3 ms·

But the shares are the user's property. Isn't this theft, since the person got whatever robinhood thought it was worth without consent? (presuming the user wasn

by easton 6y ago

But the shares are the user's property. Isn't this theft, since the person got whatever robinhood thought it was worth without consent? (presuming the user wasn't buying on margin which probably includes an agreement that they will liquidate if you won't be able to cover reasonably).

cma 6y ago
It may be they bought and sold back and forth rapidly and the unsettled trades are considered on margin even if it was mostly netted out in and out of the same stock. Doing it without settlement itself is similar to naked shorting, because while it should all net out, trades can bust, especially in a short squeeze where people's long positions have been loaned out.
mcherm 6y ago
> Isn't this theft, [...] presuming the user wasn't buying on margin Yes. It's also murder for hire, presuming that they contracted with someone to have the user executed. Honestly, I'm not sure why you would assume that this wasn't a case of buying on margin since the forced liquidation is STANDARD for buying on margin and the user (however reliable they may or may not be as a source) didn't even say that it wasn't bought on margin.