3 ms·

You're not a lawyer, which is why you don't understand that ToS writing never protects you from actual criminality, which in this case appears to be a clear cas

You're not a lawyer, which is why you don't understand that ToS writing never protects you from actual criminality, which in this case appears to be a clear case of market manipulation (restricting trades to only sales and not buys? how much more blatant can you get).

jcranmer 6y ago
Which is why the complaint spends all of (checks document) 1 sentence alleging market manipulation: > Upon information and belief, Robinhood’s actions were done purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit of people and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood’s customers. And even then, there aren't enough other facts in the complaint itself for me to feel comfortable justifying discovery. For example, they never mention that Robinhood allowed only sales, instead alleging that Robinhood disallowed all trades with GME. The best route plaintiffs have to win the lawsuit is to argue Robinhood's illegality here. They don't do that effectively in the complaint, which hurts their case (though they could, and probably should, amend their complaint accordingly).
TristanBall 6y ago
Surely its a response to market manipulation? Which, almost by definition is going to require some level of intervention. My understanding is the forum members were colluding to drive up the price of particular securities? How is that not manipulation? Although I guess I would have preferred the relevent stock markets to step in with a complete trading halt on those securities if intervention was required.
- banachtarski 6y ago
  Your understanding is a bit oversimplified. What the members of WSB are trying to execute is a forced short squeeze to take advantage of naked short positions, which are themselves of questionable morality. However, this is not market manipulation, nor is it a pump and dump. If you read the rhetoric carefully, they are "holding because they like the stock." If this qualifies as market manipulation, the argument is that virtually any strategy employed by any hedge fund or investment firm anywhere would classify as "market manipulation," probably to an even greater degree.
pr0zac 6y ago
So I generally agree with you and feel like there's some amount of market manipulation and wall street types taking advantage of normal retail investor folks going on here. That said, I'd like to challenge some of my axioms and strengthen my own beliefs so raising one question I don't have a good answer for. If Robinhood is doing what they claim, ie: is having issues fulfilling orders and/or is legitimately trying to protect retail investors by limiting purchases of a volatile asset, wouldn't it be worse if they prevented people from selling as well as buying? Is there some detail I'm missing that makes only limiting buy orders "blatant" proof of market manipulation and not the best possible option they had if they were acting in good faith? Note: even if my counter argument here is correct, I don't think that necessarily means nothing fishy going on since there are a lot of other questionable factors at play and even if they were acting in good faith within the "stock market game" that doesn't mean the game as a whole isn't rigged.

jcranmer 6y ago

Which is why the complaint spends all of (checks document) 1 sentence alleging market manipulation: > Upon information and belief, Robinhood’s actions were done purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit of people and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood’s customers. And even then, there aren't enough other facts in the complaint itself for me to feel comfortable justifying discovery. For example, they never mention that Robinhood allowed only sales, instead alleging that Robinhood disallowed all trades with GME. The best route plaintiffs have to win the lawsuit is to argue Robinhood's illegality here. They don't do that effectively in the complaint, which hurts their case (though they could, and probably should, amend their complaint accordingly).

TristanBall 6y ago

Surely its a response to market manipulation? Which, almost by definition is going to require some level of intervention. My understanding is the forum members were colluding to drive up the price of particular securities? How is that not manipulation? Although I guess I would have preferred the relevent stock markets to step in with a complete trading halt on those securities if intervention was required.

banachtarski 6y ago
Your understanding is a bit oversimplified. What the members of WSB are trying to execute is a forced short squeeze to take advantage of naked short positions, which are themselves of questionable morality. However, this is not market manipulation, nor is it a pump and dump. If you read the rhetoric carefully, they are "holding because they like the stock." If this qualifies as market manipulation, the argument is that virtually any strategy employed by any hedge fund or investment firm anywhere would classify as "market manipulation," probably to an even greater degree.

pr0zac 6y ago

So I generally agree with you and feel like there's some amount of market manipulation and wall street types taking advantage of normal retail investor folks going on here. That said, I'd like to challenge some of my axioms and strengthen my own beliefs so raising one question I don't have a good answer for. If Robinhood is doing what they claim, ie: is having issues fulfilling orders and/or is legitimately trying to protect retail investors by limiting purchases of a volatile asset, wouldn't it be worse if they prevented people from selling as well as buying? Is there some detail I'm missing that makes only limiting buy orders "blatant" proof of market manipulation and not the best possible option they had if they were acting in good faith? Note: even if my counter argument here is correct, I don't think that necessarily means nothing fishy going on since there are a lot of other questionable factors at play and even if they were acting in good faith within the "stock market game" that doesn't mean the game as a whole isn't rigged.