4 ms·

yes... https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-321 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-321

vmception 6y ago
> Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Robinhood agreed to a cease-and-desist order prohibiting it from violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the recordkeeping provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, censuring it, and requiring it to pay a $65 million civil penalty. A) SEC should remove the option of "without admitting or denying" this time B) The CEO is choosing to speak in double speak because anything he says will violate the antifraud provisions after already being slapped for violating the antifraud provisions. (isn't the point of a law for the punishment to be a little more than agreeing not the violate the law? circular civil suit that should have been referred to the DOJ) C) Refer current actions to the DOJ and this prior settlement that was violated.
- ivalm 6y ago
  I mean the fraud here is fairly eh. They gave a smaller price improvement (but still beat nbbo) relative to other discount brokerages. The lie was that they delivered same great price as other discount brokerages. However, most of their clients were small and still net-saved money by not paying the flat fee. The practice ended in 2018.
  - vmception 6y ago
    yeah they lied about revenue sources and why they were able to offer low prices. would have been better if they just shut up and didn't try that hook.
    - ivalm 6y ago
      Sure, but as far as frauds go it is fairly victimless. Their users were likely winners in the aggregate for using RH
      - vmception 6y ago
        Moving back to my actual point, the SEC and DOJ should leverage this prior settlement to enforce stricter sanctions. The mere existence of the prior action makes them cannon fodder. Hit them.
        astrange 6y ago
        Sanction them for what? What they did today was caused by following the rules. They couldn’t do anything else. If they did restricted selling it would be “fair” but it would be illegal because only regulators can halt sales.
        vmception 6y ago
        Ok, its a good question. I think outside of specific sanction any resulting regulation should be a comprehensive restriction on payment for order flow, as part of the already ongoing populist trend of valuing data and considering it users property with its own property protections.
        ivalm 6y ago
        But payment of order flow directly benefits retail traders. They get better spreads because of it. Why would you limit that?

> Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Robinhood agreed to a cease-and-desist order prohibiting it from violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the recordkeeping provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, censuring it, and requiring it to pay a $65 million civil penalty. A) SEC should remove the option of "without admitting or denying" this time B) The CEO is choosing to speak in double speak because anything he says will violate the antifraud provisions after already being slapped for violating the antifraud provisions. (isn't the point of a law for the punishment to be a little more than agreeing not the violate the law? circular civil suit that should have been referred to the DOJ) C) Refer current actions to the DOJ and this prior settlement that was violated.

ivalm 6y ago
I mean the fraud here is fairly eh. They gave a smaller price improvement (but still beat nbbo) relative to other discount brokerages. The lie was that they delivered same great price as other discount brokerages. However, most of their clients were small and still net-saved money by not paying the flat fee. The practice ended in 2018.
- vmception 6y ago
  yeah they lied about revenue sources and why they were able to offer low prices. would have been better if they just shut up and didn't try that hook.
  - ivalm 6y ago
    Sure, but as far as frauds go it is fairly victimless. Their users were likely winners in the aggregate for using RH
    - vmception 6y ago
      Moving back to my actual point, the SEC and DOJ should leverage this prior settlement to enforce stricter sanctions. The mere existence of the prior action makes them cannon fodder. Hit them.
      - astrange 6y ago
        Sanction them for what? What they did today was caused by following the rules. They couldn’t do anything else. If they did restricted selling it would be “fair” but it would be illegal because only regulators can halt sales.
        vmception 6y ago
        Ok, its a good question. I think outside of specific sanction any resulting regulation should be a comprehensive restriction on payment for order flow, as part of the already ongoing populist trend of valuing data and considering it users property with its own property protections.
        ivalm 6y ago
        But payment of order flow directly benefits retail traders. They get better spreads because of it. Why would you limit that?