6 ms·

Robinhood’s plan to “democratize finance” hit a GameStop-shaped speed bump

114 points by arunbahl 6y ago

dvt 6y ago
> Melvin reportedly got out of its GameStop short positions on Tuesday Only the incredibly naïve actually believe this, and shame on Ars Technica for not annotating it with a big asterisk. Their short position is (present tense) worth billions and the ~$1mil they'd be fined for lying by the SEC is far outweighed by the potential gains of a crash back down. This is what happens when white collar criminals don't go to jail, kids. But this seems like a shill article in general, as there's nothing mentioned about the fact that Citadel makes up more more than 35% of Robinhood's revenues[1]. Yeah, I'm sure it was "liquidity requirements." [1] https://www.ft.com/content/4a439398-88ab-442a-9927-e743a3ff609b https://www.ft.com/content/4a439398-88ab-442a-9927-e743a3ff6...
- tomjakubowski 6y ago
  We'll find out eventually if they were lying. How do you know what the SEC would fine them for this? Is there a record of funds lying about covering shorts of this magnitude and being fined just ~$1mil for it?
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    Looking for a source, but I read of a fund reporting a several hundred million dollar short position as "long", and being fined $810,000.
    - creato 6y ago
      Was that an accident/mistake? If so, the fines may be (should be...) much different in this context, which is clearly not a mistake.
      - notahacker 6y ago
        Lawsuits from LPs and criminal prosecution in this case. Sometimes it's more likely hedge funds take their punishment than try the Worst Cover Up Ever, still lose money and face much worse consequences, especially since most of the money they've lost is other people's.
    - aphextron 6y ago
      >Looking for a source, but I read of a fund reporting a several hundred million dollar short position as "long", and being fined $810,000. Practically a rounding error for these folks
- creddit 6y ago
  Matt Levine lays out pretty clearly what happened and liquidity requirements is a lot closer than your assumed conspiracy: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-29/reddit-traders-on-robinhood-are-on-both-sides-of-gamestop https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-29/reddit...
  - dvt 6y ago
    It feels like you're poisoning the well here. There's no conspiracy; there's a clear conflict of interest. Obviously, I don't know for a fact if RH acted on that conflict of interest, but it seems crazy to me that people are willing to give financial institutions the benefit of the doubt after 2008. I'm personally not.
    - creddit 6y ago
      > It feels like you're poisoning the well here. How do you mean? I don't quite understand in this context. RH wasn't the only broker to suspend trading in GME et al. Are all of the other brokers as equally beholden to Citadel? EDIT: I'd be more happy to believe in the possibility of a conspiracy at the DTCC level, but even then the logic seems fairly sound for collateral issues here.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      So we should discount the evidence given by many independent actors that the issue behind Thursday's restriction of trades (that occurred on several independent retail platforms!) was a mundane issue regarding risk in clearance in favor of the hypothesis that RH was colluding^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H taking the sword for other financial institutions, because... some financial people lied a decade ago? There's a perfectly rational explanation for what happened yesterday that is backed up with an understanding of how the financial system actually not works, not the pretense that is usually pretended by the public, and that doesn't involve a nefarious scheme to manipulate the market. Don't let your desire to vilify Robinhood and the financial system in general blind yourself from evidence to the contrary.
      - dvt 6y ago
- cccc4all 6y ago
  You can't simply get out of billion dollar positions in a day or so. It takes a while to set up these kind of positions and it takes a while to wind down these kind of positions. Especially when they had to get billions of dollars from other companies to shore up their funds. Also, where were the market movement indicators that signify billions in transactions? Who were the sellers, who were the buyers? Until they show receipts, I would be very skeptical of this statement. Most likely, they are playing word games with "got out of short positions" phrase.
  - vmception 6y ago
    The "days to cover" is reported publicly. It was 6 days, and based off the average volume. The volume increased by multiple orders of magnitude. Its been long enough to liquiditate.
  - tedunangst 6y ago
    GME's entire float turns over on a daily basis. What volume numbers are people looking at that they conclude there hasn't been much trading?
  - kasey_junk 6y ago
    MUST asset management unloaded a billion dollar long position in GME this week. It was roughly 3 million shares. GME has been trading over 25x that volume daily all week. If someone is telling you that Melvin is still in their position critically ask why. One explanation is that they are ignorant another is they gain in some way from that narrative. https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20210128440/large-gamestop-shareholder-must-asset-management-sold-off-its-stake https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20210128440/lar...
    - cccc4all 6y ago
      The story doesn't say they unloaded all their positions this week. The story says "...disclosed Thursday ...no longer holds any shares of the videogame and consumer electronics retailer." Did they sell it all on one transaction? or multiple transactions over multiple days? weeks? months? How does companies normally wind down positions?
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  I think it was a very finely worded statement, "we got out of _a_ short position [Tuesday]", which is entirely possible.
  - kreeben 6y ago
    Were can I find this very finely worded statement? The articles I find through Google are all along the lines of "Melvin got out of _its_ position".
- majormajor 6y ago
  Is there more specific evidence that Melvin would be lying than "look at the overall short interest in the stock"? When the stock has been skyrocketing and creating more and more incentive for other people to take out new short positions? I'm hardly an expert at shorts and options, but when I see people posting stuff like that, I start thinking that the most plausible explanation for the outrage is that things are more complicated than the "we're gonna put this fund out of business!" crowd expected.
  - tedunangst 6y ago
    24 hours ago people never heard of a clearinghouse for trades. Since it's not possible for them to be ignorant, the clearinghouse explanation cannot be believed. Only explanations using terms like hedge fund and collusion which were known prior to yesterday will be believed.
    - tal8d 6y ago
      That is a weird assumption to make about wsb types, who have a sizable overlap with the crypto-currency folks - who are keenly aware of counterparty risk and the function of clearinghouses.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > crypto-currency folks - who are keenly aware of counterparty risk and the function of clearinghouses There are zero (EDIT: very few) clearinghouses in the cryptocurrency world. That's...almost the point.
        tal8d 6y ago
        ...yes, that is my point. Anyone who deals with crypto is aware of it.
        nullc 6y ago
        That isn't entirely the case: https://www.ledgerx.com/clearing https://www.ledgerx.com/clearing But I found the prior comment about cryptocurrency people having particular expertise here laughable... plus rWSB aggressively prohibits any mention of Bitcoin, I don't think it's accurate to suggest that there is a lot of overlap regardless.
- liuliu 6y ago
  I increasingly distrust it is just a collateral requirement issue from RH side. They have multiple venues to borrow if it is conventional collateral requirements for settlements, and money market barely moved yesterday (no substantial borrowing). It is definitely possible that they were insolvent for a moment yesterday, but most likely due to wrong risk management on other parts (margins etc) of the company.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > have multiple venues to borrow if it is conventional collateral requirements for settlements Collateral requirements have taken down brokerages far bigger than Robinhood. > money market barely moved yesterday (no substantial borrowing) Robinhood borrowing its entire market cap fifty times over wouldn't move the money markets. The U.S.-dollar money markets are trillions of dollars deep and global in scale. (To say nothing of the unusually-liquid times we're in.)
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Robinhood is thinly capitalized, insolvency has never been far away.
- subsubzero 6y ago
  * we got out of a short position and took a thumping(100% of the original short position? no mention of that) and also whose to say they didn't jump right back into a new short position once the stock went to $400? weasel words from a hedgefund.
  - mike00632 6y ago
    "whose to say" I think we need to emphasize and dwell on the fact that this phenomenon is all grounded on baseless internet rumors.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Read up on what T+2 settlement period is. When you buy GME through Robinhood it is on hook for two days before it closes. To do this Robinhood has to post collateral with the clearinghouse (DTC) during that time. As BME volatility exploded the collateral demanded of Robinhood skyrocketed.
  - nightski 6y ago
    Melvin received $2.75 billion in funding from Citadel/Point72 to cover it's failed short positions. You are telling me there is nothing RH could do to cover the collateral? This is what has me slightly skeptical. Seems like the bailouts are no problem when it comes to the major players but liquidity for plebs? Nah.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      RH also raised a billion https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/technology/robinhood-fundraising.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/technology/robinhood-fund... I highly doubt either of those transactions happened at the press of a button, though. We just didn't see whatever behind the scenes drama occurred at Melvin.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Robinhood is not Melvin, different companies have different net asset based and borrowing ability. Melvin was also bailed out by Stephen Cohen, who the Melvin founder worked for. Cohen likely believed in the founder and already knew enough about their positions to be able to make such a huge investment in such a short time frame. Equity investments typically take too much time to complete due diligence when your firm is drowning in a hurricane. Robinhood was rumored to have tapped all their available credit lines for $1B before they ran out of cash. I suspect we will read about an equity infusion in the next few weeks, if they make it that long.
  - mikeryan 6y ago
    I was amused watching Aaron Sorkin ask Vlad (RH CEO) what happened and if it was a liquidity problem. Then have Vlad explain that it was a liquidity problem (without using those words) then explicitly say it was NOT a liquidity problem when asked that directly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuCcchMOsKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuCcchMOsKE
- Traster 6y ago
  This comment is so disappointing to see. A completely unsourced claim that Melvin capital has a position they've openly stated they don't have, literal name calling, and baseless conspiracies that Citadel is apparently pulling all the strings which flies in the face of literally all the evidence - other firms confirmation of the capital requirements, RH tapping credit lines and RH raising new capital. If you want to make massive bold claims that there's a conspiracy you need to provide evidence, not opinions.
- mike00632 6y ago
  What evidence do you have that Melvin has a short position?
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  > But this seems like a shill article in general, as there's nothing mentioned about the fact that Citadel makes up more more than 35% of Robinhood's revenues[1]. Let's count all the people that would need to be involved in this conspiracy. First, obviously the Robinhood executives themselves. Second, the portfolio managers at Citadel's hedge funds who would be holding the large short position. Third, the market makers at Citadel Securities. Remember Citadel Securities is a separate company, with a legally mandated Chinese firewall prohibition them from discussing operations with the hedge funds. Fourth, the other internalizers that Robinhood uses, like Virtu and SIG, who would clearly wonder why the order flow they're paying for went dark. Fifth, the DTC clearinghouse. If Robinhood made a false claim about its collateral at the DTC, they'd clearly either correct it if they weren't in on the conspiracy. Sixth, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and other banks, that extend Robinhood credit. Obviously if Robinhood wasn't actually near the end of its credit line, they would have no reason get involved with the lie. Seventh, Robinhood wasn't the only broker to restrict trading. So clearly in this scenario Citadel must have colluded with Interactive Brokers, WeBull, Apex Clearing, TD Ameritrade, and Merrill Lynch. All of whom restricted trading at the same time for the same stated reason. Eight, the SEC, who has transparent access to the collateral position of licensed brokers, and would be able to reveal the lie, unless they were in on it. So let's add all that together. A massive lie involving hundreds of people between Robinhood, Citadel Investments, Citadel Securities, Virtu, SIG, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, the DTC, the SEC, WeBull, Merrill, Ameritrade, Interactive Brokers, and Apex Clearing. Among which any single whistle blower could easily unravel a paper trail a mile long. And why would they even do this. Citadel Securities makes $6 billion a year from its. Citadel's hedge funds have $30 billion under management. Even if they were at risk of losing their entire $2 billion investment in Melvin, that's still a drop in the bucket. Certainly not worth risking the entire company in harebrained conspiracy. Is it possible? Sure, a lot of things are possible. But it's a pretty outlandish claim, with zero evidence to back it up. About on par with typical QAnon fantasies.
- dang 6y ago
  > this seems like a shill article in general Substantive critique is always welcome, but insinuations of shilling without evidence are against the site guidelines. That particular guideline is an important one so please follow it (along with the others!) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 6y ago
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25958639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25958639, which is the article that this one points to, and was posted earlier. I've left a subthread here which specifically references this article and wouldn't make as much sense in the other thread.
jcims 6y ago
If there was a criminal level of ignorance and negligence in financial understanding and planning beyond the basic 401k I'm a good candidate for some jail time. I'm in my mid-40's and just have started learning by doing some basic mutual fund investment through my bank last year and to just help drive my wandering attention bought a couple of shares...Tesla a couple months ago and two days ago bought one symbolic share of GME. I log in today to get a chuckle, across all of my mutual funds and two stocks, only one is in the green from yesterday. Obviously meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but just funny to see on my screen.

114 points by arunbahl 6y ago

dvt 6y ago

> Melvin reportedly got out of its GameStop short positions on Tuesday Only the incredibly naïve actually believe this, and shame on Ars Technica for not annotating it with a big asterisk. Their short position is (present tense) worth billions and the ~$1mil they'd be fined for lying by the SEC is far outweighed by the potential gains of a crash back down. This is what happens when white collar criminals don't go to jail, kids. But this seems like a shill article in general, as there's nothing mentioned about the fact that Citadel makes up more more than 35% of Robinhood's revenues[1]. Yeah, I'm sure it was "liquidity requirements." [1] https://www.ft.com/content/4a439398-88ab-442a-9927-e743a3ff609b https://www.ft.com/content/4a439398-88ab-442a-9927-e743a3ff6...

tomjakubowski 6y ago
We'll find out eventually if they were lying. How do you know what the SEC would fine them for this? Is there a record of funds lying about covering shorts of this magnitude and being fined just ~$1mil for it?
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  Looking for a source, but I read of a fund reporting a several hundred million dollar short position as "long", and being fined $810,000.
  - creato 6y ago
    Was that an accident/mistake? If so, the fines may be (should be...) much different in this context, which is clearly not a mistake.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      Lawsuits from LPs and criminal prosecution in this case. Sometimes it's more likely hedge funds take their punishment than try the Worst Cover Up Ever, still lose money and face much worse consequences, especially since most of the money they've lost is other people's.
  - aphextron 6y ago
    >Looking for a source, but I read of a fund reporting a several hundred million dollar short position as "long", and being fined $810,000. Practically a rounding error for these folks
creddit 6y ago
Matt Levine lays out pretty clearly what happened and liquidity requirements is a lot closer than your assumed conspiracy: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-29/reddit-traders-on-robinhood-are-on-both-sides-of-gamestop https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-29/reddit...
- dvt 6y ago
  It feels like you're poisoning the well here. There's no conspiracy; there's a clear conflict of interest. Obviously, I don't know for a fact if RH acted on that conflict of interest, but it seems crazy to me that people are willing to give financial institutions the benefit of the doubt after 2008. I'm personally not.
  - creddit 6y ago
    > It feels like you're poisoning the well here. How do you mean? I don't quite understand in this context. RH wasn't the only broker to suspend trading in GME et al. Are all of the other brokers as equally beholden to Citadel? EDIT: I'd be more happy to believe in the possibility of a conspiracy at the DTCC level, but even then the logic seems fairly sound for collateral issues here.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    So we should discount the evidence given by many independent actors that the issue behind Thursday's restriction of trades (that occurred on several independent retail platforms!) was a mundane issue regarding risk in clearance in favor of the hypothesis that RH was colluding^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H taking the sword for other financial institutions, because... some financial people lied a decade ago? There's a perfectly rational explanation for what happened yesterday that is backed up with an understanding of how the financial system actually not works, not the pretense that is usually pretended by the public, and that doesn't involve a nefarious scheme to manipulate the market. Don't let your desire to vilify Robinhood and the financial system in general blind yourself from evidence to the contrary.
    - dvt 6y ago
cccc4all 6y ago
You can't simply get out of billion dollar positions in a day or so. It takes a while to set up these kind of positions and it takes a while to wind down these kind of positions. Especially when they had to get billions of dollars from other companies to shore up their funds. Also, where were the market movement indicators that signify billions in transactions? Who were the sellers, who were the buyers? Until they show receipts, I would be very skeptical of this statement. Most likely, they are playing word games with "got out of short positions" phrase.
- vmception 6y ago
  The "days to cover" is reported publicly. It was 6 days, and based off the average volume. The volume increased by multiple orders of magnitude. Its been long enough to liquiditate.
- tedunangst 6y ago
  GME's entire float turns over on a daily basis. What volume numbers are people looking at that they conclude there hasn't been much trading?
- kasey_junk 6y ago
  MUST asset management unloaded a billion dollar long position in GME this week. It was roughly 3 million shares. GME has been trading over 25x that volume daily all week. If someone is telling you that Melvin is still in their position critically ask why. One explanation is that they are ignorant another is they gain in some way from that narrative. https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20210128440/large-gamestop-shareholder-must-asset-management-sold-off-its-stake https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20210128440/lar...
  - cccc4all 6y ago
    The story doesn't say they unloaded all their positions this week. The story says "...disclosed Thursday ...no longer holds any shares of the videogame and consumer electronics retailer." Did they sell it all on one transaction? or multiple transactions over multiple days? weeks? months? How does companies normally wind down positions?
FireBeyond 6y ago
I think it was a very finely worded statement, "we got out of _a_ short position [Tuesday]", which is entirely possible.
- kreeben 6y ago
  Were can I find this very finely worded statement? The articles I find through Google are all along the lines of "Melvin got out of _its_ position".
majormajor 6y ago
Is there more specific evidence that Melvin would be lying than "look at the overall short interest in the stock"? When the stock has been skyrocketing and creating more and more incentive for other people to take out new short positions? I'm hardly an expert at shorts and options, but when I see people posting stuff like that, I start thinking that the most plausible explanation for the outrage is that things are more complicated than the "we're gonna put this fund out of business!" crowd expected.
- tedunangst 6y ago
  24 hours ago people never heard of a clearinghouse for trades. Since it's not possible for them to be ignorant, the clearinghouse explanation cannot be believed. Only explanations using terms like hedge fund and collusion which were known prior to yesterday will be believed.
  - tal8d 6y ago
    That is a weird assumption to make about wsb types, who have a sizable overlap with the crypto-currency folks - who are keenly aware of counterparty risk and the function of clearinghouses.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > crypto-currency folks - who are keenly aware of counterparty risk and the function of clearinghouses There are zero (EDIT: very few) clearinghouses in the cryptocurrency world. That's...almost the point.
      - tal8d 6y ago
        ...yes, that is my point. Anyone who deals with crypto is aware of it.
      - nullc 6y ago
        That isn't entirely the case: https://www.ledgerx.com/clearing https://www.ledgerx.com/clearing But I found the prior comment about cryptocurrency people having particular expertise here laughable... plus rWSB aggressively prohibits any mention of Bitcoin, I don't think it's accurate to suggest that there is a lot of overlap regardless.
liuliu 6y ago
I increasingly distrust it is just a collateral requirement issue from RH side. They have multiple venues to borrow if it is conventional collateral requirements for settlements, and money market barely moved yesterday (no substantial borrowing). It is definitely possible that they were insolvent for a moment yesterday, but most likely due to wrong risk management on other parts (margins etc) of the company.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > have multiple venues to borrow if it is conventional collateral requirements for settlements Collateral requirements have taken down brokerages far bigger than Robinhood. > money market barely moved yesterday (no substantial borrowing) Robinhood borrowing its entire market cap fifty times over wouldn't move the money markets. The U.S.-dollar money markets are trillions of dollars deep and global in scale. (To say nothing of the unusually-liquid times we're in.)
- valuearb 6y ago
  Robinhood is thinly capitalized, insolvency has never been far away.
subsubzero 6y ago
* we got out of a short position and took a thumping(100% of the original short position? no mention of that) and also whose to say they didn't jump right back into a new short position once the stock went to $400? weasel words from a hedgefund.
- mike00632 6y ago
  "whose to say" I think we need to emphasize and dwell on the fact that this phenomenon is all grounded on baseless internet rumors.
valuearb 6y ago
Read up on what T+2 settlement period is. When you buy GME through Robinhood it is on hook for two days before it closes. To do this Robinhood has to post collateral with the clearinghouse (DTC) during that time. As BME volatility exploded the collateral demanded of Robinhood skyrocketed.
- nightski 6y ago
  Melvin received $2.75 billion in funding from Citadel/Point72 to cover it's failed short positions. You are telling me there is nothing RH could do to cover the collateral? This is what has me slightly skeptical. Seems like the bailouts are no problem when it comes to the major players but liquidity for plebs? Nah.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    RH also raised a billion https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/technology/robinhood-fundraising.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/technology/robinhood-fund... I highly doubt either of those transactions happened at the press of a button, though. We just didn't see whatever behind the scenes drama occurred at Melvin.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Robinhood is not Melvin, different companies have different net asset based and borrowing ability. Melvin was also bailed out by Stephen Cohen, who the Melvin founder worked for. Cohen likely believed in the founder and already knew enough about their positions to be able to make such a huge investment in such a short time frame. Equity investments typically take too much time to complete due diligence when your firm is drowning in a hurricane. Robinhood was rumored to have tapped all their available credit lines for $1B before they ran out of cash. I suspect we will read about an equity infusion in the next few weeks, if they make it that long.
- mikeryan 6y ago
  I was amused watching Aaron Sorkin ask Vlad (RH CEO) what happened and if it was a liquidity problem. Then have Vlad explain that it was a liquidity problem (without using those words) then explicitly say it was NOT a liquidity problem when asked that directly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuCcchMOsKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuCcchMOsKE
Traster 6y ago
This comment is so disappointing to see. A completely unsourced claim that Melvin capital has a position they've openly stated they don't have, literal name calling, and baseless conspiracies that Citadel is apparently pulling all the strings which flies in the face of literally all the evidence - other firms confirmation of the capital requirements, RH tapping credit lines and RH raising new capital. If you want to make massive bold claims that there's a conspiracy you need to provide evidence, not opinions.
mike00632 6y ago
What evidence do you have that Melvin has a short position?
dcolkitt 6y ago
> But this seems like a shill article in general, as there's nothing mentioned about the fact that Citadel makes up more more than 35% of Robinhood's revenues[1]. Let's count all the people that would need to be involved in this conspiracy. First, obviously the Robinhood executives themselves. Second, the portfolio managers at Citadel's hedge funds who would be holding the large short position. Third, the market makers at Citadel Securities. Remember Citadel Securities is a separate company, with a legally mandated Chinese firewall prohibition them from discussing operations with the hedge funds. Fourth, the other internalizers that Robinhood uses, like Virtu and SIG, who would clearly wonder why the order flow they're paying for went dark. Fifth, the DTC clearinghouse. If Robinhood made a false claim about its collateral at the DTC, they'd clearly either correct it if they weren't in on the conspiracy. Sixth, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and other banks, that extend Robinhood credit. Obviously if Robinhood wasn't actually near the end of its credit line, they would have no reason get involved with the lie. Seventh, Robinhood wasn't the only broker to restrict trading. So clearly in this scenario Citadel must have colluded with Interactive Brokers, WeBull, Apex Clearing, TD Ameritrade, and Merrill Lynch. All of whom restricted trading at the same time for the same stated reason. Eight, the SEC, who has transparent access to the collateral position of licensed brokers, and would be able to reveal the lie, unless they were in on it. So let's add all that together. A massive lie involving hundreds of people between Robinhood, Citadel Investments, Citadel Securities, Virtu, SIG, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, the DTC, the SEC, WeBull, Merrill, Ameritrade, Interactive Brokers, and Apex Clearing. Among which any single whistle blower could easily unravel a paper trail a mile long. And why would they even do this. Citadel Securities makes $6 billion a year from its. Citadel's hedge funds have $30 billion under management. Even if they were at risk of losing their entire $2 billion investment in Melvin, that's still a drop in the bucket. Certainly not worth risking the entire company in harebrained conspiracy. Is it possible? Sure, a lot of things are possible. But it's a pretty outlandish claim, with zero evidence to back it up. About on par with typical QAnon fantasies.
dang 6y ago
> this seems like a shill article in general Substantive critique is always welcome, but insinuations of shilling without evidence are against the site guidelines. That particular guideline is an important one so please follow it (along with the others!) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dang 6y ago

Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25958639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25958639, which is the article that this one points to, and was posted earlier. I've left a subthread here which specifically references this article and wouldn't make as much sense in the other thread.

jcims 6y ago

If there was a criminal level of ignorance and negligence in financial understanding and planning beyond the basic 401k I'm a good candidate for some jail time. I'm in my mid-40's and just have started learning by doing some basic mutual fund investment through my bank last year and to just help drive my wandering attention bought a couple of shares...Tesla a couple months ago and two days ago bought one symbolic share of GME. I log in today to get a chuckle, across all of my mutual funds and two stocks, only one is in the green from yesterday. Obviously meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but just funny to see on my screen.