3 ms·

There is evidence, was involved in it. Someone else took a screenshot. https://i.redd.it/86xuz0p7w2e61.jpg https://i.redd.it/86xuz0p7w2e61.jpg RH is a front fo

There is evidence, was involved in it. Someone else took a screenshot. https://i.redd.it/86xuz0p7w2e61.jpg https://i.redd.it/86xuz0p7w2e61.jpg RH is a front for organised crime, selling data to Citadel so the can front run retailers trades. Hope to see Senate action on it at some point.

Traster 5y ago
That's not evidence that RH was: > supporting the short selling hedge funds Just to be clear: Robinhood claims that they prevented buying certain stocks because of increase collateral requirements by DTCC due to high volatility. Do you have any evidence that's untrue. Let's establish that before we move on to the claim that Citadel front-runs retail flow.
- Miner49er 5y ago
  From my understanding, the reason the DTCC raised collaterals so heavily was mostly due to the risk on the short side. So they were protecting the hedge funds by protecting themselves, and it carried on to Robinhood. So Robinhood didn't really have a choice, but they still were protecting the shorts in the end.
  - vkou 5y ago
    And that's what happens when you play financial games you don't understand. If your strategy for driving a short squeeze, or a pump-and-dump does not take into account counterparty risk, you are going to get taken to the cleaners. When you making money causes the brokerage you are using to be unable to execute that trade, this is 100% your fault. As the saying goes, don't invest in financial instruments you don't understand. Entering a long position in a volatile, high-volume stock through a discount brokerage was a financial instrument that most of /wsb did not understand, and it blew up in its face.
PaywallBuster 5y ago
Merely speculation that that was done to favor their partner other than something else.
- imdsm 5y ago
  What is not speculation is that they restricted the buying of stocks while not restricting the selling. The rest, though it may be speculation, has enough circumstantial evidence to allow most regular folks to make up their mind. The people who will invest in the IPO aren't going to be the people who lost money due to RH locking the purchasing of stocks and stopping the price from sky rocketing. But in terms of a customer base, in terms of a company, RH are dust. https://www.trustpilot.com/review/robinhood.com https://www.trustpilot.com/review/robinhood.com
  - manigandham 5y ago
    Robinhood has added millions of new accounts and the price of GME recently reached the same heights this past week for anyone that was still holding losses. A bunch of people gambling money isn't going to affect the company.
  - jasode 5y ago
    >What is not speculation is that they restricted the buying of stocks while not restricting the selling. Yes but RH didn't have the billions of $$$ deposited at the clearing house for their trades to be honored. Buying stock to settle a few days later requires collateral that RH didn't have. It may help to read through the answers: https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/136272/why-would-collateral-be-required-to-make-a-stock-purchase https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/136272/why-would-c... This is why they scrambled at the last minute to raise billions to meet the higher collateral requirements: https://www.google.com/search?q=robinhood+2.4+3.4+billion https://www.google.com/search?q=robinhood+2.4+3.4+billion RH does some questionable things but their "restriction of the buying" is an inevitable consequence of not having the billions to meet any margin calls. They were the tail not the dog.
  - quickthrowman 5y ago
    > What is not speculation is that they restricted the buying of stocks while not restricting the selling. The rest, though it may be speculation, has enough circumstantial evidence to allow most regular folks to make up their mind. Right, because sell orders would lower the clearinghouse margin requirements. If there are $100M GME buys on RH with 2 days to clear and $100M GME sells with 2 days to clear, their clearinghouse margin requirement is $0.
manigandham 5y ago
Front-running is already illegal and nobody cares about doing it for a bunch of small retail traders. Also buying stock requires funds to clear for 2 days while selling doesn't, that's why buying was restricted but selling wasn't. Whether Robinhood should have had more capital or how those margin requirements were handled is a serious question but that's entirely separate than these accusations which seem to be made by people who have no idea how the system actually works.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Traster 5y ago

That's not evidence that RH was: > supporting the short selling hedge funds Just to be clear: Robinhood claims that they prevented buying certain stocks because of increase collateral requirements by DTCC due to high volatility. Do you have any evidence that's untrue. Let's establish that before we move on to the claim that Citadel front-runs retail flow.

Miner49er 5y ago
From my understanding, the reason the DTCC raised collaterals so heavily was mostly due to the risk on the short side. So they were protecting the hedge funds by protecting themselves, and it carried on to Robinhood. So Robinhood didn't really have a choice, but they still were protecting the shorts in the end.
- vkou 5y ago
  And that's what happens when you play financial games you don't understand. If your strategy for driving a short squeeze, or a pump-and-dump does not take into account counterparty risk, you are going to get taken to the cleaners. When you making money causes the brokerage you are using to be unable to execute that trade, this is 100% your fault. As the saying goes, don't invest in financial instruments you don't understand. Entering a long position in a volatile, high-volume stock through a discount brokerage was a financial instrument that most of /wsb did not understand, and it blew up in its face.

PaywallBuster 5y ago

Merely speculation that that was done to favor their partner other than something else.

imdsm 5y ago
What is not speculation is that they restricted the buying of stocks while not restricting the selling. The rest, though it may be speculation, has enough circumstantial evidence to allow most regular folks to make up their mind. The people who will invest in the IPO aren't going to be the people who lost money due to RH locking the purchasing of stocks and stopping the price from sky rocketing. But in terms of a customer base, in terms of a company, RH are dust. https://www.trustpilot.com/review/robinhood.com https://www.trustpilot.com/review/robinhood.com
- manigandham 5y ago
  Robinhood has added millions of new accounts and the price of GME recently reached the same heights this past week for anyone that was still holding losses. A bunch of people gambling money isn't going to affect the company.
- jasode 5y ago
  >What is not speculation is that they restricted the buying of stocks while not restricting the selling. Yes but RH didn't have the billions of $$$ deposited at the clearing house for their trades to be honored. Buying stock to settle a few days later requires collateral that RH didn't have. It may help to read through the answers: https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/136272/why-would-collateral-be-required-to-make-a-stock-purchase https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/136272/why-would-c... This is why they scrambled at the last minute to raise billions to meet the higher collateral requirements: https://www.google.com/search?q=robinhood+2.4+3.4+billion https://www.google.com/search?q=robinhood+2.4+3.4+billion RH does some questionable things but their "restriction of the buying" is an inevitable consequence of not having the billions to meet any margin calls. They were the tail not the dog.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  > What is not speculation is that they restricted the buying of stocks while not restricting the selling. The rest, though it may be speculation, has enough circumstantial evidence to allow most regular folks to make up their mind. Right, because sell orders would lower the clearinghouse margin requirements. If there are $100M GME buys on RH with 2 days to clear and $100M GME sells with 2 days to clear, their clearinghouse margin requirement is $0.

manigandham 5y ago

Front-running is already illegal and nobody cares about doing it for a bunch of small retail traders. Also buying stock requires funds to clear for 2 days while selling doesn't, that's why buying was restricted but selling wasn't. Whether Robinhood should have had more capital or how those margin requirements were handled is a serious question but that's entirely separate than these accusations which seem to be made by people who have no idea how the system actually works.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]