2 ms·
I believe throwawaysea's point is that the one thing has nothing to do with the other. Essentially, the bank weighing in saying "We don't believe your customers
by bilbo0s 6y ago
I believe throwawaysea's point is that the one thing has nothing to do with the other. Essentially, the bank weighing in saying "We don't believe your customers are good for this amount of money you claim they are good for." is, at heart, just financial prudence on the part of a trade's 3rd party backer. The other is criminal collusion on the part of people on the other side of a trade. But the 3rd party backer doesn't care about any of that as horrible as it may sound. They just want to be sure they can get their money from both sides, and they're not at all sure about that with these GME/BBY/AMC et al trades.
- alistairSH 6y agoI get that, but the financial links between the players here doesn't look good, even if it's all legal. Citadel bailed out Melvin. Citadel is RH's biggest customer. RH chops off the retail traders, but only in the direction that favors Citadel (and Melvin). Was RH just ensuring they comply with regulations? Probably. Does it look like RH is doing Citadel a solid at the expense of their users? Absolutely.