6 ms·

The thing is ... If you don't step in, you could be liable. Let's not pretend that US financial regulation is fairly, evenly, or even logically applied.

offby37years 6y ago
Liable for what exactly in this instance?
- techwizrd 6y ago
  Some folks on WSB may know what they're doing, but many folks are joining Robinhood and buying GME and AMC due to the hype and that they heard they can make a quick buck. When GME eventually crashes, many of them will lose a fair bit of money and blame Robinhood for the poor experience.
  - frmrktTho 6y ago
    This is not a concern specific to gme If Citizens United says money is speech, the financial system effectively has no guard rails Except when it does for the institutions
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      You have been reading too many memes. Citizens United does not say money is speech. Citizens United says specifically that when a bunch of people take their money and get together and start a new corporation (Citizens United) (a not-for-profit corporation in this case, though not a charity) and the corporation proceeds to engage in political speech (by filming a movie named Hillary: The Movie)... then the corporation, as an entity, is considered to have the rights like the right to free speech, because it is owned by people who have rights, and this is a way for those people to exercise those rights together. Therefore this political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and restrictions on it are evaluated on the standard of strict scrutiny, and the FEC cannot halt this distribution just because the corporation was using money to make it happen. (You will notice that people are not allowed to band together and exercise the right to vote, and thus corporations don't get to vote.)
    - techwizrd 6y ago
      The financial system has _many_ guard rails including licensure (see the FINRA exams), regulations and regulatory bodies, and orders to halt or limit trades and positions on volatile securities. This concern is relevant to GME, BB, AMC, etc. because folks are joining Robinhood, Webull, and similar apps in record numbers in a rush to jump in on these hyped-up opportunity.
  - exclusiv 6y ago
    And what if their decisions cause it to crash?
  - davidw 6y ago
    I think that both things can be true: people are going to get screwed, and fiddling with the rules in the middle of the game is a really bad look.
    - techwizrd 6y ago
      I'm not arguing either of those (and wholeheartedly agree with you). I'm simply stating a potential concern/justification that Robinhood may have or use.
      - davidw 6y ago
        I think this is a reasonable attempt at "what RH did was right", although I'd certainly be happier if the timing and coordinating were brought to light: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-28/robinhood-s-right-to-save-gamestop-gme-traders-from-themselves https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-28/robinh...
- Decker87 6y ago
  I think the parent comment is suggesting that the very powerful people in hedge funds could use their power to create severe consequences.
- purple_ferret 6y ago
  If the stock plummets 90% in minutes are they capable of allowing half their users (the amount that owns GME) to exit their positions? Probably not Go look at past instances of Robinhood going down and the amount of people who claim they're going to take action because of lost money
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Aren't there circuit breakers that prevent individual stocks from falling that fast?
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      Aren't we complaining about a kind of circuit breaker here?
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        Circuit breakers have clearly defined limits with known actions. This doesn't seem like that.
- notyourwork 6y ago
  Customers use a trading platform for access to buy and sell on stock markets. If one day you prevent me from doing that but don’t tell me before I sign up when you would restrict my ability to interface with the market it seems like a interference. Platforms are there to enable interface with market, not decide what I can and cannot buy from that markets.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Liable to get on the SEC, and industry's bad side. Regulators are (intentionally) designed to be able to exert pressure with a lot of discretion. The financial industry is having a ferocious rage fit. The NASDAQ CEO even went on air calling for immediate SEC regulation... the irony didn't even seem lost to him. Getting on the industry and SEC's bad side is the liability, and that kind of pressure is a big part of hw the SEC actually "regulates." It isn't strictly through rules.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  Right now the retail investors are winning. But imagine if they lost tons of money instead. You might have regulators yelling that Robinhood is not doing enough to inform and protect their customers from self harm. Or even that they were encouraging risky behavior.
vorpalhex 6y ago
My understanding is that brokerages are generally not liable for what happens on their platform so long as they ensure trades remain legal (eg margin requirements) and they don't make false promises and keep appropriate disclaimers. On the other hand, manipulating the market seems like a good way to lose a business.
mywittyname 6y ago
I could see the case if trading for the stock was halted, they'd be liable for the inaction of continuing to allow trades on the platform. But this is straight-up market manipulation. There's no justifiable reason to halt trading on GME except as a means of cooling the market long enough for Important People to exit their bleeding positions. There's a big ass disclaimer that you sign saying that markets fluctuate and that Robinhood isn't liable for losses of capital.
- tylerhou 6y ago
  The justifiable reason is because if they continue to allow purchases of GME, they might get hit with an even bigger lawsuit from retail. See JumpCrisscross's comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25943058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25943058 Robinhood is stuck between a set of large lawsuits and a set of even bigger lawsuits. It seems like their internal counsel has decided halting trading will lead to the set containing the smaller lawsuits of the two.
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    That sounds like a stretch. You think they are legitimately scared of being successfully sued for "tricking people" into buying through gameification? That looks like CYA-BS from here. If that were a legitimate concern, why wasn't the interface de-gameified long ago?
    - tylerhou 6y ago
      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/robinhood-accused-of-gamification-by-massachusetts-regulator https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/robinhood...
  - ra7 6y ago
    Robinhood have themselves to blame. They made it dead-easy to trade on margin and do irresponsible naked option plays all these years. And they benefited from that massively in terms of revenue from Citadel (order flow) and raising their own valuation. All of a sudden they care about investor risk?
csomar 6y ago
The SEC or the exchange (ie: Nasdaq) should be the one to step in. They are the ones concerned.
- raducu 6y ago
  Yeah, but all they can do is halt trading for everyone, that's not what Citadel wants. Citadel wants to stop retail investors from buying so they can both buy and sell to themselves and drive the price down and scare retail investors into selling.
paulddraper 6y ago
> you could be liable What is a brokerage liable for by doing their job?

offby37years 6y ago

Liable for what exactly in this instance?

techwizrd 6y ago
Some folks on WSB may know what they're doing, but many folks are joining Robinhood and buying GME and AMC due to the hype and that they heard they can make a quick buck. When GME eventually crashes, many of them will lose a fair bit of money and blame Robinhood for the poor experience.
- frmrktTho 6y ago
  This is not a concern specific to gme If Citizens United says money is speech, the financial system effectively has no guard rails Except when it does for the institutions
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    You have been reading too many memes. Citizens United does not say money is speech. Citizens United says specifically that when a bunch of people take their money and get together and start a new corporation (Citizens United) (a not-for-profit corporation in this case, though not a charity) and the corporation proceeds to engage in political speech (by filming a movie named Hillary: The Movie)... then the corporation, as an entity, is considered to have the rights like the right to free speech, because it is owned by people who have rights, and this is a way for those people to exercise those rights together. Therefore this political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and restrictions on it are evaluated on the standard of strict scrutiny, and the FEC cannot halt this distribution just because the corporation was using money to make it happen. (You will notice that people are not allowed to band together and exercise the right to vote, and thus corporations don't get to vote.)
  - techwizrd 6y ago
    The financial system has _many_ guard rails including licensure (see the FINRA exams), regulations and regulatory bodies, and orders to halt or limit trades and positions on volatile securities. This concern is relevant to GME, BB, AMC, etc. because folks are joining Robinhood, Webull, and similar apps in record numbers in a rush to jump in on these hyped-up opportunity.
- exclusiv 6y ago
  And what if their decisions cause it to crash?
- davidw 6y ago
  I think that both things can be true: people are going to get screwed, and fiddling with the rules in the middle of the game is a really bad look.
  - techwizrd 6y ago
    I'm not arguing either of those (and wholeheartedly agree with you). I'm simply stating a potential concern/justification that Robinhood may have or use.
    - davidw 6y ago
      I think this is a reasonable attempt at "what RH did was right", although I'd certainly be happier if the timing and coordinating were brought to light: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-28/robinhood-s-right-to-save-gamestop-gme-traders-from-themselves https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-28/robinh...
Decker87 6y ago
I think the parent comment is suggesting that the very powerful people in hedge funds could use their power to create severe consequences.
purple_ferret 6y ago
If the stock plummets 90% in minutes are they capable of allowing half their users (the amount that owns GME) to exit their positions? Probably not Go look at past instances of Robinhood going down and the amount of people who claim they're going to take action because of lost money
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Aren't there circuit breakers that prevent individual stocks from falling that fast?
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    Aren't we complaining about a kind of circuit breaker here?
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Circuit breakers have clearly defined limits with known actions. This doesn't seem like that.
notyourwork 6y ago
Customers use a trading platform for access to buy and sell on stock markets. If one day you prevent me from doing that but don’t tell me before I sign up when you would restrict my ability to interface with the market it seems like a interference. Platforms are there to enable interface with market, not decide what I can and cannot buy from that markets.
dalbasal 6y ago
Liable to get on the SEC, and industry's bad side. Regulators are (intentionally) designed to be able to exert pressure with a lot of discretion. The financial industry is having a ferocious rage fit. The NASDAQ CEO even went on air calling for immediate SEC regulation... the irony didn't even seem lost to him. Getting on the industry and SEC's bad side is the liability, and that kind of pressure is a big part of hw the SEC actually "regulates." It isn't strictly through rules.
CameronNemo 6y ago
Right now the retail investors are winning. But imagine if they lost tons of money instead. You might have regulators yelling that Robinhood is not doing enough to inform and protect their customers from self harm. Or even that they were encouraging risky behavior.

vorpalhex 6y ago

My understanding is that brokerages are generally not liable for what happens on their platform so long as they ensure trades remain legal (eg margin requirements) and they don't make false promises and keep appropriate disclaimers. On the other hand, manipulating the market seems like a good way to lose a business.

mywittyname 6y ago

I could see the case if trading for the stock was halted, they'd be liable for the inaction of continuing to allow trades on the platform. But this is straight-up market manipulation. There's no justifiable reason to halt trading on GME except as a means of cooling the market long enough for Important People to exit their bleeding positions. There's a big ass disclaimer that you sign saying that markets fluctuate and that Robinhood isn't liable for losses of capital.

tylerhou 6y ago
The justifiable reason is because if they continue to allow purchases of GME, they might get hit with an even bigger lawsuit from retail. See JumpCrisscross's comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25943058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25943058 Robinhood is stuck between a set of large lawsuits and a set of even bigger lawsuits. It seems like their internal counsel has decided halting trading will lead to the set containing the smaller lawsuits of the two.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  That sounds like a stretch. You think they are legitimately scared of being successfully sued for "tricking people" into buying through gameification? That looks like CYA-BS from here. If that were a legitimate concern, why wasn't the interface de-gameified long ago?
  - tylerhou 6y ago
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/robinhood-accused-of-gamification-by-massachusetts-regulator https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/robinhood...
- ra7 6y ago
  Robinhood have themselves to blame. They made it dead-easy to trade on margin and do irresponsible naked option plays all these years. And they benefited from that massively in terms of revenue from Citadel (order flow) and raising their own valuation. All of a sudden they care about investor risk?

csomar 6y ago

The SEC or the exchange (ie: Nasdaq) should be the one to step in. They are the ones concerned.

raducu 6y ago
Yeah, but all they can do is halt trading for everyone, that's not what Citadel wants. Citadel wants to stop retail investors from buying so they can both buy and sell to themselves and drive the price down and scare retail investors into selling.

paulddraper 6y ago

> you could be liable What is a brokerage liable for by doing their job?