally and do mass arbitration to stick it to the man robinhood is an a world of hurt on legal costs.
  - mtgx 6y ago
    Looking forward to the "record-breaking" $5 million settlement.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    I think RH can probably hide behind the excuse of "We thought it was a pump and dump scheme and tried to cool down the market". I'm not certain this isn't, somewhere in its core, a pump and dump scheme, even if the majority of people buying seem to be honest in their intentions.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      This is purely fundamental. As of this morning, short interest was still 139% of float - which means that there are still exist buyers who will pay any price, no matter how high - or default on their shorting obligation. Is it anything but rational to buy something you know someone is willing to pay any price (at this point in time) with the intention of selling it later?
  - sleepybrett 6y ago
    https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6yrs3/we_are_preparing_a_class_action_lawsuit_against/ https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6yrs3/we_a...
ianai 6y ago
Pretty sure what the WSB traders were doing could qualify for market manipulation and various securities frauds in broad daylight. I honestly hope not, and that RHb etc are in the wrong. But it’s sure to be informative anyway.
- dbancajas 6y ago
  > g to insulate these people from losing their money will actively make people lose money. The dip to the low $130 was directly caused by the actions they're taking. > But on the flipside, imagine w Due diligence and disclosing your position is not "market manipulation". Mainstream media wants it to look like that. Even the DFV, who spearheaded the GME position got a lot of flack early on.
- doggosphere 6y ago
  There's something different about "organizing" raids in the public eye though. There's no actual group consensus, no agreements, no negotiation, none of the processes that are required to actually "cooperate". What happens is a a leader throws a bet at the wall and says "FOLLOW ME!". But no one is compelled or committed to any kind of action. This is the same thing as any analyst or short seller publishing their thesis and disclosing that they have a position. Its protected as freedom of speech. Now, if the discord group or elsewhere have private circles about which stocks to raid and when, that is obviously a different matter. But I don't think that is the phenomenon that is occurring. This is a broader social movement.
- realusername 6y ago
  That's the same as any market analysis you can read on any blog or mainstream media though. Somebody will just say "buy that stock" and people might agree with the analysis or not. If you think what they have done is market manipulation, so is every other financial newspaper out there.
xapata 6y ago
Usually it's the exchange that halts or throttles trading.
- josephjrobison 6y ago
  Right I’m seeing Vanguard not allowing it which I don’t believe is connected to Citadel.
- conductr 6y ago
  Exactly. The entire market should be impacted equally. A brokerage making this decision is problematic. I'd fear now the WSB gang turns to class action lawsuit on RH et al for preventing them from exiting their positions, after ... well, allowing them to enter those positions. You know, the job of a brokerage.
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    Robinhood has not prevented anyone from closing their position. They've only prevented people from buying these stocks.
fennecfoxen 6y ago
> Or is it normal for brokers to independently halt trades on stocks they deem too risky? Yes. It is exactly normal. One. Brokers are required to act in the best interests of their clients. What is that? Well... "A broker who becomes a fiduciary of his client must act with utmost good faith, reasonable care, and loyalty concerning the customer’s account, and owes a duty to keep informed regarding changes in the market which affect his customer’s interests, to act responsibly to protect those interests, to keep the customer informed as to each completed transaction, and to explain forthrightly the practical impact and potential risks of the course of dealing in which the broker is engaged." — Rupert v. Clayton Two. Robinhood is already under scrutiny already for trying to gamify trading, on the premise that it encourages people to treat things like a casino and lets them get hurt in the name of their own profit. They are on thin ice as it stands. Three. This whole thing is going down like the Pequod, complete with the impassioned revenge monologue. "To the last I grapple with thee! From hell's heart I stab at thee! For hate's sake I spit my final breath at thee!" If Robinhood didn't do something, they would soon learn what the true wrath of the regulators really looks like. Much, much better to drop Gamestop like a hot potato. Some recent examples of similar actions: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tvix-brokerages/schwab-considers-warnings-on-controversial-exchange-traded-products-idUSBRE82T1CE20120330 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tvix-brokerages/schwab-co...
- moistrobot 6y ago
  Brokers are not fiduciaries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/06/17/know-the-differences-between-brokers-and-advisers-suitability-vs-fiduciary-standards/?sh=390362be25b5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/06/17...
- manigandham 6y ago
  Best interests means facilitating trades as best as possible, not trying to protect clients from their own trades. No broker is attempting to preserve your capital. What they will do is protect their capital over yours by raising margin requirements and initiating special rules to limit their risk. They don't care if you blow up your account, as long as you don't owe them at the end.
cbozeman 6y ago
> Or is it normal for brokers to independently halt trades on stocks they deem too risky? Absolutely not, and I almost typed "LOL" in front of that because your question - while genuine and sincere - is so ridiculous in the context of the stock market that it actually made me laugh out loud. Brokers are more than happy to allow unsophisticated investors to buy or sell any stock. They won't let you use sophisticated products like options, etc., but simple buying and selling? Absolutely. What's happening here is simple. The wrong people are getting rich. The wrong people are losing money. That cannot be allowed. There is something called the "pattern day trading rule" wherein someone buys and sells the same security several times and their ability to buy and sell gets restricted, but that's not what's happening here. People wanting to buy $GME are wanting to buy and hold. Not sell.
- NathanKP 6y ago
  On the pattern day trading rule its also worth noting that you are exempt from that above $25k on Robinhood. As I watched the subreddit over the past few weeks I saw a lot of folks happy that their account was now no longer subject to the pattern day trading rule. They started out below $25k but growth in GME value pushed them over $25k
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Edit: A lot of people fixating on the fact broker-dealers aren't investment advisors... https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2013/34-69013.pdf https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2013/34-69013.pdf SEC has already started providing guidance on that loophole. They're not a fiduciary, but there's a want from the SEC to have their operation start to be more in line with if they were one ("harmonization") After all RH does advertise popular stocks, they put out news branded digests of the market, it does show users gamified views of things like options, they have an entire "learning platform" meant to guide you through the market. It's not an investment advisor, it doesn't have a fiduciary duty but the SEC wants broker-dealer behavior to better reflect the fact that retail investors assume that the platforms they use to trade are aligned with their financial goals ---- So disclaimer: I was holding large amounts of GME and AMC and sold this morning as a direct result of this news. But I really don't get why people are so shocked. People who started this wanted to buy and hold until shorts are kill. Then people who heard about this plan after it started working joined, they still wanted to hold but their reasoning was starting to get a little removed from the original goal. This group is slightly bigger than the first Fast forward a few days and suddenly this stock that just keeps going up by hundreds of dollars a day is in the news, people don't quite get what's happening, but it looks like a magical money fountain. And as a bonus this magic fountain is a big FU to the man? Sign me up! This group is exponentially bigger than the first, and exponentially less understanding of why this is happening. - At this point retail money is flooding into this stock left and right, and people are starting invest money they cannot afford to lose. The problem for these brokers is when this musical chairs dance stops, retail investors will be holding the bag. Full stop. But more importantly, those clueless people just buying GME because they have some vague idea of "it goes up" and "we're rebelling" are going to lose their shirts. The people in the first group who were doing this for the principle of it and as a YOLO don't really care, it's "fuck Melvin" all the way... But the people in the last group are going to feel blindsided. - This feels like damned if you do, damned if you don't. The action of trying to insulate these people from losing their money will actively make people lose money. The dip to the low $130 was directly caused by the actions they're taking. But on the flipside, imagine what would have happened during the rally to $400 this morning. We likely would have seen another breakout that puts all options ITM... The fact is, the dance will end. The idea is buy and hold... but for the newest cohort there's an implied "until the money fountain stops". And the higher the share price is when that happens, the more it will hurt. (and make no mistake, some hedge fund might be hurting, but the big guy can navigate this. If it takes making Congress halt these stocks they'll do it) This has been a fun ride, and thrust the insane inequality of our financial systems for normal individuals and cash flushed "institutions" into the spotlight... but I can't pretend I don't understand why it's happening.
moistrobot 6y ago
Brokers don't have a fiduciary interest, unlike Asset Managers. So, no. They have no obligation to halt trades, usually they make money on volume of trades and would encourage people to trade more. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/06/17/know-the-differences-between-brokers-and-advisers-suitability-vs-fiduciary-standards/?sh=390362be25b5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/06/17...
- beagle3 6y ago
  Do they have the legal privilege to do it? I suspect not, because if they did, they would be able to kill a company by not let anyone buy its share.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
supernovae 6y ago
I've noticed that EFTs that typically happened in 24 hours all the sudden require nearly a week. Even from places that have auto-drips enabled.
vergessenmir 6y ago
This is unlikely. The regulators are on the side of the financial institutions since the unusual activity is coming from retail traders. The NASDAQ CEO, Anna Friedman has already said they will stop trading on a stock if they match chatter from social media with a stock's movement. Her justification is to allow them "time to investigate" the situation. SEC lawyers have stated also that justification for investigation come when "volatile trading fuelled by opinions where there appears to be little corporate activity to justify [price movements]". It's a ridiculous assertion since several banks and funds use alternate data sources to inform their buy and sell decisions. These alternate, or non-traditional, sources of data are usually many steps removed from corporate company announcements and news headlines. Saying all that to say that legal positions are shoring up on the side of the exchanges and professionals.
- EVdotIO 6y ago
  Are they going to start monitoring Bloomberg chat now as well?
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    No, of course not. It's perfectly fine when they do it.
  - vergessenmir 6y ago
    Of course not. They're probably just going to wait until this blows over and get back to business as usual. The way it's panning out now they probably won't go down the regulatory route. They already have levers that they can pull if the behaviour happens again, through the platform (Robinhood and the like) limiting trading or having Reddit or Discord ban or suspend groups on spurious grounds such as hate speech. Why go down the legal route when you can give a soft nudge to board members and still get the desired outcome?
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  > The regulators are on the side of the financial institutions since the unusual activity is coming from retail traders. I call BS. I mean you might be right that they are on the side of the institutions, but it's not because retail is unusual, it's because it's a big old boys club and they don't want the plebs getting uppity. MM's exposed themselves by massively naked short selling into very risky territory, which is illegal and what the regulators should be more interested in, as it is what enabled all this to happen in the first place!(1) It's well known that the SEC is a toothless wonder that doesn't go after the malfeasance right under it's nose but loves to go after middle and low end people, with maybe a smattering of high profiles just for the optics (come to think of it, very much like the IRS). The legal system is part of that corruption. So you may be right that the legal positions are shoring up on their side (though I think its very possible you are wrong), but that doesn't make it the right, or just, state of things! I think we are living in a moment of history that will lay bare just how abusive and illegally manipulative the whole system is against retail and there is going to be a backlash that isn't inconsequential. [1] https://www.sec.gov/answers/nakedshortsale.htm https://www.sec.gov/answers/nakedshortsale.htm
AndrewBissell 6y ago
There won't be any serious investigation leading to a bombshell revelation like "Citadel told Robinhood to stop buying in $GME." The same people pressuring RH, Discord, etc are also quite adept at pressuring politicians and regulators. There will probably be some hearings for show, but nothing more.
jay754 6y ago
Are they really going to be investigated? Like honestly.
potta_coffee 6y ago
"Investigations for thee and not for me." Or, I think no investigation will occur.

by josho 6y ago

shakezula 6y ago

Idk if it is or not but it feels like crazy levels of illegal to be able to just halt buy orders like that. Imagine the inverse, if they just halted sell orders on a stock they were deeply invested?

inlined 6y ago
If not criminal it sounds like a class action lawsuit.
- shakezula 6y ago
  Others in this thread are pointing out issues with arbitration, which really muddies the water on how this can be handled. Definitely complaining to the SEC though. Imagine if they did the inverse of this, and stopped anyone from being able to sell a stock they were heavily invested in. That would be absolute madness. It’s the exact same ass-covering.
  - twadfas 6y ago
    Arbitration is usually bad for consumers but in volume it can be terrible for the offending company. Ususally folks dont go through it with but if you get WSB to ally and do mass arbitration to stick it to the man robinhood is an a world of hurt on legal costs.
- mtgx 6y ago
  Looking forward to the "record-breaking" $5 million settlement.
- munk-a 6y ago
  I think RH can probably hide behind the excuse of "We thought it was a pump and dump scheme and tried to cool down the market". I'm not certain this isn't, somewhere in its core, a pump and dump scheme, even if the majority of people buying seem to be honest in their intentions.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    This is purely fundamental. As of this morning, short interest was still 139% of float - which means that there are still exist buyers who will pay any price, no matter how high - or default on their shorting obligation. Is it anything but rational to buy something you know someone is willing to pay any price (at this point in time) with the intention of selling it later?
- sleepybrett 6y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6yrs3/we_are_preparing_a_class_action_lawsuit_against/ https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6yrs3/we_a...

ianai 6y ago

Pretty sure what the WSB traders were doing could qualify for market manipulation and various securities frauds in broad daylight. I honestly hope not, and that RHb etc are in the wrong. But it’s sure to be informative anyway.

dbancajas 6y ago
> g to insulate these people from losing their money will actively make people lose money. The dip to the low $130 was directly caused by the actions they're taking. > But on the flipside, imagine w Due diligence and disclosing your position is not "market manipulation". Mainstream media wants it to look like that. Even the DFV, who spearheaded the GME position got a lot of flack early on.
doggosphere 6y ago
There's something different about "organizing" raids in the public eye though. There's no actual group consensus, no agreements, no negotiation, none of the processes that are required to actually "cooperate". What happens is a a leader throws a bet at the wall and says "FOLLOW ME!". But no one is compelled or committed to any kind of action. This is the same thing as any analyst or short seller publishing their thesis and disclosing that they have a position. Its protected as freedom of speech. Now, if the discord group or elsewhere have private circles about which stocks to raid and when, that is obviously a different matter. But I don't think that is the phenomenon that is occurring. This is a broader social movement.
realusername 6y ago
That's the same as any market analysis you can read on any blog or mainstream media though. Somebody will just say "buy that stock" and people might agree with the analysis or not. If you think what they have done is market manipulation, so is every other financial newspaper out there.

xapata 6y ago

Usually it's the exchange that halts or throttles trading.

josephjrobison 6y ago
Right I’m seeing Vanguard not allowing it which I don’t believe is connected to Citadel.
conductr 6y ago
Exactly. The entire market should be impacted equally. A brokerage making this decision is problematic. I'd fear now the WSB gang turns to class action lawsuit on RH et al for preventing them from exiting their positions, after ... well, allowing them to enter those positions. You know, the job of a brokerage.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Robinhood has not prevented anyone from closing their position. They've only prevented people from buying these stocks.

fennecfoxen 6y ago

> Or is it normal for brokers to independently halt trades on stocks they deem too risky? Yes. It is exactly normal. One. Brokers are required to act in the best interests of their clients. What is that? Well... "A broker who becomes a fiduciary of his client must act with utmost good faith, reasonable care, and loyalty concerning the customer’s account, and owes a duty to keep informed regarding changes in the market which affect his customer’s interests, to act responsibly to protect those interests, to keep the customer informed as to each completed transaction, and to explain forthrightly the practical impact and potential risks of the course of dealing in which the broker is engaged." — Rupert v. Clayton Two. Robinhood is already under scrutiny already for trying to gamify trading, on the premise that it encourages people to treat things like a casino and lets them get hurt in the name of their own profit. They are on thin ice as it stands. Three. This whole thing is going down like the Pequod, complete with the impassioned revenge monologue. "To the last I grapple with thee! From hell's heart I stab at thee! For hate's sake I spit my final breath at thee!" If Robinhood didn't do something, they would soon learn what the true wrath of the regulators really looks like. Much, much better to drop Gamestop like a hot potato. Some recent examples of similar actions: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tvix-brokerages/schwab-considers-warnings-on-controversial-exchange-traded-products-idUSBRE82T1CE20120330 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tvix-brokerages/schwab-co...

moistrobot 6y ago
Brokers are not fiduciaries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/06/17/know-the-differences-between-brokers-and-advisers-suitability-vs-fiduciary-standards/?sh=390362be25b5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/06/17...
manigandham 6y ago
Best interests means facilitating trades as best as possible, not trying to protect clients from their own trades. No broker is attempting to preserve your capital. What they will do is protect their capital over yours by raising margin requirements and initiating special rules to limit their risk. They don't care if you blow up your account, as long as you don't owe them at the end.

cbozeman 6y ago

> Or is it normal for brokers to independently halt trades on stocks they deem too risky? Absolutely not, and I almost typed "LOL" in front of that because your question - while genuine and sincere - is so ridiculous in the context of the stock market that it actually made me laugh out loud. Brokers are more than happy to allow unsophisticated investors to buy or sell any stock. They won't let you use sophisticated products like options, etc., but simple buying and selling? Absolutely. What's happening here is simple. The wrong people are getting rich. The wrong people are losing money. That cannot be allowed. There is something called the "pattern day trading rule" wherein someone buys and sells the same security several times and their ability to buy and sell gets restricted, but that's not what's happening here. People wanting to buy $GME are wanting to buy and hold. Not sell.

NathanKP 6y ago
On the pattern day trading rule its also worth noting that you are exempt from that above $25k on Robinhood. As I watched the subreddit over the past few weeks I saw a lot of folks happy that their account was now no longer subject to the pattern day trading rule. They started out below $25k but growth in GME value pushed them over $25k
BoorishBears 6y ago
Edit: A lot of people fixating on the fact broker-dealers aren't investment advisors... https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2013/34-69013.pdf https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2013/34-69013.pdf SEC has already started providing guidance on that loophole. They're not a fiduciary, but there's a want from the SEC to have their operation start to be more in line with if they were one ("harmonization") After all RH does advertise popular stocks, they put out news branded digests of the market, it does show users gamified views of things like options, they have an entire "learning platform" meant to guide you through the market. It's not an investment advisor, it doesn't have a fiduciary duty but the SEC wants broker-dealer behavior to better reflect the fact that retail investors assume that the platforms they use to trade are aligned with their financial goals ---- So disclaimer: I was holding large amounts of GME and AMC and sold this morning as a direct result of this news. But I really don't get why people are so shocked. People who started this wanted to buy and hold until shorts are kill. Then people who heard about this plan after it started working joined, they still wanted to hold but their reasoning was starting to get a little removed from the original goal. This group is slightly bigger than the first Fast forward a few days and suddenly this stock that just keeps going up by hundreds of dollars a day is in the news, people don't quite get what's happening, but it looks like a magical money fountain. And as a bonus this magic fountain is a big FU to the man? Sign me up! This group is exponentially bigger than the first, and exponentially less understanding of why this is happening. - At this point retail money is flooding into this stock left and right, and people are starting invest money they cannot afford to lose. The problem for these brokers is when this musical chairs dance stops, retail investors will be holding the bag. Full stop. But more importantly, those clueless people just buying GME because they have some vague idea of "it goes up" and "we're rebelling" are going to lose their shirts. The people in the first group who were doing this for the principle of it and as a YOLO don't really care, it's "fuck Melvin" all the way... But the people in the last group are going to feel blindsided. - This feels like damned if you do, damned if you don't. The action of trying to insulate these people from losing their money will actively make people lose money. The dip to the low $130 was directly caused by the actions they're taking. But on the flipside, imagine what would have happened during the rally to $400 this morning. We likely would have seen another breakout that puts all options ITM... The fact is, the dance will end. The idea is buy and hold... but for the newest cohort there's an implied "until the money fountain stops". And the higher the share price is when that happens, the more it will hurt. (and make no mistake, some hedge fund might be hurting, but the big guy can navigate this. If it takes making Congress halt these stocks they'll do it) This has been a fun ride, and thrust the insane inequality of our financial systems for normal individuals and cash flushed "institutions" into the spotlight... but I can't pretend I don't understand why it's happening.

moistrobot 6y ago

Brokers don't have a fiduciary interest, unlike Asset Managers. So, no. They have no obligation to halt trades, usually they make money on volume of trades and would encourage people to trade more. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/06/17/know-the-differences-between-brokers-and-advisers-suitability-vs-fiduciary-standards/?sh=390362be25b5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/06/17...

beagle3 6y ago
Do they have the legal privilege to do it? I suspect not, because if they did, they would be able to kill a company by not let anyone buy its share.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

supernovae 6y ago

I've noticed that EFTs that typically happened in 24 hours all the sudden require nearly a week. Even from places that have auto-drips enabled.

vergessenmir 6y ago

This is unlikely. The regulators are on the side of the financial institutions since the unusual activity is coming from retail traders. The NASDAQ CEO, Anna Friedman has already said they will stop trading on a stock if they match chatter from social media with a stock's movement. Her justification is to allow them "time to investigate" the situation. SEC lawyers have stated also that justification for investigation come when "volatile trading fuelled by opinions where there appears to be little corporate activity to justify [price movements]". It's a ridiculous assertion since several banks and funds use alternate data sources to inform their buy and sell decisions. These alternate, or non-traditional, sources of data are usually many steps removed from corporate company announcements and news headlines. Saying all that to say that legal positions are shoring up on the side of the exchanges and professionals.

EVdotIO 6y ago
Are they going to start monitoring Bloomberg chat now as well?
- jaywalk 6y ago
  No, of course not. It's perfectly fine when they do it.
- vergessenmir 6y ago
  Of course not. They're probably just going to wait until this blows over and get back to business as usual. The way it's panning out now they probably won't go down the regulatory route. They already have levers that they can pull if the behaviour happens again, through the platform (Robinhood and the like) limiting trading or having Reddit or Discord ban or suspend groups on spurious grounds such as hate speech. Why go down the legal route when you can give a soft nudge to board members and still get the desired outcome?
arminiusreturns 6y ago
> The regulators are on the side of the financial institutions since the unusual activity is coming from retail traders. I call BS. I mean you might be right that they are on the side of the institutions, but it's not because retail is unusual, it's because it's a big old boys club and they don't want the plebs getting uppity. MM's exposed themselves by massively naked short selling into very risky territory, which is illegal and what the regulators should be more interested in, as it is what enabled all this to happen in the first place!(1) It's well known that the SEC is a toothless wonder that doesn't go after the malfeasance right under it's nose but loves to go after middle and low end people, with maybe a smattering of high profiles just for the optics (come to think of it, very much like the IRS). The legal system is part of that corruption. So you may be right that the legal positions are shoring up on their side (though I think its very possible you are wrong), but that doesn't make it the right, or just, state of things! I think we are living in a moment of history that will lay bare just how abusive and illegally manipulative the whole system is against retail and there is going to be a backlash that isn't inconsequential. [1] https://www.sec.gov/answers/nakedshortsale.htm https://www.sec.gov/answers/nakedshortsale.htm

AndrewBissell 6y ago

There won't be any serious investigation leading to a bombshell revelation like "Citadel told Robinhood to stop buying in $GME." The same people pressuring RH, Discord, etc are also quite adept at pressuring politicians and regulators. There will probably be some hearings for show, but nothing more.

jay754 6y ago

Are they really going to be investigated? Like honestly.

potta_coffee 6y ago

"Investigations for thee and not for me." Or, I think no investigation will occur.