4 ms·

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 gami

by 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.
    - tqi 6y ago
      They have (had?) Robinhood
hutzlibu 6y ago
Ok, I know very little about the actual stock market, just some theory. But what I heard so far was, that the fond was for high risk investment. "Some people are absolutely going to lose their homes / retirement savings at the end of all this." So people who will indeed loose their homes, would have lost with high risk investment. Which would be sad for them, but high risk is called high risk for a reason. If you want to play safe, there are low risk options. So I don't see need for regulation because of this. For other reasons, yeah, but not that one, unless I am missing something?
- p1mrx 6y ago
  > "Some people are absolutely going to lose their homes / retirement savings at the end of all this." > So people who will indeed loose their homes This is a rare example of spelling de-correction.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    Apologies, non native speaker. And I don't get your reply.. So I misspelled lose with loose. But loose in this context can also be a play of words with lose? What are de-corrections?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tqi 6y ago
  Well I think the case for regulation is that they are giving inexperienced investors the ability to make life altering (in both good and bad ways) decisions that they may not fully understand, compounded by a gamified and potentially addictive UI.
paxys 6y ago
Robinhood has been letting inexperienced investors open huge margin positions, and that is still an issue. They are also, however, not letting people buy a selected set of stocks the regular way even if they have a large enough balance in their accounts. They are both valid problems, and don't necessarily contradict each other. Add to that their massive conflict of interest with Citadel's involvement in this entire thing. The fact that you can still buy Bitcoin on Robinhood kinda puts the whole "we are only looking out for you" argument to bed.
- tqi 6y ago
  > Robinhood has been letting inexperienced investors open huge margin positions, and that is still an issue. Yeah I think that definitely warrants more scrutiny.

by tqi 6y ago

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.
  - tqi 6y ago
    They have (had?) Robinhood

hutzlibu 6y ago

Ok, I know very little about the actual stock market, just some theory. But what I heard so far was, that the fond was for high risk investment. "Some people are absolutely going to lose their homes / retirement savings at the end of all this." So people who will indeed loose their homes, would have lost with high risk investment. Which would be sad for them, but high risk is called high risk for a reason. If you want to play safe, there are low risk options. So I don't see need for regulation because of this. For other reasons, yeah, but not that one, unless I am missing something?

p1mrx 6y ago
> "Some people are absolutely going to lose their homes / retirement savings at the end of all this." > So people who will indeed loose their homes This is a rare example of spelling de-correction.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  Apologies, non native speaker. And I don't get your reply.. So I misspelled lose with loose. But loose in this context can also be a play of words with lose? What are de-corrections?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tqi 6y ago
Well I think the case for regulation is that they are giving inexperienced investors the ability to make life altering (in both good and bad ways) decisions that they may not fully understand, compounded by a gamified and potentially addictive UI.

paxys 6y ago

Robinhood has been letting inexperienced investors open huge margin positions, and that is still an issue. They are also, however, not letting people buy a selected set of stocks the regular way even if they have a large enough balance in their accounts. They are both valid problems, and don't necessarily contradict each other. Add to that their massive conflict of interest with Citadel's involvement in this entire thing. The fact that you can still buy Bitcoin on Robinhood kinda puts the whole "we are only looking out for you" argument to bed.

tqi 6y ago
> Robinhood has been letting inexperienced investors open huge margin positions, and that is still an issue. Yeah I think that definitely warrants more scrutiny.