5 ms·

Counterpoint: virtually everyone who would have been buying GME yesterday based on the pump nonsense would have lost all that money. Consumer platforms can lik

Counterpoint: virtually everyone who would have been buying GME yesterday based on the pump nonsense would have lost all that money. Consumer platforms can likewise be understood to have an obligation to protect their customers from scams, and to the extent they don't they can also be reasonably held liable. Basically: there's a reason for these trading controls to exist. And I really think people here are getting ahead of their skis. Almost everyone screaming about sticking it to Melvin is, as I see it, a victim of a trading scam. Melvin seems to have lost a lot of money, sure, but... so have all the WSB folks. Very, very few people are going to come out of this ahead (and realistically some of those are going to end up in jail).

bufferoverflow 6y ago
> virtually everyone who would have been buying GME yesterday based on the pump nonsense would have lost all that money That's not true. Today the stock went higher than at any point yesterday.
- newacct583 6y ago
  It's already below its open. Edit: multiple responses seizing on what can only be called a conspiracy theory at this point that some how absent Robinhood's tiny trade volume this stock would somehow still be going up from a 500% increase. Guys, YES, the system is kinda rigged. What happened here is that you all GOT SCAMMED. There is no magic short call coming tomorrow. The stock was pumped (starting originally with a short squeeze, but of course now it's just a regular bubble), and you were fooled into trying to buy it high. You are the victims here, not the heroes.
  - martinni 6y ago
    They’ll probably use that argument to justify their action. “See we saved you from yourself, look how low it got”. But who knows what would have happened if the trades weren’t stopped. The system is rigged.
  - elindbe3 6y ago
    Couldn't have anything to do with RH only allowing you to sell the stock, could it?
  - bufferoverflow 6y ago
    Yes, but it was higher.
  - SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
    Strange how only being allowed to sell and not buy may drive a price down.
unethical_ban 6y ago
Counterpoint: You are assuming good faith behavior in RH, where I see blatant fraud. It is outright market manipulation that they stop people from buying, but not selling. That they stopped individuals like me, who know the risk and can afford the loss, while allowing their hedge fund buddies to buy the dump and cover shorts. As for "this would have happened anyway", well that doesn't sound very free market to force the very thing you claim to be trying to stop. RH says "oh no we don't want you to lose money, so we're going to cause a crash on the stock. Feel free to sell". It's rotten to the core.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  If you know the risk, and can afford the loss, you can use a different platform, no? This action is likely (at least partially) targeted to prevent new users who have never traded a stock from trying to hop on the train and follow a "How to buy GME Options to make BANK in 5 simple steps!" article from losing everything. Do you think there would be less blow-back if Robinhood only restricted new accounts? Or maybe only people with minimum balances? If they stopped allowing people to sell their existing positions, then a lawsuit about "Robinhood is holding my funds hostage, didn't let me sell, and now I lost money because of them" would have come in, and probably would have had a lot more merit.
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    We are working on fundamentally different assumptions. You assume they did this in good faith to "protect new users". I believe they are committing fraud and stock manipulation. But yes, if I used your assumption, I would say they should have restricted options for new users, or put extra warnings up. And to your first sentence, no, you can't just move to a new platform. It takes more than a week to move funds from one brokerage to another.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      > I believe they are committing fraud and stock manipulation. The stock is already manipulated, though. No one racing to buy GME is doing so because a genuine desire to receive dividends, exercise voting power over corporate governance, etc... They're doing it because they read on wallstreetbets that a magical "short call" was coming tomorrow which would spike the stock. That's a SCAM. It's not going to happen that way. The owners of all those early shorts have already settled their positions (and, yes, lost a lot of money in the process) and all you're seeing now is a tulip-style pump and dump. You got scammed. You're not a hero. Robinhood might well not be acting in your best interests but they almost certainly saved you money.
tinyhouse 6y ago
That's true. Most people involved are driven by profit, not by screwing up hedge funds. Trading controls are important but it's problematic that Robinhood has this kind of power. That's usually something that exchanges control.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> Basically: there's a reason for these trading controls to exist. There is a reason for trading controls by a neutral third party. Trading controls created and manipulated by a stakeholder is market manipulation and illegal.

bufferoverflow 6y ago

> virtually everyone who would have been buying GME yesterday based on the pump nonsense would have lost all that money That's not true. Today the stock went higher than at any point yesterday.

newacct583 6y ago
It's already below its open. Edit: multiple responses seizing on what can only be called a conspiracy theory at this point that some how absent Robinhood's tiny trade volume this stock would somehow still be going up from a 500% increase. Guys, YES, the system is kinda rigged. What happened here is that you all GOT SCAMMED. There is no magic short call coming tomorrow. The stock was pumped (starting originally with a short squeeze, but of course now it's just a regular bubble), and you were fooled into trying to buy it high. You are the victims here, not the heroes.
- martinni 6y ago
  They’ll probably use that argument to justify their action. “See we saved you from yourself, look how low it got”. But who knows what would have happened if the trades weren’t stopped. The system is rigged.
- elindbe3 6y ago
  Couldn't have anything to do with RH only allowing you to sell the stock, could it?
- bufferoverflow 6y ago
  Yes, but it was higher.
- SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
  Strange how only being allowed to sell and not buy may drive a price down.

unethical_ban 6y ago

Counterpoint: You are assuming good faith behavior in RH, where I see blatant fraud. It is outright market manipulation that they stop people from buying, but not selling. That they stopped individuals like me, who know the risk and can afford the loss, while allowing their hedge fund buddies to buy the dump and cover shorts. As for "this would have happened anyway", well that doesn't sound very free market to force the very thing you claim to be trying to stop. RH says "oh no we don't want you to lose money, so we're going to cause a crash on the stock. Feel free to sell". It's rotten to the core.

nrmitchi 6y ago
If you know the risk, and can afford the loss, you can use a different platform, no? This action is likely (at least partially) targeted to prevent new users who have never traded a stock from trying to hop on the train and follow a "How to buy GME Options to make BANK in 5 simple steps!" article from losing everything. Do you think there would be less blow-back if Robinhood only restricted new accounts? Or maybe only people with minimum balances? If they stopped allowing people to sell their existing positions, then a lawsuit about "Robinhood is holding my funds hostage, didn't let me sell, and now I lost money because of them" would have come in, and probably would have had a lot more merit.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  We are working on fundamentally different assumptions. You assume they did this in good faith to "protect new users". I believe they are committing fraud and stock manipulation. But yes, if I used your assumption, I would say they should have restricted options for new users, or put extra warnings up. And to your first sentence, no, you can't just move to a new platform. It takes more than a week to move funds from one brokerage to another.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > I believe they are committing fraud and stock manipulation. The stock is already manipulated, though. No one racing to buy GME is doing so because a genuine desire to receive dividends, exercise voting power over corporate governance, etc... They're doing it because they read on wallstreetbets that a magical "short call" was coming tomorrow which would spike the stock. That's a SCAM. It's not going to happen that way. The owners of all those early shorts have already settled their positions (and, yes, lost a lot of money in the process) and all you're seeing now is a tulip-style pump and dump. You got scammed. You're not a hero. Robinhood might well not be acting in your best interests but they almost certainly saved you money.

tinyhouse 6y ago

That's true. Most people involved are driven by profit, not by screwing up hedge funds. Trading controls are important but it's problematic that Robinhood has this kind of power. That's usually something that exchanges control.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> Basically: there's a reason for these trading controls to exist. There is a reason for trading controls by a neutral third party. Trading controls created and manipulated by a stakeholder is market manipulation and illegal.