19 ms·

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Robinhood

460 points by po1nter 6y ago

optimalsolver 6y ago
Virtually all trading platforms have blocked users from opening positions on these symbols. Why is Robinhood being singled out? Also, considering 99.9% of people jumping on the bandwagon have absolutely no idea what they're doing, they'll probably thank RH down the road for preventing them from losing all their money.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Robinhood was the first.
- Avalaxy 6y ago
  DeGiro is still good. Bought GME there today.
  - janmo 6y ago
    I also use DEGIRO, and it is a good broker, it doesn't do this scammy pay for order flow thing that Robinhood and Trade republic are doing, that said, I didn't buy GME and I would not recommend buying it.
    - mcv 6y ago
      It is super risky, but there's a definite path to profit here: the short-sellers sold too much stock. 140% of the shares, it appears, which means shares were borrowed, sold, and then borrowed from the buyer it was sold to and sold again. And when all those shorts run out, the short-sellers need to have bought shares back again. With share prices this high, they're going to have to pay a lot of money for them, and people holding shares could make a ton of profit. But it's definitely risky. You could lose a lot of money. Many of the people buying are also doing it to stick it to the hedge funds and give them a taste of their own medicine.
- the_drunkard 6y ago
  > Virtually all trading platforms have blocked users from opening positions on these symbols. Can you be more specific? Robinhood & Webull are the only two that I'm aware of.
  - crookshanked 6y ago
    TD Ameritrade is preventing me from opening positions right now.
    - totony 6y ago
      TD Canada has prevented some forms of orders (e.g. market buy), but not limit buy - I think this isn't so bad as their clients might expect the quoted price and get screwed at open because of volatility
  - andrewmunsell 6y ago
    Ally was as well (I am not sure who fills the orders), but Fidelity was still working for me.
  - NotzoCoolKid 6y ago
    Tastyworks also blocked opening new positions.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    tastyworks went to close-only @ 11:39AM per an email, and opened it back up at 3:12PM today. They blamed Apex clearing, which is the custodian for tastyworks accounts.
  - nannal 6y ago
    212 did this aswell.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- adrr 6y ago
  I am so curious what the long term plan for GME is. Is it to hold the long term? If it’s not, what are the plans to unwind?
  - sveme 6y ago
    At some point those shorts are due - if the owner of the shorts doesn't hold the necessary stocks, it's going to be expensive. That's my understanding. What happens afterwards? No ideas. Some people want to see hedge funds burn, I would not mind that either.
    - betterunix2 6y ago
      Short sales do not work like that. You can have a short position indefinitely, as long as you pay the margin interest and meet the margin maintenance requirements. Options positions are another story, in-the-money calls do require delivery of the shares by the expiration date, and next such date is tomorrow. Nobody is going to make the hedge funds burn. At this point the hedge funds are fleecing whoever was buying shares or options yesterday (who do you think they bought them from?).
      - boatsie 6y ago
        Exactly, “wall st” as a whole is making bank off this volatility, as well as Blackrock and Fidelity finds. The real way to actually stick it to wall st would be if all of main st sold all their equities..
      - sveme 6y ago
        Thanks for teaching me something I did not know! May the post above be forever a monument to my ignorance!
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    I believe the original r/WSB idea was to induce a short squeeze and cause Melvin Capital to lose their shirts. See: http://www.isthesqueezesquoze.com/ http://www.isthesqueezesquoze.com/
- pgt 6y ago
  Could someone please confirm this, but as I understand they blocked buys but not sells, or the other way around? Instead of freezing the stock, it drives the price in one direction.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    Correct. They blocked buys which would drive the price down, benefitting Citadel, their main source of revenue. I don’t know if that’s why they did this but that’s what the lawsuit is for: to find out. At worst, Robinhood is going to close because of this and their and Citadel’s execs might face prison for manipulating the market.
    - pgt 6y ago
      Thanks for confirming! What happens if this kind of thing happens due to an unintentional bug? Do execs go to jail for market manipulation?
      - lovecg 6y ago
        Not a lawyer, but I imagine it’s similar to how industrial accidents are treated. If there was proper due diligence and precautions, and it was truly an “act of God” sort of thing, that’s understandable. If on the other hand their processes are not up to snuff and they moved a bit too fast and broke one too many things, I imagine they wouldn’t be treated as nicely.
- xeonoex 6y ago
  Robinhood is what all the people jumping on the bandwagon used. And this coincided with a sharp price drop on all of these stocks blocked. The reason was "Due to ongoing volatility", but any trader will tell you volatility is how money is made. It took all of the normal people out of the game, and tried to scare them into selling so that the ones holding the shorts are in a better position. And to add to that, a company (Citadel) that pays Robinhood a large amount of money for their data is one of those with the short positions. So Robinhood itself has a stake in this. Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about and this is only my opinion.
  - lovecg 6y ago
    > And to add to that, a company (Citadel) that pays Robinhood a large amount of money for their data is one of those with the short positions. So Robinhood itself has a stake in this. That’s quite a claim. Got a source on that?
    - xeonoex 6y ago
      Again I have no idea what I'm talking about, but https://www.equities.com/news/robinhood-is-said-to-get-40-revenue-from-hft-firms-like-citadel https://www.equities.com/news/robinhood-is-said-to-get-40-re... https://twitter.com/justinkan/status/1354853920762253315 https://twitter.com/justinkan/status/1354853920762253315 I'm no market expert, but I know that when cash is flowing between two companies, they generally have shared interests.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  >Why is Robinhood being singled out? Likely because it has the most impacted users. I suspect other platforms will get lawsuits as well in time if this one proceeds.
- Triv888 6y ago
  I've been buying on TDA and Schwab today... I think that TDA only restricts you if you are on a margin account. I'm on a cash account because I like to avoid their "pattern day trader" protection.
- avereveard 6y ago
  blocking options calls from account that can't cover the position: good, probably saved people from getting into debt blocking purchases of shares from accounts that have enough to cover the contract: highly sketchy and worthy of deep scrutiny some broker did 1, some did 2, but form screenshots alone is hard to tell which did which
- mcv 6y ago
  Many trading platforms still allow trading. And there's no real reason not to, except to protect the hedge funds that fucked up. Edit: And I just found out my platform (Binck) doesn't accept trades anymore. Edit: Apparently they do accept trades, but only if your limit is close to the current price. I was increasing mine because it wasn't executing at the lower price. Eventually I did get in at the lower price. We'll see where this goes.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  Vanguard hasn’t. Fidelity hasn’t. TD Ameritrade hasn’t (other than not allowing margin for shorts). I disn’t check Schwab but I don’t think they blocked purchases either.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
slg 6y ago
I'm not sure disallowing buying this stock is worthy of a lawsuit. However forcibly closing people's positions who already are long on GME like some are reporting on Twitter[1] certainly seems like a great reason to be sued. [1] - https://twitter.com/joemccann/status/1354859879337320452 https://twitter.com/joemccann/status/1354859879337320452
- andrewmunsell 6y ago
  Every case I've seen where they've closed out a position, it was on margin, which makes it perfectly acceptable to do. I do not agree with Robinhood's actions today, but this is a very important distinction versus closing out a position that someone took out with cash.
  - simonsaidit 6y ago
    The positions getting closed was a consequence of preventing people to buy id argue. They could have closed them anyway but probably at a higher price
  - paulgb 6y ago
    It’s really kind of ironic. People are knee-jerk blaming RH for closing margin positions because they didn’t fully understand how they work and the risks involved. Simultaneously, the same people are blaming RH for stepping in the way of what very certainly would have turned into a bad trade for a lot of people. I don’t take RH’s side but it’s hard to see a winning play for them, it’s damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t.
    - Tenoke 6y ago
      >People are knee-jerk blaming RH for closing margin positions because they didn’t fully understand how they work People are typically given a choice to sell other assets, deposit more or close in these situations rather than getting their stock sold at the brief lowest possible price driven by the very broker closing the position. Also, typically it's only a portion that gets liquidated rather than everything on margin.
curryst 6y ago
Does anyone know why Robinhood would block the symbols? If the SEC determines some manipulation happened, does Robinhood bear some liability? I'm not alleging a conspiracy or anything, it just seems odd to me that this kind of action comes preemptively from a broker. I would have expected the brokers to do nothing until the SEC indicates something one way or another, or for nothing to change if the SEC doesn't take a position either way. I feel like there's some part of this I'm missing.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  As I understand it, Robinhood has VC investors and uses third parties to execute trades (that pay Robinhood for it) which stand to lose on GME. The talk being that they pressured Robinhood into this action so they wouldn't lose as much money.
- ngokevin 6y ago
  Investors and key shareholders sacrificed Robinhood and are willing to eat lawsuits because hedge funds' GME positions tower over all of that.
- mcv 6y ago
  From what I understand, Citadel, the mother company of Melvin Capital, one of the largest short-sellers that got in trouble, is responsible for 60% of Robinhood's revenue, buying user data from them. Robinhood might be protecting their largest customer. Edit: it's possible Citadel pays Robinhood for something else instead. And it's possible they don't fully own but only invested in Melvin. Still, there do seem to be pretty clear ties.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  Citadel is RobinHood’s biggest customer - they pay RH for order flow from “unsophisticated” investors. Citadel also owns a non-controlling interest in Melvin capital, a hedge fund that is/was massively short GME. Citadel gave them $2.7 billion earlier this week. It seems very likely that Citadel pressured RobinHood to stop all purchases so that Citadel’s investment is secure. There are additional rumors that Citadel went short GME right before the brokers stopped allowing people to buy, only allowing them to sell.
logicslave 6y ago
Populism! Its popping up in every corner of American life
whitepaint 6y ago
Can someone, who has expertise in this field, explain what the hell happened? How on earth is it possible that all brokers at the same time disallowed to buy certain stocks? Who is responsible for this? The SEC, the FED, the White House, or..? Who gave the call? Who has that much power?
- betterunix2 6y ago
  In all likelihood the internal teams responsible for risk management and compliance all determined that this was likely criminal activity, and recommended trading restrictions until the SEC weighs in. Brokerages are typically over-cautious about this sort of thing because they do not want to invite additional scrutiny from the powers that be. The brokerages probably did not communicate these decisions to each other, they just all use similar logic and all arrived at similar conclusions. Those that did not make this decision probably did not observe suspicious trading patterns from their customers.
  - paxys 6y ago
    There is zero chance they all independently came to the same conclusion at the exact same time. There has to be a bare minimum amount of coordination involved, which is likely illegal. Either that or they got an order from the SEC/White House.
    - betterunix2 6y ago
      Financial companies all use the same logic to make these sorts of decisions, so yes, there is a very good chance that they independently came to the same conclusion at the same time.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      It’s also not a clear conclusion even remotely at all. There’s nothing remotely illegal about retail investors coordinating together to profit from a short squeeze opportunity.
    - wonderwonder 6y ago
mcv 6y ago
From what I understand Melvin Capital, one of the biggest short-sellers that got in trouble, is owned by Citadel, which is also Robinhood's largest customer (buying user data, of all things) and maybe partial owner. I'm no lawyer, but to me it sounds like that might be a conflict of interests. By preventing people from buying shares, the short-sellers have less competition to buy the available shares, and will have an easier time getting them, while paying less for them. Robinhood seems to be manipulating the market to make it easier for Melvin Capital to cut their substantial losses.
- whitepaint 6y ago
  The thing is, all brokers are doing the same. How on earth is this possible?
  - dnissley 6y ago
    I'm with Ally bank and right now they're telling people that it's their clearing firm (Apex Clearing Corp) that's blocking buys of GME and some other stocks. Could it be that other trading platforms use the same clearing firm?
    - misframer 6y ago
      Apex is the clearing firm for Tastyworks and Webull too. I got an email from Tastyworks about restrictions (which just got lifted).
    - neom 6y ago
      Interestingly, I bank with HSBC and I could buy and sell GME and AMC the whole time outside of when it was halted. I called them to ask why and they said they clear their own trades. Not sure how exactly that is possible though (if anyone can explain...)
      - kenhwang 6y ago
        Typically when you buy/sell a stock, it's not moving anywhere. Robinhood would try to sell the stock to someone on Robinhood buying the stock first. The big banks and brokerages have enough people buying/selling within its platform that it has enough supply to trade within itself. For a small brokerage, they would have to work with other brokerages to help them trade, as they wouldn't have enough shares they already hold to trade them within their users. So Robinhood asks Apex for more shares, and Apex has to ask HSBC/Fidelity/JPMC/Goldman if Apex doesn't have any. At some point, all the other institutions also don't want to give up their shares because they need to satisfy demand from their own users. Trading with other firms tends to be really slow too. It's a short squeeze too, by definition there's not enough stocks available for everyone who wants to buy. So some firms ran out and couldn't get more.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
janmo 6y ago
What did you expect? When it is free you are the product. Robinhood uses pay for order flow, a system invented by Bernie Madoof to generate revenue. It is really time to leave this broker.
- hayd 6y ago
  It's not necessarily free https://robinhood.com/us/en/about/gold/ https://robinhood.com/us/en/about/gold/
- paxys 6y ago
  All the paid brokerages have done the same. This is really not about trading fees.
jcranmer 6y ago
I've scanned the lawsuit (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175.1.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175...). I'm not a lawyer, but my first reading of it is that this is not a strong lawsuit. The complaint is largely framed around "Robinhood prevented us from executing trades against GME, and it is contractually required to execute all trades." However, the actual contract explicitly says the opposite: Robinhood can choose to limit execution at its own discretion. So in order to win, plaintiffs basically have to get the relevant clauses of the contract to be ruled illegal. The extent to which this is possible is dependent on securities law which I am very unqualified to comment on, although I will note that the complaint does at least include some relevant allegations to what they need to do, which is better than other lawsuits I've seen (oh hi Parler).
- f430 6y ago
  Market manipulation is still manipulation whether you've written it in your Terms of Service (which isn't the law btw like Craigslist do-not-scrape "law"). The basic spirit of the contract between a trade executor and the client does not allow for interference barring regulatory or SEC enforcement. Meaning RH took it on themselves to enforce a rule that its users had no idea of, hence the outrage. If it was well known (with clear warnings on the splash screen of RH highlighting their "special" rule) then the case might be different. If it gets rejected at this level then almost certainly SEC will be involved. If they side with RH then it would certainly destroy the trust of the retail trading industry. We also now seem to be witnessing a political opportunity for the Biden administration (ex. AOC's tweet throwing support for WSB). Essentially what we are seeing is a payback by the people who got outsmarted by a bunch of redditors and arguing that they cannot be allowed to fail for their own stupid trades (like shorting over 100% of the stock available), so they pulled all the tricks in the book to once again bend the market to their will like they always have. Anybody who thinks things will go as they have before are mistaken; We are in a very different political environment and stuff like this is the perfect opportunity for the Biden administration.
  - enraged_camel 6y ago
    >> Market manipulation is still manipulation whether you've written it in your Terms of Service (which isn't the law btw like Craigslist do-not-scrape "law"). Yes. And intentionally interfering with supply and demand is the textbook definition of market manipulation — it appears in SEC powerpoints and everything! https://www.sec.gov/files/Market%20Manipulations%20and%20Case%20Studies.pdf https://www.sec.gov/files/Market%20Manipulations%20and%20Cas...
totaldude87 6y ago
Allowing a stock to become sell only will trigger a sell off and this WILL help the short sellers cover ( may be with reduced loss).. Just allowing selling of a stock makes, free markets a joke. I am seeing analogies like will apple store sell me a pixel 3a etc. This is not a product robinhood buys or sells , they make my transaction with a bigger shark (Citadel) who is in bed with the hedge fund who shorted ~112% of outstanding shares. When a group of people took advantage and created a squeeze, they block their ability to buy more to strengthen their squeeze.
- totalZero 6y ago
  > Allowing a stock to become sell only will trigger a sell off and this WILL help the short sellers cover ( may be with reduced loss) Yes. Blocking opening buyers essentially means that closing short-sellers don't need to compete for supply.
reilly3000 6y ago
I'm very much with the WSB folks, but I have a theory about the trading halt that may be more innocent. RH's exposure to margin ensures that when GME inevitably plummets, they aren't on the hook for giant liability. They may behave the same way for any stock that broke circuit breakers that fast, and some of it legit is to protect the interests of their retail investors. That said, for Robinhood's business model, you're the product, not the investor. Outside of reputational damage they DGAF about the outcomes of individual investors as long as they don't have skin in the game.
- okprod 6y ago
  RH using protecting retail investors' interests as an excuse now to force selling of shares
dang 6y ago
For pointers to other vertices of this story graph, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25933543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25933543. The earlier thread about class action is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25945447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25945447. Not sure if these are the same class action or just the same class action class. The current thread is paginated like all the other big threads. If you want to see all the comments you'll need to click through the More links at the bottom, or like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814&p=3 (and so on)
foxfired 6y ago
Even e-trade is blocking purchase orders: https://imgur.com/a/iHqwEyv https://imgur.com/a/iHqwEyv
joering2 6y ago
wow, that didn't take long so I was wrong about TV ads. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25943676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25943676 Next prediction: obviously Robinhood can kiss their IPO goodbye. They are hated by both sides now - bankers and investors. Frankly, I hope they will go under, get shut down but not before 20 AG and DOJ/SEC takes them to bleachers.
avipars 6y ago
How could I join?
totaldude87 6y ago
all you need to prove is , how these things map together w.r.t GME 1) transactions between Robinhood and Citadel (even some % of their GME trades would have gone to Citadel) 2) The deal between hedge fund and citadel If you can prove that its because of #1 and #2 , RobinHood arrived at this decision, its game over? or is it?
totaldude87 6y ago
Also if Robinhood wins this, theoretically they can do the same to $AAPL, $MSFT, $AMZN , now how does the uber rich , fund managers, union funds, 401k etc etc would react? where does this stop. Its either a free trade market , or its not!
ineedasername 6y ago
In addition to the class relief, they're also asking for an immediate injunction to reinstate GME. Good.
throwaway69123 6y ago
Is it true the company that owns Robinhood also has a huge short exposure to GME?
- alexdumitru 6y ago
  They don't own it, but they're their largest customer.
  - luxuryballs 6y ago
    Ain’t that some shit.
  - leroy_masochist 6y ago
    Citadel is not a Robinhood customer like retail investors are customers; they're a) an execution partner who executes Robinhood's trades and b) a source of revenue because they actually pay Robinhood for the privilege of doing this. It's worth it to Citadel because they can use the information in the order flow to front-run the retail market.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Retail investors aren't really the customers, unless they borrow margin really they're the product.
    - findthewords 6y ago
      In other words, Citadel is a customer of RH while the app's user data is the product.
      - xiphias2 6y ago
        Exactly, but if RH loses the product, it loses the customer as well, so it was a lose-lose situation that was created by the business model.
    - thekyle 6y ago
po1nter 6y ago
Active discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814
franklampard 6y ago
well deserved
- nindalf 6y ago
  Mate you deserved more time. I'll always be a fan!
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Never thought I'd see him around these parts
  - franklampard 6y ago
    I know :( it’s sadness
- slivanes 6y ago
  Suuuuper... Suuuuuper Frank.. Suuper... Suuuper Frank..
Nacdor 6y ago
How will this lawsuit get around the binding arbitration clause in their customer agreement? https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/Customer%20Agreement.pdf https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/Customer%20...
- findthewords 6y ago
  I would imagine that this lawsuit is about the motive behind it.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  I am not a lawyer and I haven’t fully parsed the complaint but the class might be defined as anyone who owned GME and suffered damages or something like that, so not necessarily robinhood customers.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The class is all Robinhood customers, or alternatively, all Robinhood customers who tried to buy GME but couldn't.
- abduhl 6y ago
  If it doesn't, does Robinhood really want to go to arbitration with all of WSB? I wonder who pays the upfront cost for the arbitrator?
  - Nacdor 6y ago
    I had the same thought because DoorDash was once pummeled with arbitration fees by angry drivers, and it looks like Robinhood doesn't specify who pays the fee. I'm assuming that leaves the burden on the consumer, but maybe their arbitrator (FINRA) has some rule I'm missing.
  - fastball 6y ago
    There are actually law firms that specialize in arbitration at scale. Customers: "We want to sue you." Company: "Sorry you can't do a class-action, we have a binding arbitration clause." Law firm representing customers: "Ok, here is the paperwork for 1500 arbitrations, have fun with that. We can do this all day."
hnrodey 6y ago
January 28th, 2021: we witnessed the most corrupt financial act of our lifetime as a one-sided stock purchasing restriction was placed on MILLIONS of people across the United States in the most critical time of “financial battle”.
Triv888 6y ago
Inside of about 3 hours, Alpaca, went from blocking sales of some stocks to allowing sales of the same stocks: AMC - AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. BB - BlackBerry Ltd. EXPR - Express, Inc. GME - GameStop Corp. KOSS - Koss Corporation NAKD - Naked Brand Groups Ltd NOK - Nokia Oyj I guess they don't want to get sued (the biggest fear of most companies)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nindalf 6y ago
This lawsuit will go nowhere. At best a tiny settlement after years of litigation. Congress will have a few hearings for show, so reps can get face time and claim to be "for the people". SEC will wag their finger, might even levy a few hundred thousand in fines. Citadel and gang operate this casino. If they think they're losing, they change the rules so they aren't. What it tells me is that they're getting increasingly desperate if they're willing to brazenly manipulate the market like this. Seems like they didn't close out their short position, like they claimed they had 2 days ago. It'd be interesting to see if the casino wins this game.
- nine_zeros 6y ago
  > This lawsuit will go nowhere. At best a tiny settlement after years of litigation. Congress will have a few hearings for show, so reps can get face time and claim to be "for the people". SEC will wag their finger, might even levy a few hundred thousand in fines. This will be the end of wall street. Or at least, the end of companies like Robinhood. Faith in American systems were already at all time low after last four years and now with this kind of market manipulation at the expense of retail investors, American stock market will be bust. There is zero reason to play in this casino.
  - dheera 6y ago
    Unfortunately the odds of winning in the stock market even buying random stocks are still way better than a real casino, and casinos are still around.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      Casinos are OK. Gambling is a special tax applied to people with bad understanding of the probability theory.
      - thatguy0900 6y ago
        I feel like the people who say this have never been to a casino, they're pretty fun. I would wager most people going know they will lose money. Gambling addiction is a real problem, though.
sbelskie 6y ago
“ANTHONY DENIER: Well, it wasn't our choice. Our clearing firm gave us a call and said we're going to have to stop allowing new opening positions in the three names, AMC, GME, and KOSS. Highly volatile, and what happens is this is not a political decision. And unfortunately, it got political. I think, you know, I think it was once said that don't let any good crisis go to waste. And that's clearly what's happening here. And we're seeing politicians jump on the bandwagon so they can get-- so they can start trending on Twitter. But in reality, what's going on is that there is a two-day settlement between if you buy the stock today, those brokerage firms that you bought that stock on have to fund that trade with the clearing central house called DTC for two whole days. And because of the volatility of stocks, DTC has made the cost of the collateral of the two-day holding period extremely expensive.“[1] from the CEO of Webull. [1]- https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restricting-users-173049721.html https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict... Edit: Non amp link.
- kart23 6y ago
  suggest you use a non-amp link: https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restricting-users-173049721.html https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...
  - sbelskie 6y ago
    Done. Thanks!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- carstenhag 6y ago
  And these businesses have contracts specifying that they can increase prices absurdly high from one day to the other?
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > these businesses have contracts specifying that they can increase prices absurdly high from one day to the other? The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation settles most listed securities transactions in America; in 2011, it did $1.7 quadrillion [1]. You've never heard of it unless you're a professional trader, but it's actually quite fascinating to read up on. Trading looks instantaneous. But settlement takes a few days. In between are a series of credit agreements. From your broker to you. From the clearinghouse to the brokers. DTCC is the clearinghouse. Robinhood is the broker. There are clear rules and contracts between DTCC and its members, including Robinhood [2]. Those contracts ensure that when you buy shares through your broker from a Robinhood customer, if Robinhood falls down two days later, there is collateral sufficient to make you whole. Those collateral requirements change in reference to, amongst other things, the volatility of the security. (If something goes up and down more, ceteris paribus, small mistakes are more likely to become firm-ending ones.) Again, these are well-known formulas. Unusually, however, Robinhood didn't build this into their fee model. Given market makers, their revenue source, stopped making markets in GME on account of how volatility effects their risk profile, executing GME trades would leave Robinhood sending orders to an exchange, which may cost money, and ponying up collateral, which also costs money. In my opinion, that's what they should have done. Most brokers have policies for these situations. Higher brokerage fees for securities on a schedule. Not making shares and cash from trades available until the trade settles, sort of like what banks do for large cheques. But I don't know if Robinhood is able to do that quickly. So instead they pulled the plug. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_... [2] https://www.dtcclearning.com/products-and-services/settlement/settlement-services/risk-management/296-risk-management-overview/2277-collateral-valuation-of-securities.html https://www.dtcclearning.com/products-and-services/settlemen...
trevortheblack 6y ago
Propose shifting the article to the suit itself: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175.1.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175...
hehehaha 6y ago
This is so misguided. Why did people think they can put on a 8 sigma short squeeze on Robinhood of all platforms? That said this has gone mainstream and the ramification will be significant across the board from retail options to overall regulation on discount brokers to order flow sale. Net effect is likely higher cost of trading for everyone.
- konjin 6y ago
  > Net effect is likely higher cost of trading for everyone. Good, trades are not zero cost and should not be treated as such.
liuliu 6y ago
They drew extra credit line today, and saying they cannot keep up with the capital obligations. It seems like they are insolvent for a moment today, not sure what's their current state of affairs. RH requires much more SEC scrutiny really. A brokerage cannot go broke by facilitating trades, it supposes to be a risk-free business.
artorg 6y ago
I think the suitability standard applies here, and will probably be the main defense for the brokers. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionaleducation/11/suitability-fiduciary-standards.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionaleducation/... https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/suitability https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/suitability
bernardv 6y ago
Oh please... own your risk
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- RangerScience 6y ago
  Yeah, kinda tired of freeloading financial institutions crying foul when their risk realizes. /snark Wait.
  - bernardv 6y ago
    What did they imagine was going to happen? In any case, financial institutions have way more staying power - just another day.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
cccc4all 6y ago
Robinhood is done as company, no matter what happens with the lawsuit. They had one job, trade stocks, and they refused to do it at the most critical time under very shady circumstances. How can anyone trust this company with their financial future after today?
- ghego1 6y ago
  IMHO you make the best point of all this far. Their customer base is essentially WSB wannabies, and they've managed to piss them good. I am currently in a country where robinh does not operate, but I'd be absolutely reluctant to use them now even if it became available.
hntrader 6y ago
What about all the other retail brokerages that did the same thing?
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  Presumably their customers are free to sue them.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    Yeah I think my point is more that the outrage is not proportional. Other brokers did the same thing and aren't in the spotlight at all.
    - Macha 6y ago
      Chance of lawsuit = potential upside * success chance * number of affected customers * unhappiness of customers Robin hood had the most affected customers, so go the lawsuit and most of the bad press.
eric_b 6y ago
Some of the complaints from Robinhood users ring of entitlement. They didn't know what they were doing or what rights they actually had. And certainly they must not have read the ToS where Robinhood is granted various terrible powers over their money and trading access. On the one hand it's great that anyone who wants it has access to the financial markets. But I mean, you should probably know what you're doing before you start speculating. Are people really going to make a moral issue out of not being able to sell their bad bets to a greater fool? It's like everyone wants access to swim with a dangerous group of man-eating sharks and then complains when they get bitten.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I don't think "entitlement" is an appropriate description for people angry at their trading platform for suddenly working against them to spoil trading opportunities and cost them money. It's like saying the victim of a robbery is entitled because he's upset at criminals taking his money.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Why should they care about the ToS? It makes perfect sense to hit the company where it hurts by ruining its reputation and that's what they're doing.
RivieraKid 6y ago
I think I'm the only guy on the internet who's rooting for the short-sellers.
- ausbah 6y ago
  why?
  - RivieraKid 6y ago
    Because the anti short-seller movement is so dumb. Shorting overvalued stocks is a good thing.
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
I have seen some information floating around stating that RH is not responsible for the trade clearing in the RH platform. Robinhood has in effect cleared all its trades since 2018 as you can see based on their own page. https://robinhood.com/us/en/support/articles/common-tax-questions/ https://robinhood.com/us/en/support/articles/common-tax-ques...
- silexia 6y ago
  Even outside of the trade clearing argument (even if Robinhood clears it's own trades, it could still lose huge sums if the stock gapped), a short squeeze is illegal. Allowing it's platform to be used for illegal activity could make them liable to the SEC and investor lawsuits.
  - zionic 6y ago
    > a short squeeze is illegal No it's not
  - llampx 6y ago
    Short squeezes are not illegal, stop spreading misinformation.
  - Noted 6y ago
    You keep posting this, but do you have any evidence? Other people have repeatedly refuted short squeezes being illegal.
  - girvo 6y ago
    You keep posting this in every possible thread. Question: who got punished for the VW short squeeze? That was illegal too, right? The thing is, I think I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re not explaining it well enough, and are spreading (at best) misinformation. A short squeeze isn’t illegal. Organising a coordinated one might be.
    - drail99 6y ago
      The VW wasn't a planned squeeze. It just happened because Porsche was actively taking a stake in the company. Porsche didn't buy the stock with the intention of selling it to make a profit, they literally tried to buy the company to trigger a asset transfer clause. It's also worth nothing that this happened in Germany so not subject to SEC regulations AND very importantly, Porsche actually ended up on the losing end of the deal and getting screwed. They tried to get a Bail out from the Saudi's but German govt. Wouldn't allow it. In the US, buying stocks with the intention of creating a short squeeze and then reselling the stock is expressively illegal by SEC regulations, it's why you see the phrase "WE like the stock" so much.
paulpan 6y ago
Maybe stating the obvious - doesn't this torpedo Robinhood's plans to IPO sometime this year? The backlash seems so severe that I'm very curious about the rationale behind backroom decisions made that led to all this.
- 6nf 6y ago
  Yes this is very bad for RH
- zionic 6y ago
  At this point I would expect RH to let you buy, but not sell, RH's own IPO stock hah.
  - rasz 6y ago
    Just like Tether!
hankchinaski 6y ago
this increasingly looks like an episode of "billions"
MrPatan 6y ago
How many Dexes for company shares are being built right now? Which company will be the first one to get listed in one of those? When will it happen?
Thaxll 6y ago
The system looks very fragile when something like that happens, and by being fragile it makes the stock going down which in return lot of people are loosing money. They should have stop trading completely on those stock instead they stopped some people / service to purchase it but you can still sell, it's insane.
tqi 6y ago
It's funny that lawmakers so mad about Robinhood putting the brakes on this[1], when all I had been reading prior to this year how Robinhood was recklessly gamifying investing[2]. Some people are absolutely going to lose their homes / retirement savings at the end of all this. I have no doubt they would have faced lawsuits and calls for regulation had they done nothing. [1]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/gamestop-cruz-ocasio-cortez-blast-robinhood-over-trade-freeze.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/gamestop-cruz-ocasio-cortez-... [2]https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/massachusetts-sec-o-commonwealth-galvin-says-robinhood-is-a-reckless-company-gamifying-investing.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/massachusetts-sec-o-commonwe...
- freeone3000 6y ago
  GME is $261 at close today. If you bought at peak and sold at close, you'd have a 40% loss at worst. Moreover, this narrative that people are betting with mortgages and retirements is simply unfounded - most people are in on call contacts or with their "stupid bet" funds, or a few thousand at most. Please remember with WSB, and other 4chan-diaspora communities, to seperate the memes from reality.
  - tqi 6y ago
    Totally agree that MOST people aren't betting their futures on this. But for one, it only takes a few instances for it to shape the public narrative. For another, in a country where 40% can't cover a $600 emergency, it doesn't take that much of a loss to dramatically alter someone's life (especially in our current economy). The end result would have been a flogging in the press and to calls for regulation in Congress.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      The people who don't have $600 to cover an emergency don't have a stockbroker at all, much less one they use to take bets they read about on the internet. There's, as an absolute measure, very few people actually in on this.
Traster 6y ago
To be honest, the more I'm watching this, the more it seems like the same behaviour we saw from the Trump supporters in the build up to 6th Jan. Baseless accusations, incredible emotive language, fact-free discourse and massive ramp up in rhetoric. Progressively wilder accusations with no proof. They don't seem to understand that mass hysteria actually is a reason for a trading platform to bring in limits - especially when there's margin around, and its actually not that big a deal for a hedge fund to go bankrupt. The idea that the entirity of Wallstreet is co-ordinating to back up some hedge fund is... laughable. It's all very high tension, low information at the moment and that seems dangerous. What was the result of this ever going to be? A narrative of being screwed by wall street start to end.
- splistud 6y ago
  Yes it is very similar in that you seem to have no idea what you are saying about either issue
  - Traster 6y ago
    You don't do anything to dissaude me by providing no information to actually dissuade me, but just emotionally reacting. This is the exact sort of hysterical emotoinal reaction to events that shows how dangerous a situation we're in.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Dudester, you're just saying random shit and then expecting someone to write a peer-reviewed paper in response? Dream on. I can't be like "Rust is a shit language" and then expect someone to write a treatise in response. It ain't never gonna happen.
      - Traster 6y ago
        "Dudester"? You'll note that in other parts of the comments in this thread we actually got into some details about things like counter party risk and why trading platforms have aggregate risks to manage, but we didn't manage to have that conversation in this part of the thread becuase the level of argument was pretty much just "I won't address the point you're making I'll call you names and then call you stupid". Well fine, by the sounds of it, you're the sort of person who also makes those Rust threads unbearable by commenting despite having never worked with or near Rust but calling people names because they have experience and have formed opinions. Let's just put it this way, the way the HN commentary has come across right now is like a guy in a bar telling your about a horse you should place a bet on. That's the level we're at, and that's why I talk about the mass hysteria as the more relevant point, because your average Joe has no business reasoning about dynamics of stock prices of fairly illiquid crappy retail stocks.
Hnsuz 6y ago
When do people get it.. These companies are scammers only?
paulpauper 6y ago
It is already going up a lot in AH. It will be harder to show damages if this gets to $500 again. Also the halt was in the premarket, but GME surged at the open to new highs, until falling in half in mid-morning. So this further weakens the narrative and causality that Robinhood's actions caused robothood customers to lose money. The stock tanked maybe because it was just simply overbought, regardless of Robinhood's doing.
willyg123 6y ago
Too bad every user signed an arbitration agreement which prevents class actions from moving forward https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/Customer%20Agreement.pdf https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/Customer%20...
orestarod 6y ago
The irony of the company's name just occurred to me.

460 points by po1nter 6y ago

Virtually all trading platforms have blocked users from opening positions on these symbols. Why is Robinhood being singled out? Also, considering 99.9% of people jumping on the bandwagon have absolutely no idea what they're doing, they'll probably thank RH down the road for preventing them from losing all their money.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
Robinhood was the first.
Avalaxy 6y ago
DeGiro is still good. Bought GME there today.
- janmo 6y ago
  I also use DEGIRO, and it is a good broker, it doesn't do this scammy pay for order flow thing that Robinhood and Trade republic are doing, that said, I didn't buy GME and I would not recommend buying it.
  - mcv 6y ago
    It is super risky, but there's a definite path to profit here: the short-sellers sold too much stock. 140% of the shares, it appears, which means shares were borrowed, sold, and then borrowed from the buyer it was sold to and sold again. And when all those shorts run out, the short-sellers need to have bought shares back again. With share prices this high, they're going to have to pay a lot of money for them, and people holding shares could make a ton of profit. But it's definitely risky. You could lose a lot of money. Many of the people buying are also doing it to stick it to the hedge funds and give them a taste of their own medicine.
the_drunkard 6y ago
> Virtually all trading platforms have blocked users from opening positions on these symbols. Can you be more specific? Robinhood & Webull are the only two that I'm aware of.
- crookshanked 6y ago
  TD Ameritrade is preventing me from opening positions right now.
  - totony 6y ago
    TD Canada has prevented some forms of orders (e.g. market buy), but not limit buy - I think this isn't so bad as their clients might expect the quoted price and get screwed at open because of volatility
- andrewmunsell 6y ago
  Ally was as well (I am not sure who fills the orders), but Fidelity was still working for me.
- NotzoCoolKid 6y ago
  Tastyworks also blocked opening new positions.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  tastyworks went to close-only @ 11:39AM per an email, and opened it back up at 3:12PM today. They blamed Apex clearing, which is the custodian for tastyworks accounts.
- nannal 6y ago
  212 did this aswell.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
adrr 6y ago
I am so curious what the long term plan for GME is. Is it to hold the long term? If it’s not, what are the plans to unwind?
- sveme 6y ago
  At some point those shorts are due - if the owner of the shorts doesn't hold the necessary stocks, it's going to be expensive. That's my understanding. What happens afterwards? No ideas. Some people want to see hedge funds burn, I would not mind that either.
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    Short sales do not work like that. You can have a short position indefinitely, as long as you pay the margin interest and meet the margin maintenance requirements. Options positions are another story, in-the-money calls do require delivery of the shares by the expiration date, and next such date is tomorrow. Nobody is going to make the hedge funds burn. At this point the hedge funds are fleecing whoever was buying shares or options yesterday (who do you think they bought them from?).
    - boatsie 6y ago
      Exactly, “wall st” as a whole is making bank off this volatility, as well as Blackrock and Fidelity finds. The real way to actually stick it to wall st would be if all of main st sold all their equities..
    - sveme 6y ago
      Thanks for teaching me something I did not know! May the post above be forever a monument to my ignorance!
- nerdponx 6y ago
  I believe the original r/WSB idea was to induce a short squeeze and cause Melvin Capital to lose their shirts. See: http://www.isthesqueezesquoze.com/ http://www.isthesqueezesquoze.com/
pgt 6y ago
Could someone please confirm this, but as I understand they blocked buys but not sells, or the other way around? Instead of freezing the stock, it drives the price in one direction.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Correct. They blocked buys which would drive the price down, benefitting Citadel, their main source of revenue. I don’t know if that’s why they did this but that’s what the lawsuit is for: to find out. At worst, Robinhood is going to close because of this and their and Citadel’s execs might face prison for manipulating the market.
  - pgt 6y ago
    Thanks for confirming! What happens if this kind of thing happens due to an unintentional bug? Do execs go to jail for market manipulation?
    - lovecg 6y ago
      Not a lawyer, but I imagine it’s similar to how industrial accidents are treated. If there was proper due diligence and precautions, and it was truly an “act of God” sort of thing, that’s understandable. If on the other hand their processes are not up to snuff and they moved a bit too fast and broke one too many things, I imagine they wouldn’t be treated as nicely.
xeonoex 6y ago
Robinhood is what all the people jumping on the bandwagon used. And this coincided with a sharp price drop on all of these stocks blocked. The reason was "Due to ongoing volatility", but any trader will tell you volatility is how money is made. It took all of the normal people out of the game, and tried to scare them into selling so that the ones holding the shorts are in a better position. And to add to that, a company (Citadel) that pays Robinhood a large amount of money for their data is one of those with the short positions. So Robinhood itself has a stake in this. Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about and this is only my opinion.
- lovecg 6y ago
  > And to add to that, a company (Citadel) that pays Robinhood a large amount of money for their data is one of those with the short positions. So Robinhood itself has a stake in this. That’s quite a claim. Got a source on that?
  - xeonoex 6y ago
    Again I have no idea what I'm talking about, but https://www.equities.com/news/robinhood-is-said-to-get-40-revenue-from-hft-firms-like-citadel https://www.equities.com/news/robinhood-is-said-to-get-40-re... https://twitter.com/justinkan/status/1354853920762253315 https://twitter.com/justinkan/status/1354853920762253315 I'm no market expert, but I know that when cash is flowing between two companies, they generally have shared interests.
marcinzm 6y ago
>Why is Robinhood being singled out? Likely because it has the most impacted users. I suspect other platforms will get lawsuits as well in time if this one proceeds.
Triv888 6y ago
I've been buying on TDA and Schwab today... I think that TDA only restricts you if you are on a margin account. I'm on a cash account because I like to avoid their "pattern day trader" protection.
avereveard 6y ago
blocking options calls from account that can't cover the position: good, probably saved people from getting into debt blocking purchases of shares from accounts that have enough to cover the contract: highly sketchy and worthy of deep scrutiny some broker did 1, some did 2, but form screenshots alone is hard to tell which did which
mcv 6y ago
Many trading platforms still allow trading. And there's no real reason not to, except to protect the hedge funds that fucked up. Edit: And I just found out my platform (Binck) doesn't accept trades anymore. Edit: Apparently they do accept trades, but only if your limit is close to the current price. I was increasing mine because it wasn't executing at the lower price. Eventually I did get in at the lower price. We'll see where this goes.
alasdair_ 6y ago
Vanguard hasn’t. Fidelity hasn’t. TD Ameritrade hasn’t (other than not allowing margin for shorts). I disn’t check Schwab but I don’t think they blocked purchases either.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

slg 6y ago

I'm not sure disallowing buying this stock is worthy of a lawsuit. However forcibly closing people's positions who already are long on GME like some are reporting on Twitter[1] certainly seems like a great reason to be sued. [1] - https://twitter.com/joemccann/status/1354859879337320452 https://twitter.com/joemccann/status/1354859879337320452

andrewmunsell 6y ago
Every case I've seen where they've closed out a position, it was on margin, which makes it perfectly acceptable to do. I do not agree with Robinhood's actions today, but this is a very important distinction versus closing out a position that someone took out with cash.
- simonsaidit 6y ago
  The positions getting closed was a consequence of preventing people to buy id argue. They could have closed them anyway but probably at a higher price
- paulgb 6y ago
  It’s really kind of ironic. People are knee-jerk blaming RH for closing margin positions because they didn’t fully understand how they work and the risks involved. Simultaneously, the same people are blaming RH for stepping in the way of what very certainly would have turned into a bad trade for a lot of people. I don’t take RH’s side but it’s hard to see a winning play for them, it’s damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t.
  - Tenoke 6y ago
    >People are knee-jerk blaming RH for closing margin positions because they didn’t fully understand how they work People are typically given a choice to sell other assets, deposit more or close in these situations rather than getting their stock sold at the brief lowest possible price driven by the very broker closing the position. Also, typically it's only a portion that gets liquidated rather than everything on margin.

curryst 6y ago

Does anyone know why Robinhood would block the symbols? If the SEC determines some manipulation happened, does Robinhood bear some liability? I'm not alleging a conspiracy or anything, it just seems odd to me that this kind of action comes preemptively from a broker. I would have expected the brokers to do nothing until the SEC indicates something one way or another, or for nothing to change if the SEC doesn't take a position either way. I feel like there's some part of this I'm missing.

marcinzm 6y ago
As I understand it, Robinhood has VC investors and uses third parties to execute trades (that pay Robinhood for it) which stand to lose on GME. The talk being that they pressured Robinhood into this action so they wouldn't lose as much money.
ngokevin 6y ago
Investors and key shareholders sacrificed Robinhood and are willing to eat lawsuits because hedge funds' GME positions tower over all of that.
mcv 6y ago
From what I understand, Citadel, the mother company of Melvin Capital, one of the largest short-sellers that got in trouble, is responsible for 60% of Robinhood's revenue, buying user data from them. Robinhood might be protecting their largest customer. Edit: it's possible Citadel pays Robinhood for something else instead. And it's possible they don't fully own but only invested in Melvin. Still, there do seem to be pretty clear ties.
alasdair_ 6y ago
Citadel is RobinHood’s biggest customer - they pay RH for order flow from “unsophisticated” investors. Citadel also owns a non-controlling interest in Melvin capital, a hedge fund that is/was massively short GME. Citadel gave them $2.7 billion earlier this week. It seems very likely that Citadel pressured RobinHood to stop all purchases so that Citadel’s investment is secure. There are additional rumors that Citadel went short GME right before the brokers stopped allowing people to buy, only allowing them to sell.

logicslave 6y ago

Populism! Its popping up in every corner of American life

whitepaint 6y ago

Can someone, who has expertise in this field, explain what the hell happened? How on earth is it possible that all brokers at the same time disallowed to buy certain stocks? Who is responsible for this? The SEC, the FED, the White House, or..? Who gave the call? Who has that much power?

betterunix2 6y ago
In all likelihood the internal teams responsible for risk management and compliance all determined that this was likely criminal activity, and recommended trading restrictions until the SEC weighs in. Brokerages are typically over-cautious about this sort of thing because they do not want to invite additional scrutiny from the powers that be. The brokerages probably did not communicate these decisions to each other, they just all use similar logic and all arrived at similar conclusions. Those that did not make this decision probably did not observe suspicious trading patterns from their customers.
- paxys 6y ago
  There is zero chance they all independently came to the same conclusion at the exact same time. There has to be a bare minimum amount of coordination involved, which is likely illegal. Either that or they got an order from the SEC/White House.
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    Financial companies all use the same logic to make these sorts of decisions, so yes, there is a very good chance that they independently came to the same conclusion at the same time.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    It’s also not a clear conclusion even remotely at all. There’s nothing remotely illegal about retail investors coordinating together to profit from a short squeeze opportunity.
  - wonderwonder 6y ago

mcv 6y ago

From what I understand Melvin Capital, one of the biggest short-sellers that got in trouble, is owned by Citadel, which is also Robinhood's largest customer (buying user data, of all things) and maybe partial owner. I'm no lawyer, but to me it sounds like that might be a conflict of interests. By preventing people from buying shares, the short-sellers have less competition to buy the available shares, and will have an easier time getting them, while paying less for them. Robinhood seems to be manipulating the market to make it easier for Melvin Capital to cut their substantial losses.

whitepaint 6y ago
The thing is, all brokers are doing the same. How on earth is this possible?
- dnissley 6y ago
  I'm with Ally bank and right now they're telling people that it's their clearing firm (Apex Clearing Corp) that's blocking buys of GME and some other stocks. Could it be that other trading platforms use the same clearing firm?
  - misframer 6y ago
    Apex is the clearing firm for Tastyworks and Webull too. I got an email from Tastyworks about restrictions (which just got lifted).
  - neom 6y ago
    Interestingly, I bank with HSBC and I could buy and sell GME and AMC the whole time outside of when it was halted. I called them to ask why and they said they clear their own trades. Not sure how exactly that is possible though (if anyone can explain...)
    - kenhwang 6y ago
      Typically when you buy/sell a stock, it's not moving anywhere. Robinhood would try to sell the stock to someone on Robinhood buying the stock first. The big banks and brokerages have enough people buying/selling within its platform that it has enough supply to trade within itself. For a small brokerage, they would have to work with other brokerages to help them trade, as they wouldn't have enough shares they already hold to trade them within their users. So Robinhood asks Apex for more shares, and Apex has to ask HSBC/Fidelity/JPMC/Goldman if Apex doesn't have any. At some point, all the other institutions also don't want to give up their shares because they need to satisfy demand from their own users. Trading with other firms tends to be really slow too. It's a short squeeze too, by definition there's not enough stocks available for everyone who wants to buy. So some firms ran out and couldn't get more.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

janmo 6y ago

What did you expect? When it is free you are the product. Robinhood uses pay for order flow, a system invented by Bernie Madoof to generate revenue. It is really time to leave this broker.

hayd 6y ago
It's not necessarily free https://robinhood.com/us/en/about/gold/ https://robinhood.com/us/en/about/gold/
paxys 6y ago
All the paid brokerages have done the same. This is really not about trading fees.

jcranmer 6y ago

I've scanned the lawsuit (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175.1.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175...). I'm not a lawyer, but my first reading of it is that this is not a strong lawsuit. The complaint is largely framed around "Robinhood prevented us from executing trades against GME, and it is contractually required to execute all trades." However, the actual contract explicitly says the opposite: Robinhood can choose to limit execution at its own discretion. So in order to win, plaintiffs basically have to get the relevant clauses of the contract to be ruled illegal. The extent to which this is possible is dependent on securities law which I am very unqualified to comment on, although I will note that the complaint does at least include some relevant allegations to what they need to do, which is better than other lawsuits I've seen (oh hi Parler).

f430 6y ago
Market manipulation is still manipulation whether you've written it in your Terms of Service (which isn't the law btw like Craigslist do-not-scrape "law"). The basic spirit of the contract between a trade executor and the client does not allow for interference barring regulatory or SEC enforcement. Meaning RH took it on themselves to enforce a rule that its users had no idea of, hence the outrage. If it was well known (with clear warnings on the splash screen of RH highlighting their "special" rule) then the case might be different. If it gets rejected at this level then almost certainly SEC will be involved. If they side with RH then it would certainly destroy the trust of the retail trading industry. We also now seem to be witnessing a political opportunity for the Biden administration (ex. AOC's tweet throwing support for WSB). Essentially what we are seeing is a payback by the people who got outsmarted by a bunch of redditors and arguing that they cannot be allowed to fail for their own stupid trades (like shorting over 100% of the stock available), so they pulled all the tricks in the book to once again bend the market to their will like they always have. Anybody who thinks things will go as they have before are mistaken; We are in a very different political environment and stuff like this is the perfect opportunity for the Biden administration.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  >> Market manipulation is still manipulation whether you've written it in your Terms of Service (which isn't the law btw like Craigslist do-not-scrape "law"). Yes. And intentionally interfering with supply and demand is the textbook definition of market manipulation — it appears in SEC powerpoints and everything! https://www.sec.gov/files/Market%20Manipulations%20and%20Case%20Studies.pdf https://www.sec.gov/files/Market%20Manipulations%20and%20Cas...

totaldude87 6y ago

Allowing a stock to become sell only will trigger a sell off and this WILL help the short sellers cover ( may be with reduced loss).. Just allowing selling of a stock makes, free markets a joke. I am seeing analogies like will apple store sell me a pixel 3a etc. This is not a product robinhood buys or sells , they make my transaction with a bigger shark (Citadel) who is in bed with the hedge fund who shorted ~112% of outstanding shares. When a group of people took advantage and created a squeeze, they block their ability to buy more to strengthen their squeeze.

totalZero 6y ago
> Allowing a stock to become sell only will trigger a sell off and this WILL help the short sellers cover ( may be with reduced loss) Yes. Blocking opening buyers essentially means that closing short-sellers don't need to compete for supply.

reilly3000 6y ago

I'm very much with the WSB folks, but I have a theory about the trading halt that may be more innocent. RH's exposure to margin ensures that when GME inevitably plummets, they aren't on the hook for giant liability. They may behave the same way for any stock that broke circuit breakers that fast, and some of it legit is to protect the interests of their retail investors. That said, for Robinhood's business model, you're the product, not the investor. Outside of reputational damage they DGAF about the outcomes of individual investors as long as they don't have skin in the game.

okprod 6y ago
RH using protecting retail investors' interests as an excuse now to force selling of shares

dang 6y ago

For pointers to other vertices of this story graph, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25933543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25933543. The earlier thread about class action is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25945447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25945447. Not sure if these are the same class action or just the same class action class. The current thread is paginated like all the other big threads. If you want to see all the comments you'll need to click through the More links at the bottom, or like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814&p=3 (and so on)

foxfired 6y ago

Even e-trade is blocking purchase orders: https://imgur.com/a/iHqwEyv https://imgur.com/a/iHqwEyv

joering2 6y ago

wow, that didn't take long so I was wrong about TV ads. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25943676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25943676 Next prediction: obviously Robinhood can kiss their IPO goodbye. They are hated by both sides now - bankers and investors. Frankly, I hope they will go under, get shut down but not before 20 AG and DOJ/SEC takes them to bleachers.

avipars 6y ago

How could I join?

totaldude87 6y ago

all you need to prove is , how these things map together w.r.t GME 1) transactions between Robinhood and Citadel (even some % of their GME trades would have gone to Citadel) 2) The deal between hedge fund and citadel If you can prove that its because of #1 and #2 , RobinHood arrived at this decision, its game over? or is it?

totaldude87 6y ago

Also if Robinhood wins this, theoretically they can do the same to $AAPL, $MSFT, $AMZN , now how does the uber rich , fund managers, union funds, 401k etc etc would react? where does this stop. Its either a free trade market , or its not!

ineedasername 6y ago

In addition to the class relief, they're also asking for an immediate injunction to reinstate GME. Good.

throwaway69123 6y ago

Is it true the company that owns Robinhood also has a huge short exposure to GME?

alexdumitru 6y ago
They don't own it, but they're their largest customer.
- luxuryballs 6y ago
  Ain’t that some shit.
- leroy_masochist 6y ago
  Citadel is not a Robinhood customer like retail investors are customers; they're a) an execution partner who executes Robinhood's trades and b) a source of revenue because they actually pay Robinhood for the privilege of doing this. It's worth it to Citadel because they can use the information in the order flow to front-run the retail market.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Retail investors aren't really the customers, unless they borrow margin really they're the product.
  - findthewords 6y ago
    In other words, Citadel is a customer of RH while the app's user data is the product.
    - xiphias2 6y ago
      Exactly, but if RH loses the product, it loses the customer as well, so it was a lose-lose situation that was created by the business model.
  - thekyle 6y ago

po1nter 6y ago

Active discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947814

franklampard 6y ago

well deserved

nindalf 6y ago
Mate you deserved more time. I'll always be a fan!
- airstrike 6y ago
  Never thought I'd see him around these parts
- franklampard 6y ago
  I know :( it’s sadness
slivanes 6y ago
Suuuuper... Suuuuuper Frank.. Suuper... Suuuper Frank..

Nacdor 6y ago

How will this lawsuit get around the binding arbitration clause in their customer agreement? https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/Customer%20Agreement.pdf https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/Customer%20...

findthewords 6y ago
I would imagine that this lawsuit is about the motive behind it.
mattnewton 6y ago
I am not a lawyer and I haven’t fully parsed the complaint but the class might be defined as anyone who owned GME and suffered damages or something like that, so not necessarily robinhood customers.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  The class is all Robinhood customers, or alternatively, all Robinhood customers who tried to buy GME but couldn't.
abduhl 6y ago
If it doesn't, does Robinhood really want to go to arbitration with all of WSB? I wonder who pays the upfront cost for the arbitrator?
- Nacdor 6y ago
  I had the same thought because DoorDash was once pummeled with arbitration fees by angry drivers, and it looks like Robinhood doesn't specify who pays the fee. I'm assuming that leaves the burden on the consumer, but maybe their arbitrator (FINRA) has some rule I'm missing.
- fastball 6y ago
  There are actually law firms that specialize in arbitration at scale. Customers: "We want to sue you." Company: "Sorry you can't do a class-action, we have a binding arbitration clause." Law firm representing customers: "Ok, here is the paperwork for 1500 arbitrations, have fun with that. We can do this all day."

hnrodey 6y ago

January 28th, 2021: we witnessed the most corrupt financial act of our lifetime as a one-sided stock purchasing restriction was placed on MILLIONS of people across the United States in the most critical time of “financial battle”.

Triv888 6y ago

Inside of about 3 hours, Alpaca, went from blocking sales of some stocks to allowing sales of the same stocks: AMC - AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. BB - BlackBerry Ltd. EXPR - Express, Inc. GME - GameStop Corp. KOSS - Koss Corporation NAKD - Naked Brand Groups Ltd NOK - Nokia Oyj I guess they don't want to get sued (the biggest fear of most companies)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nindalf 6y ago

This lawsuit will go nowhere. At best a tiny settlement after years of litigation. Congress will have a few hearings for show, so reps can get face time and claim to be "for the people". SEC will wag their finger, might even levy a few hundred thousand in fines. Citadel and gang operate this casino. If they think they're losing, they change the rules so they aren't. What it tells me is that they're getting increasingly desperate if they're willing to brazenly manipulate the market like this. Seems like they didn't close out their short position, like they claimed they had 2 days ago. It'd be interesting to see if the casino wins this game.

nine_zeros 6y ago
> This lawsuit will go nowhere. At best a tiny settlement after years of litigation. Congress will have a few hearings for show, so reps can get face time and claim to be "for the people". SEC will wag their finger, might even levy a few hundred thousand in fines. This will be the end of wall street. Or at least, the end of companies like Robinhood. Faith in American systems were already at all time low after last four years and now with this kind of market manipulation at the expense of retail investors, American stock market will be bust. There is zero reason to play in this casino.
- dheera 6y ago
  Unfortunately the odds of winning in the stock market even buying random stocks are still way better than a real casino, and casinos are still around.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    Casinos are OK. Gambling is a special tax applied to people with bad understanding of the probability theory.
    - thatguy0900 6y ago
      I feel like the people who say this have never been to a casino, they're pretty fun. I would wager most people going know they will lose money. Gambling addiction is a real problem, though.

sbelskie 6y ago

“ANTHONY DENIER: Well, it wasn't our choice. Our clearing firm gave us a call and said we're going to have to stop allowing new opening positions in the three names, AMC, GME, and KOSS. Highly volatile, and what happens is this is not a political decision. And unfortunately, it got political. I think, you know, I think it was once said that don't let any good crisis go to waste. And that's clearly what's happening here. And we're seeing politicians jump on the bandwagon so they can get-- so they can start trending on Twitter. But in reality, what's going on is that there is a two-day settlement between if you buy the stock today, those brokerage firms that you bought that stock on have to fund that trade with the clearing central house called DTC for two whole days. And because of the volatility of stocks, DTC has made the cost of the collateral of the two-day holding period extremely expensive.“[1] from the CEO of Webull. [1]- https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restricting-users-173049721.html https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict... Edit: Non amp link.

kart23 6y ago
suggest you use a non-amp link: https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restricting-users-173049721.html https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...
- sbelskie 6y ago
  Done. Thanks!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
carstenhag 6y ago
And these businesses have contracts specifying that they can increase prices absurdly high from one day to the other?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > these businesses have contracts specifying that they can increase prices absurdly high from one day to the other? The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation settles most listed securities transactions in America; in 2011, it did $1.7 quadrillion [1]. You've never heard of it unless you're a professional trader, but it's actually quite fascinating to read up on. Trading looks instantaneous. But settlement takes a few days. In between are a series of credit agreements. From your broker to you. From the clearinghouse to the brokers. DTCC is the clearinghouse. Robinhood is the broker. There are clear rules and contracts between DTCC and its members, including Robinhood [2]. Those contracts ensure that when you buy shares through your broker from a Robinhood customer, if Robinhood falls down two days later, there is collateral sufficient to make you whole. Those collateral requirements change in reference to, amongst other things, the volatility of the security. (If something goes up and down more, ceteris paribus, small mistakes are more likely to become firm-ending ones.) Again, these are well-known formulas. Unusually, however, Robinhood didn't build this into their fee model. Given market makers, their revenue source, stopped making markets in GME on account of how volatility effects their risk profile, executing GME trades would leave Robinhood sending orders to an exchange, which may cost money, and ponying up collateral, which also costs money. In my opinion, that's what they should have done. Most brokers have policies for these situations. Higher brokerage fees for securities on a schedule. Not making shares and cash from trades available until the trade settles, sort of like what banks do for large cheques. But I don't know if Robinhood is able to do that quickly. So instead they pulled the plug. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_... [2] https://www.dtcclearning.com/products-and-services/settlement/settlement-services/risk-management/296-risk-management-overview/2277-collateral-valuation-of-securities.html https://www.dtcclearning.com/products-and-services/settlemen...

trevortheblack 6y ago

Propose shifting the article to the suit itself: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175.1.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175...

hehehaha 6y ago

This is so misguided. Why did people think they can put on a 8 sigma short squeeze on Robinhood of all platforms? That said this has gone mainstream and the ramification will be significant across the board from retail options to overall regulation on discount brokers to order flow sale. Net effect is likely higher cost of trading for everyone.

konjin 6y ago
> Net effect is likely higher cost of trading for everyone. Good, trades are not zero cost and should not be treated as such.

liuliu 6y ago

They drew extra credit line today, and saying they cannot keep up with the capital obligations. It seems like they are insolvent for a moment today, not sure what's their current state of affairs. RH requires much more SEC scrutiny really. A brokerage cannot go broke by facilitating trades, it supposes to be a risk-free business.

artorg 6y ago

I think the suitability standard applies here, and will probably be the main defense for the brokers. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionaleducation/11/suitability-fiduciary-standards.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionaleducation/... https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/suitability https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/suitability

bernardv 6y ago

Oh please... own your risk

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
RangerScience 6y ago
Yeah, kinda tired of freeloading financial institutions crying foul when their risk realizes. /snark Wait.
- bernardv 6y ago
  What did they imagine was going to happen? In any case, financial institutions have way more staying power - just another day.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

cccc4all 6y ago

Robinhood is done as company, no matter what happens with the lawsuit. They had one job, trade stocks, and they refused to do it at the most critical time under very shady circumstances. How can anyone trust this company with their financial future after today?

ghego1 6y ago
IMHO you make the best point of all this far. Their customer base is essentially WSB wannabies, and they've managed to piss them good. I am currently in a country where robinh does not operate, but I'd be absolutely reluctant to use them now even if it became available.

hntrader 6y ago

What about all the other retail brokerages that did the same thing?

FireBeyond 6y ago
Presumably their customers are free to sue them.
- hntrader 6y ago
  Yeah I think my point is more that the outrage is not proportional. Other brokers did the same thing and aren't in the spotlight at all.
  - Macha 6y ago
    Chance of lawsuit = potential upside * success chance * number of affected customers * unhappiness of customers Robin hood had the most affected customers, so go the lawsuit and most of the bad press.

eric_b 6y ago

Some of the complaints from Robinhood users ring of entitlement. They didn't know what they were doing or what rights they actually had. And certainly they must not have read the ToS where Robinhood is granted various terrible powers over their money and trading access. On the one hand it's great that anyone who wants it has access to the financial markets. But I mean, you should probably know what you're doing before you start speculating. Are people really going to make a moral issue out of not being able to sell their bad bets to a greater fool? It's like everyone wants access to swim with a dangerous group of man-eating sharks and then complains when they get bitten.

ALittleLight 6y ago
I don't think "entitlement" is an appropriate description for people angry at their trading platform for suddenly working against them to spoil trading opportunities and cost them money. It's like saying the victim of a robbery is entitled because he's upset at criminals taking his money.
renewiltord 6y ago
Why should they care about the ToS? It makes perfect sense to hit the company where it hurts by ruining its reputation and that's what they're doing.

RivieraKid 6y ago

I think I'm the only guy on the internet who's rooting for the short-sellers.

ausbah 6y ago
why?
- RivieraKid 6y ago
  Because the anti short-seller movement is so dumb. Shorting overvalued stocks is a good thing.

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

I have seen some information floating around stating that RH is not responsible for the trade clearing in the RH platform. Robinhood has in effect cleared all its trades since 2018 as you can see based on their own page. https://robinhood.com/us/en/support/articles/common-tax-questions/ https://robinhood.com/us/en/support/articles/common-tax-ques...

silexia 6y ago
Even outside of the trade clearing argument (even if Robinhood clears it's own trades, it could still lose huge sums if the stock gapped), a short squeeze is illegal. Allowing it's platform to be used for illegal activity could make them liable to the SEC and investor lawsuits.
- zionic 6y ago
  > a short squeeze is illegal No it's not
- llampx 6y ago
  Short squeezes are not illegal, stop spreading misinformation.
- Noted 6y ago
  You keep posting this, but do you have any evidence? Other people have repeatedly refuted short squeezes being illegal.
- girvo 6y ago
  You keep posting this in every possible thread. Question: who got punished for the VW short squeeze? That was illegal too, right? The thing is, I think I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re not explaining it well enough, and are spreading (at best) misinformation. A short squeeze isn’t illegal. Organising a coordinated one might be.
  - drail99 6y ago
    The VW wasn't a planned squeeze. It just happened because Porsche was actively taking a stake in the company. Porsche didn't buy the stock with the intention of selling it to make a profit, they literally tried to buy the company to trigger a asset transfer clause. It's also worth nothing that this happened in Germany so not subject to SEC regulations AND very importantly, Porsche actually ended up on the losing end of the deal and getting screwed. They tried to get a Bail out from the Saudi's but German govt. Wouldn't allow it. In the US, buying stocks with the intention of creating a short squeeze and then reselling the stock is expressively illegal by SEC regulations, it's why you see the phrase "WE like the stock" so much.

paulpan 6y ago

Maybe stating the obvious - doesn't this torpedo Robinhood's plans to IPO sometime this year? The backlash seems so severe that I'm very curious about the rationale behind backroom decisions made that led to all this.

6nf 6y ago
Yes this is very bad for RH
zionic 6y ago
At this point I would expect RH to let you buy, but not sell, RH's own IPO stock hah.
- rasz 6y ago
  Just like Tether!

hankchinaski 6y ago

this increasingly looks like an episode of "billions"

MrPatan 6y ago

How many Dexes for company shares are being built right now? Which company will be the first one to get listed in one of those? When will it happen?

Thaxll 6y ago

The system looks very fragile when something like that happens, and by being fragile it makes the stock going down which in return lot of people are loosing money. They should have stop trading completely on those stock instead they stopped some people / service to purchase it but you can still sell, it's insane.

tqi 6y ago

It's funny that lawmakers so mad about Robinhood putting the brakes on this[1], when all I had been reading prior to this year how Robinhood was recklessly gamifying investing[2]. Some people are absolutely going to lose their homes / retirement savings at the end of all this. I have no doubt they would have faced lawsuits and calls for regulation had they done nothing. [1]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/gamestop-cruz-ocasio-cortez-blast-robinhood-over-trade-freeze.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/gamestop-cruz-ocasio-cortez-... [2]https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/massachusetts-sec-o-commonwealth-galvin-says-robinhood-is-a-reckless-company-gamifying-investing.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/massachusetts-sec-o-commonwe...

freeone3000 6y ago
GME is $261 at close today. If you bought at peak and sold at close, you'd have a 40% loss at worst. Moreover, this narrative that people are betting with mortgages and retirements is simply unfounded - most people are in on call contacts or with their "stupid bet" funds, or a few thousand at most. Please remember with WSB, and other 4chan-diaspora communities, to seperate the memes from reality.
- tqi 6y ago
  Totally agree that MOST people aren't betting their futures on this. But for one, it only takes a few instances for it to shape the public narrative. For another, in a country where 40% can't cover a $600 emergency, it doesn't take that much of a loss to dramatically alter someone's life (especially in our current economy). The end result would have been a flogging in the press and to calls for regulation in Congress.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    The people who don't have $600 to cover an emergency don't have a stockbroker at all, much less one they use to take bets they read about on the internet. There's, as an absolute measure, very few people actually in on this.

Traster 6y ago

To be honest, the more I'm watching this, the more it seems like the same behaviour we saw from the Trump supporters in the build up to 6th Jan. Baseless accusations, incredible emotive language, fact-free discourse and massive ramp up in rhetoric. Progressively wilder accusations with no proof. They don't seem to understand that mass hysteria actually is a reason for a trading platform to bring in limits - especially when there's margin around, and its actually not that big a deal for a hedge fund to go bankrupt. The idea that the entirity of Wallstreet is co-ordinating to back up some hedge fund is... laughable. It's all very high tension, low information at the moment and that seems dangerous. What was the result of this ever going to be? A narrative of being screwed by wall street start to end.

splistud 6y ago
Yes it is very similar in that you seem to have no idea what you are saying about either issue
- Traster 6y ago
  You don't do anything to dissaude me by providing no information to actually dissuade me, but just emotionally reacting. This is the exact sort of hysterical emotoinal reaction to events that shows how dangerous a situation we're in.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Dudester, you're just saying random shit and then expecting someone to write a peer-reviewed paper in response? Dream on. I can't be like "Rust is a shit language" and then expect someone to write a treatise in response. It ain't never gonna happen.
    - Traster 6y ago
      "Dudester"? You'll note that in other parts of the comments in this thread we actually got into some details about things like counter party risk and why trading platforms have aggregate risks to manage, but we didn't manage to have that conversation in this part of the thread becuase the level of argument was pretty much just "I won't address the point you're making I'll call you names and then call you stupid". Well fine, by the sounds of it, you're the sort of person who also makes those Rust threads unbearable by commenting despite having never worked with or near Rust but calling people names because they have experience and have formed opinions. Let's just put it this way, the way the HN commentary has come across right now is like a guy in a bar telling your about a horse you should place a bet on. That's the level we're at, and that's why I talk about the mass hysteria as the more relevant point, because your average Joe has no business reasoning about dynamics of stock prices of fairly illiquid crappy retail stocks.

Hnsuz 6y ago

When do people get it.. These companies are scammers only?

paulpauper 6y ago

It is already going up a lot in AH. It will be harder to show damages if this gets to $500 again. Also the halt was in the premarket, but GME surged at the open to new highs, until falling in half in mid-morning. So this further weakens the narrative and causality that Robinhood's actions caused robothood customers to lose money. The stock tanked maybe because it was just simply overbought, regardless of Robinhood's doing.

willyg123 6y ago

Too bad every user signed an arbitration agreement which prevents class actions from moving forward https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/Customer%20Agreement.pdf https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/Customer%20...

orestarod 6y ago

The irony of the company's name just occurred to me.