4 ms·
> As mentioned in other threads, robinhood wasn't able to come up with the deposit needed for their customers trades. That's not true, they only blocked trades
by Alex3917 6y ago
> As mentioned in other threads, robinhood wasn't able to come up with the deposit needed for their customers trades.
That's not true, they only blocked trades on those specific stocks. If it was really a liquidity issue then they could have rate limited all trades equally regardless of the stock in question.
- MattGaiser 6y agoThose particular stocks had their deposit requirements increase, not all stocks.
- Anon1096 6y agoThe deposit requirements on those stocks were increased from 2% to 100%.
- gruez 6y agoNot really, because the amount of deposit you need to put up is proportional to the volatility, among other factors. Therefore it makes sense to shut down trading for the stocks that incur a disproportionately high amount of deposit requirements for them. I guess it's possible for them to say "fuck it" and let everything trade until they run out of money, but I don't think they have an obligation to do that.
- ssorallen 6y agoThe collateral required by Robinhood’s clearing house to trade these stocks was raised to 100%, and it takes 2 days for trades to clear. Required collateral for other equities was not raised so there was no reason any other equities needed to be limited.
- freeone3000 6y agoYou'll notice on Friday, a list of stocks with high volatility had restricted trading - including non-meme stocks, like AMD. It's a reaction to higher holding percentages.
- nullc 6y agoThe collateral requirements differ from stock to stock.
- LegitShady 6y agoThe liquidity claim on tv was never supported and was later retracted. David Portnoy also called it out directly as well. Liquidity was not the reason for Robin hoods actions.