8 ms·

Robinhood Raises Another $2.4B from shareholders

f430 6y ago
It puzzles me how people still think Robinhood can remain competitive knowing they sell user's order flow to hedge funds and restricted free market movement of capital in the markets. Still restricting purchases of GME and looks like this was just to keep the lights on. There isn't going to be an IPO after this GME fiasco. The founders played themselves and possibly will never be trusted again. Also the people who invested in RH and its unscrupulous practices, Andreesen, Sequoia etc., are myopic if they don't think people will forget. "The fish rots from the head." - old Russian proverb. We never forget. We never forgive. We are Wall Street Bets.
- SEJeff 6y ago
  > It puzzles me how people still think Robinhood can remain competitive knowing they sell user's order flow to hedge funds Many brokers do this. They get better execution services from hedge funds / electronic traders than they could possibly build themselves. Given rules like NBBO for equities, this can really matter. It saves them money in engineering a hard problem AND makes them money from the other side.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    You cut off the end of the proposition: "...and restricted free market movement of capital in the markets." It is relatively common for brokers to sell order flow. It is not unheard of for brokers to stop trading in a security for limited periods. It is very strange for brokers to enforce one-way trading in a security as Robbinhood did, and highly suspicious on top of that when the resulting asymmetric trading regime is of enormous commercial benefit to the biggest purchaser of their order flow.
    - swampthing 6y ago
      That is the narrative that the mob would like you to believe, but it's actually not true. Here are some examples of that happening in the past: * https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN2253T2 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN2253T2 * https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1FT2S4 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1FT2S4 Robinhood was in a no-win situation. You can read about why they were forced to restrict buying here: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/elon-musk-on-clubhouse-robinhood-ceo-explains-trading-restrictions.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/elon-musk-on-clubhouse-robin... If they restricted sells too, they would have been lambasted, likely even more than they currently are, by people trying to get out of their positions either to capture gains or avoid loss. Robinhood's only move was to mitigate the fall-out with customers through messaging, which they failed miserably at. It's unclear to me whether this failure was due to incompetence or because they were (or thought they were) restricted from providing certain information by law or contract.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        Those other cases seem fairly obscure, prevented people from buying plummeting assets, and might not have been so defensible themselves. The reason cited was to protect foolish small investors. This is fundamentally a different thing than intentionally damping the rise of a security that has been up over 100% for nearly a week. That didn't protect any small investors. Whom did it protect? Somehow I doubt perjury attaches to an untranscripted chat on a celebrity-only private audio app. Everything at that third link seems highly lawyered: "From our perspective", "I wouldn’t impute", passive voice, etc. From a guy named "Vlad" who looks like Dracula. I guess it was just prejudice that caused me to expect someone from Sherwood...
        swampthing 6y ago
        > That didn't protect any small investors. Whom did it protect? This question is irrelevant in the case of Robinhood, because they had no choice. It seems like that is also fundamentally why they didn't restrict selling — because they wren't required to, whereas they were required to restrict buying. I.e. they imposed the minimum necessary restrictions. This is exactly what you would want from someone in Robinhood's position. You don't want them making their own decisions about who can buy or sell. > Somehow I doubt perjury attaches to an untranscripted chat on a celebrity-only private audio app. Everything at that third link seems highly lawyered: "From our perspective", "I wouldn’t impute", passive voice, etc. If something was highly lawyered, do you really think they would go with a lie that would be this easy to disprove? I.e. a lie that relies on people with no interest in Robinhood to uphold it? > From a guy named "Vlad" who looks like Dracula. I guess it was just prejudice that caused me to expect someone from Sherwood... I don't know that it makes sense to base whether or not you believe him on things he has no control over.
- stephen82 6y ago
  You mean ancient Greek, right? "ιχθύς εκ της κεφαλής όζειν άρχεται".
- spillguard 6y ago
  I think that there's a bit of a disconnect between asserting that Robinhood's IPO is dead and being in the comments of an article about them raising "more [cash] than the company has raised in total up until [this] point". Investors clearly see potential in the company.
dannyphantom 6y ago
I'm curious if this is to address the current potential of a large shift of users moving to different brokerages and to keep Robinhood afloat until IPO in which it will have to fend for itself. I've seen a large sentiment online, and in public spaces expressing how angry the consumer is about RH restricting trading.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  People still use Bank of America and Wells Fargo despite the incredibly customer-hostile things they've done in the past. I will not be surprised if Robinhood weathers this pretty well after a short term hit.
  - milesdyson_phd 6y ago
    I wonder how/if age demographics play into that, especially with regards to millenials/gen z.
    - Accujack 6y ago
      I'm personally of the opinion that it's limited choices. Banks have been merging and suppressing new entries to the business for decades. Around here, there are basically two large banks and a handful of credit unions.
    - et-al 6y ago
      When doing the right thing takes more work than the current situation, people are probably going to do nothing as long as it's not too uncomfortable. It's akin to canceling subscriptions. I lazily left my 401k at my previous job "running" for 18 months before finally rolling it into my personal IRA. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
  - f430 6y ago
    Apples and oranges.
    - 6y ago
themihai 6y ago
The stocks(GME) are still limited/restricted btw
- blantonl 6y ago
  That's correct. Additionally, Robinhood isn't the only one in a bind right now. TD Ameritrade has restricted a lot of options trading on a lot of these stocks, requiring you to call in to sell certain types of derivatives plays which have a level of risk but highly profitable for experienced traders. It's left a VERY sour taste in my mouth to know I have to call into a call center, and wait 90 minutes to speak to someone to execute a trade that puts 100% of my capital at work using zero margin (sell cash covered puts on GME and AMC).
  - jerry80 6y ago
    FYI, eTrade is still allowing these trades. I sold a put on AMC just now.
    - coffeeboy27 6y ago
      You can buy on eTrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, WeBull, and others. As of 4pm EST RH has allowed for each user to have 20 shares of GME, an increase from 1 share which was the max at the opening bell.
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    I have seen other people say that you must have a margin account to trade options, so maybe TDA has restricted all margin accounts. Perhaps this is specific to Robinhood though.
  - scruple 6y ago
    My wife has been on hold with IBKR for the last 2 hours trying to get through to get orders placed.
    - SilasX 6y ago
loceng 6y ago
This is a fascinating game to watch. I watched The Big Short yesterday for the first time, as it's trending on Netflix and was suggested, and this moment feels similar to exposing a weakness in the system that needs to be addressed - and hopefully not to strengthen the wrong position; I didn't realize the incredible actors cast for it, obviously they took on the roles as it's an incredibly important story for the general public to be educated about, to understand. Feels like a good day to watch The Wolf of Wall Sreet.
- Accujack 6y ago
  Yes. If you read what the ultimate intent of the /r/wallstreetbets crowd is, they're not just trying to exercise the same right to make money off of the financial system that billionaires have. A year ago, the person that started this detected a situation where GME was a company that didn't have long term prospects, wasn't losing money, but was still shorted to 140% of it's value. It's not supposed to be possible to go over 100% any more since 2008, by the way. Because of the shorting, he deduced that hedge funds and other influential people in the financial system were planning to encourage GME to go bankrupt, thus getting their short shares forgiven, because a bankrupt company is written off as a loss by the actual share owner. So the hedge funds' plan was to short shares at some price as much as they could get away with, then make the shares worthless by encouraging bankruptcy. Since the shares would then be written off, they would pocket all the money they took from selling the shares they borrowed to short. Nice racket. What WSB did is make the price go in the opposite direction, which is important for a lot of reasons, but one huge one is that the risk of shorting is proportional to the reward. If the price of a shorted stock goes up, then the borrower (person doing the short) still has to return it to the owner. No matter how high the price goes. So they realized if they drive the price WAY up, then the people who were doing the 140% shorts on a company they planned to drive out of business would get screwed by their own system. Some of the folks on WSB are making money and lots of it, but many of them just want to see the whole unfair system burn. By exploiting this weakness, they're trying to force the government to reform the whole finance industry.
  - djbebs 6y ago
    Thats not true at all. Its perfectly possible and legal to short beyond 100%
seebetter 6y ago
Lol wish I could short Robinhood. It will be bankrupt within 4 years.
hikerclimb 6y ago
50% of options trading is luck. So to reduce risk they created Robinho od to steal money from poor people. Basically every major corporation is in on it. They control what articles we get based on who lives in a poor area vs a rich area.
hehehaha 6y ago
Imagine you found a number one trading platform and end up having to dilute your stake by a factor of 2 (or more likely) within a week because of a meme stock. I actually feel bad for the founding members at RH.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  I feel bad for the employees. I always feel bad for the employees (as their equity is always most at risk compared to others on the cap table, from all forms of devaluation or inability to obtain liquidity). But their lottery ticket is no different then folks jumping into a meme stock except they got sold on the idea they had to work for theirs. But the founders of Robinhood who built the Zynga of the capital markets? Not much empathy for them.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  On the other hand, though, they might have far more users than they ever anticipated if some of the new retail investors stick around. If their brand doesn't end up completely dead and buried, at least.
  - greensoap 6y ago
    I transferred all of my liquid capital out of RH this morning. I'm putting it back in Fidelity. I can live without the fancy interface; I cannot trust RH with my money or my business. And I didn't have that much there but once my positions are liquid I will be deleting RH.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Who knows how aware they were of it, but this didn't happen just this week or just because of a meme. They built the business to operate in a certain way and then let it grow without ensuring they had the capital reserves to sustain those operations.
  - omosubi 6y ago
    The founders certainly deserve criticism, but plenty of other brokers are doing the same thing, no? is this not a black swan event?
vincentmarle 6y ago
We are starting to see the limits these apps have, they are just not cut out to be considered a professional broker. It's funny they worry so much about (short-term) liquidity, while their long-term brand & trust & customer base erodes irrecoverably by the minute.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  Huh? They're worrying about short-term liquidity in order to provide serve in order to maintain their brand, trust, and customer base. That's... the entire source of the problem. Meeting capital requirements in order to keep running.
  - vincentmarle 6y ago
    If you have a CEO that keeps publicly lying and downplaying their actual issues, then yes, you do erode the trust.
    - crazygringo 6y ago
      Where did the Robin Hood CEO lie? Or what issues have they downplayed? I haven't seen any actual reporting of any lies. Just a bunch of people speculating they were colluding in halting trading, when the actual reason was later demonstrated to be capital requirements. If you have actual recent examples of lying, however, I'm curious.
      - vincentmarle 6y ago
        > Where did the Robin Hood CEO lie? Or what issues have they downplayed? Let's see, where do I start. Official blog announcement: https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/1/28/keeping-customers-informed-through-market-volatility https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/1/28/keeping-customers-... No mention of liquidity requirements whatsoever. Cuomo Interview: https://twitter.com/CuomoPrimeTime/status/1354989746158784514?s=20 https://twitter.com/CuomoPrimeTime/status/135498974615878451... Cuomo: "If you don't have a liquidity issue, but you have to stop the trading because you couldn't meet certain capital requirements, how does that reconcile with itself?" Vlad: "We feel pretty good about the situation" CNBC Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=cuCcchMOsKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=cuCcchMOsKE Sorkin: "It sounds to me though, that you're suggesting that there was a liquidity problem" Vlad: "No, no, there was no liquidity problem." Elon Musk interview: Musk: “hey what happened with robinhood” Vlad: “uhhhh I don’t know I was asleep at home”
TopInvestor 6y ago
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-407a.pdf https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-407a.pdf Related: The Counterfeiting of Shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac A. Counterfeiting Stocks Through Electronic Delivery Naked short selling is cute terminology developed by Wall Street to confuse the fact that this is simply a method of counterfeiting shares of U.S. publicly traded companies. At a speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C. on November 16, 2007, former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt stated, ―Phantom shares created by naked shorting are analogous to counterfeit money. A well known fact for SEC from decades.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  How does this relate to Robinhood raising more funds from investors?
  - TopInvestor 6y ago
    Citadel, 1.8 mill shares missing because of naked short selling, because they are counterfeit, because all hedge funds are doing this , because connect the dots, because the game is rigged, because it is illegal. At the end RH is in the game selling the stock owned by investors without their consent.
smaili 6y ago
Not sure how others feel but given their recent actions I'd love to see a petition for a name change.
- baal80spam 6y ago
  Ditto. Sheriff of Nottingham sounds much more apt.
neurotech1 6y ago
Non-Paywall archive version: http://archive.is/DFY5q http://archive.is/DFY5q
ping_pong 6y ago
I find it very hard to believe hundreds of thousands of new accounts were created since Thursday. Everyone I know trading on RH is now actively in the process of transferring out, once they close up their short term trades like GME.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  A lot of total noobs have showed up on /r/wallstreetbets, I'm not at all surprised that there have been so many new accounts opened. People who've never been in the market before in their life seem to have jumped on $GME.
  - ping_pong 6y ago
    But Thursday is when they stopped trading GME. I can't believe that people would be stupid enough to go into RH to trade when the entire WSB is talking about how RH screwed them.
    - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
      I think it's spread far beyond Reddit at this point.
- frombody 6y ago
  It was the most downloaded app in the apple store and 2nd most in google play.
Shadonototro 6y ago
of course they showed the world, that sheeps are willing to keep using their services keep buying $GME, you are helping them ;)
Mc_Big_G 6y ago
This is temporary relief for people who have totally uninsured crypto on RH. If RH fails, all the crypto disappears. You can't move crypto off of RH to a personal wallet and if you sell to get it off, you take a ~30% tax hit.

f430 6y ago

It puzzles me how people still think Robinhood can remain competitive knowing they sell user's order flow to hedge funds and restricted free market movement of capital in the markets. Still restricting purchases of GME and looks like this was just to keep the lights on. There isn't going to be an IPO after this GME fiasco. The founders played themselves and possibly will never be trusted again. Also the people who invested in RH and its unscrupulous practices, Andreesen, Sequoia etc., are myopic if they don't think people will forget. "The fish rots from the head." - old Russian proverb. We never forget. We never forgive. We are Wall Street Bets.

SEJeff 6y ago
> It puzzles me how people still think Robinhood can remain competitive knowing they sell user's order flow to hedge funds Many brokers do this. They get better execution services from hedge funds / electronic traders than they could possibly build themselves. Given rules like NBBO for equities, this can really matter. It saves them money in engineering a hard problem AND makes them money from the other side.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  You cut off the end of the proposition: "...and restricted free market movement of capital in the markets." It is relatively common for brokers to sell order flow. It is not unheard of for brokers to stop trading in a security for limited periods. It is very strange for brokers to enforce one-way trading in a security as Robbinhood did, and highly suspicious on top of that when the resulting asymmetric trading regime is of enormous commercial benefit to the biggest purchaser of their order flow.
  - swampthing 6y ago
    That is the narrative that the mob would like you to believe, but it's actually not true. Here are some examples of that happening in the past: * https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN2253T2 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN2253T2 * https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1FT2S4 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1FT2S4 Robinhood was in a no-win situation. You can read about why they were forced to restrict buying here: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/elon-musk-on-clubhouse-robinhood-ceo-explains-trading-restrictions.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/elon-musk-on-clubhouse-robin... If they restricted sells too, they would have been lambasted, likely even more than they currently are, by people trying to get out of their positions either to capture gains or avoid loss. Robinhood's only move was to mitigate the fall-out with customers through messaging, which they failed miserably at. It's unclear to me whether this failure was due to incompetence or because they were (or thought they were) restricted from providing certain information by law or contract.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Those other cases seem fairly obscure, prevented people from buying plummeting assets, and might not have been so defensible themselves. The reason cited was to protect foolish small investors. This is fundamentally a different thing than intentionally damping the rise of a security that has been up over 100% for nearly a week. That didn't protect any small investors. Whom did it protect? Somehow I doubt perjury attaches to an untranscripted chat on a celebrity-only private audio app. Everything at that third link seems highly lawyered: "From our perspective", "I wouldn’t impute", passive voice, etc. From a guy named "Vlad" who looks like Dracula. I guess it was just prejudice that caused me to expect someone from Sherwood...
      - swampthing 6y ago
        > That didn't protect any small investors. Whom did it protect? This question is irrelevant in the case of Robinhood, because they had no choice. It seems like that is also fundamentally why they didn't restrict selling — because they wren't required to, whereas they were required to restrict buying. I.e. they imposed the minimum necessary restrictions. This is exactly what you would want from someone in Robinhood's position. You don't want them making their own decisions about who can buy or sell. > Somehow I doubt perjury attaches to an untranscripted chat on a celebrity-only private audio app. Everything at that third link seems highly lawyered: "From our perspective", "I wouldn’t impute", passive voice, etc. If something was highly lawyered, do you really think they would go with a lie that would be this easy to disprove? I.e. a lie that relies on people with no interest in Robinhood to uphold it? > From a guy named "Vlad" who looks like Dracula. I guess it was just prejudice that caused me to expect someone from Sherwood... I don't know that it makes sense to base whether or not you believe him on things he has no control over.
stephen82 6y ago
You mean ancient Greek, right? "ιχθύς εκ της κεφαλής όζειν άρχεται".
spillguard 6y ago
I think that there's a bit of a disconnect between asserting that Robinhood's IPO is dead and being in the comments of an article about them raising "more [cash] than the company has raised in total up until [this] point". Investors clearly see potential in the company.

dannyphantom 6y ago

I'm curious if this is to address the current potential of a large shift of users moving to different brokerages and to keep Robinhood afloat until IPO in which it will have to fend for itself. I've seen a large sentiment online, and in public spaces expressing how angry the consumer is about RH restricting trading.

Jtsummers 6y ago
People still use Bank of America and Wells Fargo despite the incredibly customer-hostile things they've done in the past. I will not be surprised if Robinhood weathers this pretty well after a short term hit.
- milesdyson_phd 6y ago
  I wonder how/if age demographics play into that, especially with regards to millenials/gen z.
  - Accujack 6y ago
    I'm personally of the opinion that it's limited choices. Banks have been merging and suppressing new entries to the business for decades. Around here, there are basically two large banks and a handful of credit unions.
  - et-al 6y ago
    When doing the right thing takes more work than the current situation, people are probably going to do nothing as long as it's not too uncomfortable. It's akin to canceling subscriptions. I lazily left my 401k at my previous job "running" for 18 months before finally rolling it into my personal IRA. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
- f430 6y ago
  Apples and oranges.
  - 6y ago

themihai 6y ago

The stocks(GME) are still limited/restricted btw

blantonl 6y ago
That's correct. Additionally, Robinhood isn't the only one in a bind right now. TD Ameritrade has restricted a lot of options trading on a lot of these stocks, requiring you to call in to sell certain types of derivatives plays which have a level of risk but highly profitable for experienced traders. It's left a VERY sour taste in my mouth to know I have to call into a call center, and wait 90 minutes to speak to someone to execute a trade that puts 100% of my capital at work using zero margin (sell cash covered puts on GME and AMC).
- jerry80 6y ago
  FYI, eTrade is still allowing these trades. I sold a put on AMC just now.
  - coffeeboy27 6y ago
    You can buy on eTrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, WeBull, and others. As of 4pm EST RH has allowed for each user to have 20 shares of GME, an increase from 1 share which was the max at the opening bell.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  I have seen other people say that you must have a margin account to trade options, so maybe TDA has restricted all margin accounts. Perhaps this is specific to Robinhood though.
- scruple 6y ago
  My wife has been on hold with IBKR for the last 2 hours trying to get through to get orders placed.
  - SilasX 6y ago

loceng 6y ago

This is a fascinating game to watch. I watched The Big Short yesterday for the first time, as it's trending on Netflix and was suggested, and this moment feels similar to exposing a weakness in the system that needs to be addressed - and hopefully not to strengthen the wrong position; I didn't realize the incredible actors cast for it, obviously they took on the roles as it's an incredibly important story for the general public to be educated about, to understand. Feels like a good day to watch The Wolf of Wall Sreet.

Accujack 6y ago
Yes. If you read what the ultimate intent of the /r/wallstreetbets crowd is, they're not just trying to exercise the same right to make money off of the financial system that billionaires have. A year ago, the person that started this detected a situation where GME was a company that didn't have long term prospects, wasn't losing money, but was still shorted to 140% of it's value. It's not supposed to be possible to go over 100% any more since 2008, by the way. Because of the shorting, he deduced that hedge funds and other influential people in the financial system were planning to encourage GME to go bankrupt, thus getting their short shares forgiven, because a bankrupt company is written off as a loss by the actual share owner. So the hedge funds' plan was to short shares at some price as much as they could get away with, then make the shares worthless by encouraging bankruptcy. Since the shares would then be written off, they would pocket all the money they took from selling the shares they borrowed to short. Nice racket. What WSB did is make the price go in the opposite direction, which is important for a lot of reasons, but one huge one is that the risk of shorting is proportional to the reward. If the price of a shorted stock goes up, then the borrower (person doing the short) still has to return it to the owner. No matter how high the price goes. So they realized if they drive the price WAY up, then the people who were doing the 140% shorts on a company they planned to drive out of business would get screwed by their own system. Some of the folks on WSB are making money and lots of it, but many of them just want to see the whole unfair system burn. By exploiting this weakness, they're trying to force the government to reform the whole finance industry.
- djbebs 6y ago
  Thats not true at all. Its perfectly possible and legal to short beyond 100%

seebetter 6y ago

Lol wish I could short Robinhood. It will be bankrupt within 4 years.

hikerclimb 6y ago

50% of options trading is luck. So to reduce risk they created Robinho od to steal money from poor people. Basically every major corporation is in on it. They control what articles we get based on who lives in a poor area vs a rich area.

hehehaha 6y ago

Imagine you found a number one trading platform and end up having to dilute your stake by a factor of 2 (or more likely) within a week because of a meme stock. I actually feel bad for the founding members at RH.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
I feel bad for the employees. I always feel bad for the employees (as their equity is always most at risk compared to others on the cap table, from all forms of devaluation or inability to obtain liquidity). But their lottery ticket is no different then folks jumping into a meme stock except they got sold on the idea they had to work for theirs. But the founders of Robinhood who built the Zynga of the capital markets? Not much empathy for them.
thatguy0900 6y ago
On the other hand, though, they might have far more users than they ever anticipated if some of the new retail investors stick around. If their brand doesn't end up completely dead and buried, at least.
- greensoap 6y ago
  I transferred all of my liquid capital out of RH this morning. I'm putting it back in Fidelity. I can live without the fancy interface; I cannot trust RH with my money or my business. And I didn't have that much there but once my positions are liquid I will be deleting RH.
maxerickson 6y ago
Who knows how aware they were of it, but this didn't happen just this week or just because of a meme. They built the business to operate in a certain way and then let it grow without ensuring they had the capital reserves to sustain those operations.
- omosubi 6y ago
  The founders certainly deserve criticism, but plenty of other brokers are doing the same thing, no? is this not a black swan event?

vincentmarle 6y ago

We are starting to see the limits these apps have, they are just not cut out to be considered a professional broker. It's funny they worry so much about (short-term) liquidity, while their long-term brand & trust & customer base erodes irrecoverably by the minute.

crazygringo 6y ago
Huh? They're worrying about short-term liquidity in order to provide serve in order to maintain their brand, trust, and customer base. That's... the entire source of the problem. Meeting capital requirements in order to keep running.
- vincentmarle 6y ago
  If you have a CEO that keeps publicly lying and downplaying their actual issues, then yes, you do erode the trust.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    Where did the Robin Hood CEO lie? Or what issues have they downplayed? I haven't seen any actual reporting of any lies. Just a bunch of people speculating they were colluding in halting trading, when the actual reason was later demonstrated to be capital requirements. If you have actual recent examples of lying, however, I'm curious.
    - vincentmarle 6y ago
      > Where did the Robin Hood CEO lie? Or what issues have they downplayed? Let's see, where do I start. Official blog announcement: https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/1/28/keeping-customers-informed-through-market-volatility https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/1/28/keeping-customers-... No mention of liquidity requirements whatsoever. Cuomo Interview: https://twitter.com/CuomoPrimeTime/status/1354989746158784514?s=20 https://twitter.com/CuomoPrimeTime/status/135498974615878451... Cuomo: "If you don't have a liquidity issue, but you have to stop the trading because you couldn't meet certain capital requirements, how does that reconcile with itself?" Vlad: "We feel pretty good about the situation" CNBC Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=cuCcchMOsKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=cuCcchMOsKE Sorkin: "It sounds to me though, that you're suggesting that there was a liquidity problem" Vlad: "No, no, there was no liquidity problem." Elon Musk interview: Musk: “hey what happened with robinhood” Vlad: “uhhhh I don’t know I was asleep at home”

TopInvestor 6y ago

https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-407a.pdf https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-407a.pdf Related: The Counterfeiting of Shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac A. Counterfeiting Stocks Through Electronic Delivery Naked short selling is cute terminology developed by Wall Street to confuse the fact that this is simply a method of counterfeiting shares of U.S. publicly traded companies. At a speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C. on November 16, 2007, former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt stated, ―Phantom shares created by naked shorting are analogous to counterfeit money. A well known fact for SEC from decades.

dehrmann 6y ago
How does this relate to Robinhood raising more funds from investors?
- TopInvestor 6y ago
  Citadel, 1.8 mill shares missing because of naked short selling, because they are counterfeit, because all hedge funds are doing this , because connect the dots, because the game is rigged, because it is illegal. At the end RH is in the game selling the stock owned by investors without their consent.

smaili 6y ago

Not sure how others feel but given their recent actions I'd love to see a petition for a name change.

baal80spam 6y ago
Ditto. Sheriff of Nottingham sounds much more apt.

neurotech1 6y ago

Non-Paywall archive version: http://archive.is/DFY5q http://archive.is/DFY5q

ping_pong 6y ago

I find it very hard to believe hundreds of thousands of new accounts were created since Thursday. Everyone I know trading on RH is now actively in the process of transferring out, once they close up their short term trades like GME.

ZephyrBlu 6y ago
A lot of total noobs have showed up on /r/wallstreetbets, I'm not at all surprised that there have been so many new accounts opened. People who've never been in the market before in their life seem to have jumped on $GME.
- ping_pong 6y ago
  But Thursday is when they stopped trading GME. I can't believe that people would be stupid enough to go into RH to trade when the entire WSB is talking about how RH screwed them.
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    I think it's spread far beyond Reddit at this point.
frombody 6y ago
It was the most downloaded app in the apple store and 2nd most in google play.

Shadonototro 6y ago

of course they showed the world, that sheeps are willing to keep using their services keep buying $GME, you are helping them ;)

Mc_Big_G 6y ago

This is temporary relief for people who have totally uninsured crypto on RH. If RH fails, all the crypto disappears. You can't move crypto off of RH to a personal wallet and if you sell to get it off, you take a ~30% tax hit.