7 ms·

> I'm saying they shouldn't have done it They had no choice. They literally couldn't obtain any more GME stock. You cannot squeeze blood out of a stone. What d

> I'm saying they shouldn't have done it They had no choice. They literally couldn't obtain any more GME stock. You cannot squeeze blood out of a stone. What do you want Robinhood to do? The GME situation got into a "sold out" situation. Much like how a toy-store runs out of Furbies back in the 90s, Robinhood ran out of GME-stock to sell to its customers. They would allow "selling", because Robinhood can then obtain that customer's GME stock, and then give it to another customer almost immediately. ------------ All of this margins and stuff is probably just overcomplicating things. You're basically getting mad at toy stores for running out of Furbies, PS5 (or whatever fad-toy is available) during Christmas. Sold-out means sold-out, they can't sell you anymore. But they were willing to accept sell orders (aka: buy GME stocks from others), because that would replenish their stocks of GME to sell to other customers. If some PS5 scalper came up to (insert store here) saying "I wanna sell my PS5 at market prices", of course the toy-store would buy the PS5 (and immediately sell it to the next customer for a higher price).

BigBubbleButt 5y ago
> The GME situation got into a "sold out" situation. Much like how a toy-store runs out of Furbies back in the 90s, Robinhood ran out of GME-stock to sell to its customers. This is a poor analogy. So long as there is a large enough float, which is a requirement to be listed on some exchanges, there should always be stock to buy and sell. Don't compare it to something else that's commonplace and misleading. I am aware of the margin requirements and what happened with DTCC and am purposefully avoiding that more complicated subject only to point out how much I dislike your analogy.
- Denvercoder9 5y ago
  It's not that bad of an analogy. When a toy store runs out of Furbies, that doesn't mean there's no Furbies available on the world market anymore. It just means that at that specific toy store you can't get any Furbies anymore. When they get resupplied (posted additional collateral, in the case of Robin Hood), you can buy from them again.
  - bredren 5y ago
    Unrelated, but when Furbies came out, my brother and I waited in line for some and we both got one. I had a furry white one and it was awesome.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > This is a poor analogy. So long as there is a large enough float, which is a requirement to be listed on some exchanges, there should always be stock to buy and sell. Robinhood didn't have the money / collateral to obtain any more shares. As far as Robinhood is concerned, GME was sold out for that time period. It really is actually that simple. No shares for Robinhood meaning no new shares for Robinhood customers. In 2 days time, Robinhood T+2 settlements occurred and everything cleared up. Except the meme-stock buyers already lost interest because they had the attention span of gnats. > how much I dislike your analogy. Care to explain why its a bad analogy? The only meaningful difference I can think of is the whole T+2 settlement thing (but that's very much like "The next delivery of Furbies is in 2 days", yall can buy Furbies then). Perhaps this is stretching the analogy too far now but... the fundamental situation seems to be solid.
  - BigBubbleButt 5y ago
    I am aware of that, and that is Robinhood being unable to manage their collateral requirements in order to continue trading GME. There were other brokers that managed to do it just fine. Robinhood messed up here. Really I think the DTCC is who messed up, but that's a much larger discussion. The reason I dislike the analogy is because brokers aren't (typically) supposed to run out of shares to buy and sell. Retail traders don't think of trying different brokers for availability like you might trying different toy stores. The point of having a large enough float is so that you can continue trading the stock. Market makers exist to provide liquidity. It's supposed to keep trading, and only some brokers like Robinhood were unable to manage this.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      Personally speaking, I blame the customers. They are paying for $0 trades to a very, very small trading firm with well-known trade-execution problems months / years before the GME instance. No serious trader actually trusted Robinhood, and nobody was surprised when Robinhood's trading ability was shown to be so weak in that timeframe. There were many respectable banks with much stronger finances who were able to support the GME-rush. It was just the small guys without much $$$$ who failed, like Robinhood. -------- If you did a bit of research, you would have found Interactive Brokers (for instance). I'm not a customer of IB, but they have plenty of online material for what exactly you're paying for. And that is, trade execution. It matters, especially in times of trouble / times of risk. The stronger the bank, the better their ability to continue operations during weird times. > The reason I dislike the analogy is because brokers aren't (typically) supposed to run out of shares to buy and sell. Except they do. All the time when bubbles pop and other crisis form. Good luck selling stocks during the crash of (whatever). When the stock market is crashing, there's no buyers, so the price keeps dropping and dropping. Without any buyers, you will never be matched and you'll never be able to sell until its too late. Understanding these mechanics is very important to any market participant. "Flash crashes" with stop-loss orders are particularly lulzy. Your stock is automatically put up for a sale on a flash-crash. There's no buyers, so you sell the stock at a grossly lower price than expected (when some savvy buyer finally decides the price is low enough). That's when you're matched up. By the time you look at the stock, the "flash crash" is over, your stock is randomly sold and at a bad price. Etc. etc. Its annoying, but these sorts of events happen all the time, and its important to remember the mechanics of buying/selling stocks at all times when trading.
mazlix 5y ago
You're saying they'd sell it to the next customer, but Robhinhood wouldn't sell it to the next customer - so that's where this seems to break down. When a RH user placed a sell order why couldn't the buy side of their order book add that?
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Because there were more buyers than sellers within Robinhood. So when a RH user hit the buy button, RH couldn't find a seller within Robinhood and had to go to the clearinghouse to find other sellers. Robinhood maximized its buy orders to the clearinghouse (ran out of money), and that was it. RH couldn't afford finding sell-orders anymore. Game over. ------ Furthermore, the amount of money needed at the clearinghouse was clearly a burden to Robinhood. When they saw the bill, I'm sure they would have preferred for sell-orders to go to the clearinghouse (rather than internally), to unwind from DTCC. All stock brokers prefer trading "within" the system rather than seeking out 3rd party partners to find stocks / stock-buyers. Its cheaper and easier.

BigBubbleButt 5y ago

> The GME situation got into a "sold out" situation. Much like how a toy-store runs out of Furbies back in the 90s, Robinhood ran out of GME-stock to sell to its customers. This is a poor analogy. So long as there is a large enough float, which is a requirement to be listed on some exchanges, there should always be stock to buy and sell. Don't compare it to something else that's commonplace and misleading. I am aware of the margin requirements and what happened with DTCC and am purposefully avoiding that more complicated subject only to point out how much I dislike your analogy.

Denvercoder9 5y ago
It's not that bad of an analogy. When a toy store runs out of Furbies, that doesn't mean there's no Furbies available on the world market anymore. It just means that at that specific toy store you can't get any Furbies anymore. When they get resupplied (posted additional collateral, in the case of Robin Hood), you can buy from them again.
- bredren 5y ago
  Unrelated, but when Furbies came out, my brother and I waited in line for some and we both got one. I had a furry white one and it was awesome.
dragontamer 5y ago
> This is a poor analogy. So long as there is a large enough float, which is a requirement to be listed on some exchanges, there should always be stock to buy and sell. Robinhood didn't have the money / collateral to obtain any more shares. As far as Robinhood is concerned, GME was sold out for that time period. It really is actually that simple. No shares for Robinhood meaning no new shares for Robinhood customers. In 2 days time, Robinhood T+2 settlements occurred and everything cleared up. Except the meme-stock buyers already lost interest because they had the attention span of gnats. > how much I dislike your analogy. Care to explain why its a bad analogy? The only meaningful difference I can think of is the whole T+2 settlement thing (but that's very much like "The next delivery of Furbies is in 2 days", yall can buy Furbies then). Perhaps this is stretching the analogy too far now but... the fundamental situation seems to be solid.
- BigBubbleButt 5y ago
  I am aware of that, and that is Robinhood being unable to manage their collateral requirements in order to continue trading GME. There were other brokers that managed to do it just fine. Robinhood messed up here. Really I think the DTCC is who messed up, but that's a much larger discussion. The reason I dislike the analogy is because brokers aren't (typically) supposed to run out of shares to buy and sell. Retail traders don't think of trying different brokers for availability like you might trying different toy stores. The point of having a large enough float is so that you can continue trading the stock. Market makers exist to provide liquidity. It's supposed to keep trading, and only some brokers like Robinhood were unable to manage this.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Personally speaking, I blame the customers. They are paying for $0 trades to a very, very small trading firm with well-known trade-execution problems months / years before the GME instance. No serious trader actually trusted Robinhood, and nobody was surprised when Robinhood's trading ability was shown to be so weak in that timeframe. There were many respectable banks with much stronger finances who were able to support the GME-rush. It was just the small guys without much $$$$ who failed, like Robinhood. -------- If you did a bit of research, you would have found Interactive Brokers (for instance). I'm not a customer of IB, but they have plenty of online material for what exactly you're paying for. And that is, trade execution. It matters, especially in times of trouble / times of risk. The stronger the bank, the better their ability to continue operations during weird times. > The reason I dislike the analogy is because brokers aren't (typically) supposed to run out of shares to buy and sell. Except they do. All the time when bubbles pop and other crisis form. Good luck selling stocks during the crash of (whatever). When the stock market is crashing, there's no buyers, so the price keeps dropping and dropping. Without any buyers, you will never be matched and you'll never be able to sell until its too late. Understanding these mechanics is very important to any market participant. "Flash crashes" with stop-loss orders are particularly lulzy. Your stock is automatically put up for a sale on a flash-crash. There's no buyers, so you sell the stock at a grossly lower price than expected (when some savvy buyer finally decides the price is low enough). That's when you're matched up. By the time you look at the stock, the "flash crash" is over, your stock is randomly sold and at a bad price. Etc. etc. Its annoying, but these sorts of events happen all the time, and its important to remember the mechanics of buying/selling stocks at all times when trading.

mazlix 5y ago

You're saying they'd sell it to the next customer, but Robhinhood wouldn't sell it to the next customer - so that's where this seems to break down. When a RH user placed a sell order why couldn't the buy side of their order book add that?

dragontamer 5y ago
Because there were more buyers than sellers within Robinhood. So when a RH user hit the buy button, RH couldn't find a seller within Robinhood and had to go to the clearinghouse to find other sellers. Robinhood maximized its buy orders to the clearinghouse (ran out of money), and that was it. RH couldn't afford finding sell-orders anymore. Game over. ------ Furthermore, the amount of money needed at the clearinghouse was clearly a burden to Robinhood. When they saw the bill, I'm sure they would have preferred for sell-orders to go to the clearinghouse (rather than internally), to unwind from DTCC. All stock brokers prefer trading "within" the system rather than seeking out 3rd party partners to find stocks / stock-buyers. Its cheaper and easier.