He said that they were worried about counterparty risk. Peterffy is a brilliant guy. You've got to respect anyone who is a self-made billionaire. But I though

He said that they were worried about counterparty risk. Peterffy is a brilliant guy. You've got to respect anyone who is a self-made billionaire. But I thought he did a bad job expressing himself in this interview. IMO he should have clearly separated stocks and options at the very beginning, and he should have stressed the difference between them. The counterparty risk is higher in options. A lot of the Robinhood crowd is/was playing by owning call options. If professional option market makers step away (which, in my limited study of the market they did), then the only way to make money on an in-the-money option is to exercise. But the risk is huge on a stock that is so volatile. And most of the Robinhood crowd that owned those call options most likely didn't have the cash needed to exercise. Peterffy is right that being a counterparty to Robinhood was risky. As proven by Robinhood needing to raise $1 billion in capital on an emergency basis. Of course everything gets even more complicated as soon as the DTCC starts increasing margin requirements. They probably demanded 100% (instead of more typical 2%) on GME stock. Oh shit! Now the stock itself is very hard to trade. So much capital required. Peterffy should have explained stuff like that. But that's probably hard to do when the CNBC anchors are asking loaded basic questions.