4 ms·
fair enough. but if people want to buy the stock at 350$ why disallow it? we either run with the rules or not. you don’t change the rules when the game no long
by rantwasp 6y ago
fair enough. but if people want to buy the stock at 350$ why disallow it?
we either run with the rules or not. you don’t change the rules when the game no longer worked as you want it to work
- hntrader 6y agoRH purportedly didn't change the rules, it was unexpectedly large NSCC capital requirements due to an unexpectedly large level of volume on the week.
- Judgmentality 6y agoRight, but this is still a second-order effect of having more than 100% short on a stock and nobody anticipating it. So this is an example of something bad happening from a situation nobody anticipated. Even if it wasn't nefarious do you agree this is a problem? I mean it's a problem in the sense we want the markets to be "fair" or at least governed by the rules we've set up, aka the SEC, FTC, etcetera. That's what I mean when I say it's a problem. I don't mean this is necessarily an existential threat on our financial system, but do you agree the markets were not working as intended because of this? Based on what we know now, it seems like Robinhood (and other brokers) should be regulated differently (not that Robinhood was exactly by-the-books before this debacle). They publicly lied about a cash flow problem which alone seems worthy of fraud (I do not see how this could possibly be interpreted otherwise). They were extremely disingenuous about margin calls, and this is important when they are specifically targeting uneducated investors. I realize nobody was expecting this squeeze and expecting Robinhood (or anyone, including Citadel) to have that foresight isn't reasonable. But why not use the power of hindsight to fix this moving forward?