6 ms·
That is absolutely not the reason that they publicly stated they stopped allowing purchasing and only allowed selling. I’d dance on the grave of this company.
by trestenhortz 6y ago
That is absolutely not the reason that they publicly stated they stopped allowing purchasing and only allowed selling.
I’d dance on the grave of this company.
- bidirectional 6y agoWell then what is the reason? I've not seen anything else. The CEO was cagey when asked about liquidity, but every official release has suggested that the collateral requirements were the problem.
- xadhominemx 6y agoActually it is the reason they stated
- sokoloff 6y agoThere was a several hour period one evening where some “it’s for your own good because of the volatility” message was the first comms from the company on the topic.
- WoahNoun 6y agoThat's not what the message said. It said "to protect our customers." Which is consistent with the capital requirements reason. If RH didn't meet the requirements, the entire company (all of their customers; even those who knew nothing about game) would go into receivership and the company unwound. Meanwhile, no one can sell their shares while this happens. Not meeting their capital requirements would have been very, very bad for all of RH's customers.
- elefanten 6y agoWho cares? Companies rush out dumb comms under pressure then walk em back or change them. They're not obligated to stick to the first thing they said on a topic -- especially when it's customer comms. It's not a good source for answering what they did / why they did it.