6 ms·

> these claims of "supporting the people" is fundamentally 100% bullshit. what a world where a free platform takes an action to stay solvent and in business an

> these claims of "supporting the people" is fundamentally 100% bullshit. what a world where a free platform takes an action to stay solvent and in business and its a bullshit claim that theyre helping their customers. i guess they shouldve done the more helpful thing and gone bankrupt, illegally allowing trades they cant cover.

prohobo 6y ago
They were dismissive enough of retailers that it didn't even enter their feeble minds that they might need to be able to cover the costs of a real market manipulation, the kind that institutions do all the time without having these kinds of problems. They were always working for their hedge fund investors. They just got a hard slap to the face by the people they claimed to be working for. And honestly, I'm not very impressed by anyone who would defend them.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > They just got a hard slap to the face by the people they claimed to be working for. youre saying WSB making a stock so volatile that a brokerage cant afford to keep it on its books is a moral victory? what morals are you basing this on? > And honestly, I'm not very impressed by anyone who would defend them. we're commenting on an article about how RH had to borrow billions to stay afloat AFTER they already took action to minimize their exposure. they couldve gone under, and were probably insolvent. im not exactly doing mental gymnastics here.
  - zekrioca 6y ago
    > youre saying WSB making a stock so volatile that a brokerage cant afford to keep it on its books is a moral victory? what morals are you basing this on? The person has already answered it: >> the kind that institutions do all the time without having these kinds of problems.
Kaze404 6y ago
What a world where people are more concerned about a single company going under than the fact that the working class is finally doing something against the rigged capitalist system.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  actually im glad you said this. this is the core problem with this WSB/RH/GME event. a certain percentage of people in WSB only want to light a pile of their money on fire for the sole purpose of bankrupting some hedge funds. they expect no returns and only want to cause pain to people with more money than them that they dont like. another percentage of people (i think this group is much, much larger than the first) think bankrupting the short positions is gonna make them huge returns. they think theyre all david collectively fighting a goliath as the proletariat rises up. most of these people are sorely mistaken and will lose everything, but some will make money. the RH trade halt (EDIT: only buying was halted, a "trade halt" technically means both) is allowing the shorts to unwind more gracefully, making the first group of people angry. theyre not getting their witchburning, or public execution, or lynching - however you want to frame it. the problem is the second group of people think theyre being defrauded out of huge returns by an artificial exit from the short squeeze. these people are wrong to begin with. most of them were never going to make huge returns. even if they successfully bankrupted the shorts, most of them are left holding stock they bought for $100, $200, $300, or $400 a share (WSB was memeing share price was gonna go into the thousands) that is worth <$90. those people were always going to lose, they just didnt know it. but now they have a scape goat, even though they were on the wrong side of the trade to begin with.
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    Wait a minute, I've read that they and other brokers did not halt trade, they stopped or limited purchasing but not selling. Not only that, some of their customers apparently were informed about this beforehand (as alleged by insiders on Twitter). People argue that this is criminal market manipulation.
    - 6y ago
TeMPOraL 6y ago
It starts with PR. If there was one moment for a company to be brutally honest, it was for Robin Hood yesterday. They didn't get in front of this story, they didn't explain the issue in detail - instead, they blocked the trades, posted a bullshit information-free blogpost, and have their CEO doing rounds on the news smiling and spewing zero-information noise. This isn't a business model problem, it's customer relationship management problem. They screwed it up big time. Like corporations usually do with their ISO standard PR, but then usually there isn't a critical mass of angry customers looking for blood (some of which are really angry, because they're already operating in the "I'll YOLO what I have on a chance to make Wall Street pay for the pain they inflicted on my parents in 2008" mode).
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > They screwed it up big time. because people are mad at them? you think they shouldve gone public during a high-volume, high-volatility feeding frenzy with tens of billions flying around and said "we're insolvent, but its ok we're taking action to recover our position"? it looks to me like their actions were totally rational and at least a good-case scenario, if not best-case. platforms have been deleted in the past due to circumstances like these, and i think the CEO going on TV and saying theyre on the verge of massive legal and financial problems is suicide. keeping their business alive is supporting their customers. no if, ands, or buts. calling this a PR problem is a bit obnoxious. its like saying theres no technical problem, but people think there is, so the company has to not only continue providing their free services but also make their users feel good while doing so. RH had to navigate dangerous waters, with bankruptcy to the left, bankruptcy AND lawsuits on the right, and only lawsuits ahead. im not sure how they couldve done better.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > you think they shouldve gone public during a high-volume, high-volatility feeding frenzy with tens of billions flying around and said "we're insolvent, but its ok we're taking action to recover our position"? Sure, why not? Everyone knows the situation is extremely unusual and not indicative of RH's ordinary performance. This way, they'd stay on the friendly side of everyone. > its like saying theres no technical problem, but people think there is, so the company has to not only continue providing their free services but also make their users feel good while doing so. I'm not saying they should've allowed people to continue buying GME and other meme stocks. I'm saying they should've honestly communicated the actual reasons behind their decision.

prohobo 6y ago

They were dismissive enough of retailers that it didn't even enter their feeble minds that they might need to be able to cover the costs of a real market manipulation, the kind that institutions do all the time without having these kinds of problems. They were always working for their hedge fund investors. They just got a hard slap to the face by the people they claimed to be working for. And honestly, I'm not very impressed by anyone who would defend them.

kryogen1c 6y ago
> They just got a hard slap to the face by the people they claimed to be working for. youre saying WSB making a stock so volatile that a brokerage cant afford to keep it on its books is a moral victory? what morals are you basing this on? > And honestly, I'm not very impressed by anyone who would defend them. we're commenting on an article about how RH had to borrow billions to stay afloat AFTER they already took action to minimize their exposure. they couldve gone under, and were probably insolvent. im not exactly doing mental gymnastics here.
- zekrioca 6y ago
  > youre saying WSB making a stock so volatile that a brokerage cant afford to keep it on its books is a moral victory? what morals are you basing this on? The person has already answered it: >> the kind that institutions do all the time without having these kinds of problems.

Kaze404 6y ago

What a world where people are more concerned about a single company going under than the fact that the working class is finally doing something against the rigged capitalist system.

kryogen1c 6y ago
actually im glad you said this. this is the core problem with this WSB/RH/GME event. a certain percentage of people in WSB only want to light a pile of their money on fire for the sole purpose of bankrupting some hedge funds. they expect no returns and only want to cause pain to people with more money than them that they dont like. another percentage of people (i think this group is much, much larger than the first) think bankrupting the short positions is gonna make them huge returns. they think theyre all david collectively fighting a goliath as the proletariat rises up. most of these people are sorely mistaken and will lose everything, but some will make money. the RH trade halt (EDIT: only buying was halted, a "trade halt" technically means both) is allowing the shorts to unwind more gracefully, making the first group of people angry. theyre not getting their witchburning, or public execution, or lynching - however you want to frame it. the problem is the second group of people think theyre being defrauded out of huge returns by an artificial exit from the short squeeze. these people are wrong to begin with. most of them were never going to make huge returns. even if they successfully bankrupted the shorts, most of them are left holding stock they bought for $100, $200, $300, or $400 a share (WSB was memeing share price was gonna go into the thousands) that is worth <$90. those people were always going to lose, they just didnt know it. but now they have a scape goat, even though they were on the wrong side of the trade to begin with.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  Wait a minute, I've read that they and other brokers did not halt trade, they stopped or limited purchasing but not selling. Not only that, some of their customers apparently were informed about this beforehand (as alleged by insiders on Twitter). People argue that this is criminal market manipulation.
  - 6y ago

TeMPOraL 6y ago

It starts with PR. If there was one moment for a company to be brutally honest, it was for Robin Hood yesterday. They didn't get in front of this story, they didn't explain the issue in detail - instead, they blocked the trades, posted a bullshit information-free blogpost, and have their CEO doing rounds on the news smiling and spewing zero-information noise. This isn't a business model problem, it's customer relationship management problem. They screwed it up big time. Like corporations usually do with their ISO standard PR, but then usually there isn't a critical mass of angry customers looking for blood (some of which are really angry, because they're already operating in the "I'll YOLO what I have on a chance to make Wall Street pay for the pain they inflicted on my parents in 2008" mode).

kryogen1c 6y ago
> They screwed it up big time. because people are mad at them? you think they shouldve gone public during a high-volume, high-volatility feeding frenzy with tens of billions flying around and said "we're insolvent, but its ok we're taking action to recover our position"? it looks to me like their actions were totally rational and at least a good-case scenario, if not best-case. platforms have been deleted in the past due to circumstances like these, and i think the CEO going on TV and saying theyre on the verge of massive legal and financial problems is suicide. keeping their business alive is supporting their customers. no if, ands, or buts. calling this a PR problem is a bit obnoxious. its like saying theres no technical problem, but people think there is, so the company has to not only continue providing their free services but also make their users feel good while doing so. RH had to navigate dangerous waters, with bankruptcy to the left, bankruptcy AND lawsuits on the right, and only lawsuits ahead. im not sure how they couldve done better.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > you think they shouldve gone public during a high-volume, high-volatility feeding frenzy with tens of billions flying around and said "we're insolvent, but its ok we're taking action to recover our position"? Sure, why not? Everyone knows the situation is extremely unusual and not indicative of RH's ordinary performance. This way, they'd stay on the friendly side of everyone. > its like saying theres no technical problem, but people think there is, so the company has to not only continue providing their free services but also make their users feel good while doing so. I'm not saying they should've allowed people to continue buying GME and other meme stocks. I'm saying they should've honestly communicated the actual reasons behind their decision.