3 ms·

You're missing the point on behalf of some other people that are missing the point. If they didn't have the conflict of interest it would have been obvious to t

You're missing the point on behalf of some other people that are missing the point. If they didn't have the conflict of interest it would have been obvious to them that they needed to disable sells as well as the buys. Just freeze the stock, instead of only considering the freezing of the buys as a mere technicality while being pushed towards the convenience of keeping sells open. The point is for them to think of their users and balance decisions with what users would think.

dragontamer 4y ago
> If they didn't have the conflict of interest it would have been obvious to them that they needed to disable sells as well as the buys. Why? Robinhood wanted more GME for themselves so that they can sell it to other customers, who were furiously buying up GME to the point that Robinhood ran out of GME to sell. ------- That's like a Gamestop banning used PS5 during Christmas. Erm... wait, you want to sell me your used PS5 when no one else can get it? Sure, I'll buy it from you (and immediately resell it within 5 minutes). The problem is that there's this *myth*, this *conspiracy* where a cabal of shadowy people were "owned" by the noble Redditors / meme-stonk buyers who saved the world... and people who participated in the myth want to be seen as the "good guys". But in actuality, they're jumping at shadows and inventing boogiemen, and fundamentally misunderstanding the situation. I mean, whatever. Its what people do and it happens all the time. But Imma call people's idiocy out when it happens. For people who actually want to understand the GME event, feel free to read the GME report from the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/page/sec-staff-release-gamestop-report https://www.sec.gov/page/sec-staff-release-gamestop-report And stay away from the meme-stonk myths. Those guys don't know what they're talking about.
- vmception 4y ago
  Broker level stock halts happen all the time too, it was an option. Robinhood has conflicts of interest that don't require meme stock myths. The collateral requirements was from DTCC which affected many brokers and Robinhood simply got all the attention and is unrelated to Robinhood's conflict of interest, doesnt that prove I'm not subscribing to the conspiracies? The conflict of interest is that Citadel is their primary customer who gets all the trade data from robinhood's user. Citadel infused capital into Melvin which was the main fund Robinhood's users were trying to target because of Melvin's short position in Gamestop. The shadowy cabal conversation never needs to occur. Robinhood reacted to the DTCC collateral requirements, they should have reacted to their users as well, having a little drop of emotional intelligence to say "oh yeah this is reason to do a stock halt" instead of an asymmetric one.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    You'll have to forgive me, but my opinion of the cabal of GME-pumpers hyping the hell out of the stock on Reddit/WallStreetBets is not a group of conspirators I have much faith in. They create a boogieman who doesn't exist ("The big banks") without actually defining who the hell they are. All the while, they're literally conspiring to Gamma Squeeze the stock up to $1000. Then they get mad at their crappy brokerage for being crap. (I mean... maybe Robinhood shouldn't have been crap. But everyone knew it was a subpar brokerage built on hype and plenty of SEC complaints before the GME-event of January 2021). Then one of them named Roaring Kitty gets incredibly rich from the whole situation, sells off a huge chunk of their stocks, goes quiet for a while and apparently is the good guy. A few days in Congressional hearings later, it becomes blatantly obvious that no one knows what they're talking about and here we are now today. ------ I absolutely see a group of conspirators here. And its not "the big banks". I'm not sure what the legality of the whole exercise was (apparently it was legal?), but I'm not exactly seeing much altruism on the "buy buy buy" crowd. And no. Buying a terribly priced stock when everyone else is buying it isn't "saving the stock market". Its just rocking the boat and pumping the stock price higher. If that's what people want to do with their money that's their business, but don't pretend its some kind of noble effort. I'm not necessarily going to call the /r/WSB group "evil". But they're certainly not "good" either. And their obsession with finding boogiemen to yell at is dangerous mob-like rhetoric. ------ I get that it was a big social event, that large crowds moved and coordinated together, and they all felt very fun to the participants. But guess what? So was the Anti-COVID19 Trucker Convoy as well as Occupy Wall Street. It was a spontaneous mob, coordinated thanks to modern social media. That's all I see the event as honestly. It did some weird and interesting things to some smaller scale brokerages who couldn't handle the buy/sell orders, and it taught me a few things about the nature of exchanges and brokerages. But it wasn't some kind of altruistic event or heroic effort. Thanks to modern social media, I expect these spontaneous crowds to erupt into other forms and other locations... be it online or in meatspace (as per "Twitter Flash Mobs", which were probably their prototype when Social Media was younger). Maybe it was your first spontaneous internet mob, but it wasn't mine. I've seen them before and I know they'll come again.
WoahNoun 4y ago
Disabling sells and not letting someone exit a position is infinitely worse then not letting someone buy to enter a position. The latter is only theoretically harmed and has no case to sue; the former is provably harmed and can sue.
- f-securus 4y ago
  It is hard to say the latter is only theoretically harmed when the rising price was caused by retail FOMO (according to SEC report) and Robinhood managed the majority of retail orders....
  - WoahNoun 4y ago
    It is a theoretical harm. Securities law focuses on "obviously lost money" such as not being able to sell at the highs when you own the stock. This is very different from the theoretical price ceiling caused by retail FOMO. Otherwise every person on earth could sue to claim they were harmed by not being able to buy. From the SEC's POV, a single brokerage stopping buying still means there was an open market. Robinhood FOMOers used margin accounts and instant deposit feature to drive the price up until Robinhood could no longer afford the loans they were offering. Fidelity never stopped allowing buys because they could afford the settlement collateral.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

dragontamer 4y ago

> If they didn't have the conflict of interest it would have been obvious to them that they needed to disable sells as well as the buys. Why? Robinhood wanted more GME for themselves so that they can sell it to other customers, who were furiously buying up GME to the point that Robinhood ran out of GME to sell. ------- That's like a Gamestop banning used PS5 during Christmas. Erm... wait, you want to sell me your used PS5 when no one else can get it? Sure, I'll buy it from you (and immediately resell it within 5 minutes). The problem is that there's this *myth*, this *conspiracy* where a cabal of shadowy people were "owned" by the noble Redditors / meme-stonk buyers who saved the world... and people who participated in the myth want to be seen as the "good guys". But in actuality, they're jumping at shadows and inventing boogiemen, and fundamentally misunderstanding the situation. I mean, whatever. Its what people do and it happens all the time. But Imma call people's idiocy out when it happens. For people who actually want to understand the GME event, feel free to read the GME report from the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/page/sec-staff-release-gamestop-report https://www.sec.gov/page/sec-staff-release-gamestop-report And stay away from the meme-stonk myths. Those guys don't know what they're talking about.

vmception 4y ago
Broker level stock halts happen all the time too, it was an option. Robinhood has conflicts of interest that don't require meme stock myths. The collateral requirements was from DTCC which affected many brokers and Robinhood simply got all the attention and is unrelated to Robinhood's conflict of interest, doesnt that prove I'm not subscribing to the conspiracies? The conflict of interest is that Citadel is their primary customer who gets all the trade data from robinhood's user. Citadel infused capital into Melvin which was the main fund Robinhood's users were trying to target because of Melvin's short position in Gamestop. The shadowy cabal conversation never needs to occur. Robinhood reacted to the DTCC collateral requirements, they should have reacted to their users as well, having a little drop of emotional intelligence to say "oh yeah this is reason to do a stock halt" instead of an asymmetric one.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  You'll have to forgive me, but my opinion of the cabal of GME-pumpers hyping the hell out of the stock on Reddit/WallStreetBets is not a group of conspirators I have much faith in. They create a boogieman who doesn't exist ("The big banks") without actually defining who the hell they are. All the while, they're literally conspiring to Gamma Squeeze the stock up to $1000. Then they get mad at their crappy brokerage for being crap. (I mean... maybe Robinhood shouldn't have been crap. But everyone knew it was a subpar brokerage built on hype and plenty of SEC complaints before the GME-event of January 2021). Then one of them named Roaring Kitty gets incredibly rich from the whole situation, sells off a huge chunk of their stocks, goes quiet for a while and apparently is the good guy. A few days in Congressional hearings later, it becomes blatantly obvious that no one knows what they're talking about and here we are now today. ------ I absolutely see a group of conspirators here. And its not "the big banks". I'm not sure what the legality of the whole exercise was (apparently it was legal?), but I'm not exactly seeing much altruism on the "buy buy buy" crowd. And no. Buying a terribly priced stock when everyone else is buying it isn't "saving the stock market". Its just rocking the boat and pumping the stock price higher. If that's what people want to do with their money that's their business, but don't pretend its some kind of noble effort. I'm not necessarily going to call the /r/WSB group "evil". But they're certainly not "good" either. And their obsession with finding boogiemen to yell at is dangerous mob-like rhetoric. ------ I get that it was a big social event, that large crowds moved and coordinated together, and they all felt very fun to the participants. But guess what? So was the Anti-COVID19 Trucker Convoy as well as Occupy Wall Street. It was a spontaneous mob, coordinated thanks to modern social media. That's all I see the event as honestly. It did some weird and interesting things to some smaller scale brokerages who couldn't handle the buy/sell orders, and it taught me a few things about the nature of exchanges and brokerages. But it wasn't some kind of altruistic event or heroic effort. Thanks to modern social media, I expect these spontaneous crowds to erupt into other forms and other locations... be it online or in meatspace (as per "Twitter Flash Mobs", which were probably their prototype when Social Media was younger). Maybe it was your first spontaneous internet mob, but it wasn't mine. I've seen them before and I know they'll come again.

WoahNoun 4y ago

Disabling sells and not letting someone exit a position is infinitely worse then not letting someone buy to enter a position. The latter is only theoretically harmed and has no case to sue; the former is provably harmed and can sue.

f-securus 4y ago
It is hard to say the latter is only theoretically harmed when the rising price was caused by retail FOMO (according to SEC report) and Robinhood managed the majority of retail orders....
- WoahNoun 4y ago
  It is a theoretical harm. Securities law focuses on "obviously lost money" such as not being able to sell at the highs when you own the stock. This is very different from the theoretical price ceiling caused by retail FOMO. Otherwise every person on earth could sue to claim they were harmed by not being able to buy. From the SEC's POV, a single brokerage stopping buying still means there was an open market. Robinhood FOMOers used margin accounts and instant deposit feature to drive the price up until Robinhood could no longer afford the loans they were offering. Fidelity never stopped allowing buys because they could afford the settlement collateral.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]