3 ms·
If we assume for a moment that Robinhood is acting in good faith (Seems like a stretch but work with me here). It's possible they are doing this to protect inv
by ogre_codes 6y ago
If we assume for a moment that Robinhood is acting in good faith (Seems like a stretch but work with me here).
It's possible they are doing this to protect investors. It's pretty clear GME is going to crash at some point in the near future. Having thousands of investors on their platform go broke at once is just bad for everyone (who isn't short). By blocking these trades, RH is protecting investors from potential loss.
In a way, it's almost like preventing someone from investing in a Ponzi scheme. While it might piss you off, it will save you in the long run.
Of course... that's assuming RH is acting in good faith.
- ra7 6y agoI see what you’re saying. But I said in another comment that Robinhood has made it super easy over the years to do all kinds of irresponsible trading and have benefited from it. Today seems like a convenient time for them to be concerned about investor risks. This and their involvement with Citadel makes it hard for me to give them the benefit of doubt.
- ogre_codes 6y agoI guess I wasn't clear... I don't necessarily think RH is acting in good faith. I was just suggesting what I feel is the only possible good faith explanation. Not that I believe that is the case.
- ra7 6y agoNo, I get that it was an assumption. I was just saying how even if I assume they were acting in good faith, it doesn’t make sense to me.
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y agoBetter late than never? I can understand complaining about getting thrown out of a casino for winning too much. I can't understand complaining about getting thrown out for losing too much. The people "investing" in these companies are totally clueless and the majority of them are going to lose all their money. Cutting them off is clearly in their best interest. Whether or not that kind of paternalism is acceptable is another matter.