4 ms·
This is an area where the law needs to catch up. Current law limits what many people can do in terms of the stock market specifically to protect unsavvy invest
by Person5478 6y ago
This is an area where the law needs to catch up.
Current law limits what many people can do in terms of the stock market specifically to protect unsavvy investors. What Robinhood is doing is no different than a 3rd party acting as a go between the stock market and an unsavvy investor but telling the unsavvy investor they went 700k+ in the hole.
The internet is slowly moving away from being the wild west, and things like this is a part of it.
- PeterisP 6y agoI feel that the current law would have worked just fine if it was enforced properly - current law (at least in EU where I live - as far as I understand, SEC guidelines in USA are similar, but I may be mistaken) expects that unsavvy investors should be prohibited to make such trades, partly because we know well from historical experience that often it leads to sad consequences such as this case. As the circumstances show, this young man did not have a proper understanding of what his trades (including the not-yet-settled part) meant and what the actual financial consequences and risks were at that point of time when he (mistakenly) felt that they are horrific enough to take his life. Robinhood should have tested for that capability and, given the absence of it, ensured that he can not trade options on their platform and be limited to simpler, more understandable investment products. If they intentionally make this verification superficial so that they can get more unsophisticated investors trading tricky products on their platform, that is praying on investors and should be prohibited.