4 ms·
> I'm sorry, but it is a fact of banking that you can never, ever, admit to having liquidity issues. If it triggers a bank run, then the firm is dead, and, nota
by xur17 6y ago
> I'm sorry, but it is a fact of banking that you can never, ever, admit to having liquidity issues. If it triggers a bank run, then the firm is dead, and, notably, not only the employees and managers of the firm suffer, but also the clients; and they suffer more than if the run had not happened. So, what you portray as a huge nefarious plot here is just a CEO of a startup trying to keep things going until they calm down again (which, incidentally, seems to have worked).
I dunno. The webull ceo discussed why they had to shut down buying, and his explanation actually made sense. He explained the T+2 system and why that was causing them to run into issues. The Robinhood ceo could have said something similar, and it wouldn't have caused a bank run + it wouldn't have felt like the ceo was hiding something from us (arguably even worse).
- valuearb 6y agoWeBull may have had a less dangerous solvency issue. Either way it’s Monday morning quarterbacking to say RH could have been blunt. They may have been within hours of bankruptcy.
- JAlexoid 6y ago"We were hours away from going bankrupt, that's why we lied publicly" I'm pretty sure that that is not going to go well for them in front of a judge.
- valuearb 6y agoIt’s gonna go fine in front of a judge. They will say look at our terms of service, what we did is explicitly allowed. The judge will immediately rule for them and no public interviews of the CEO/Founders will ever be an issue. Not only is what they said vague, but they had a very clear responsibility not to provoke a run on the bank.