4 ms·

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that freezing selling as well as buying would have screwed their retail customers even worse? Temporarily h

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that freezing selling as well as buying would have screwed their retail customers even worse? Temporarily halting all trading is something an exchange can reasonably do, sure. But for an individual retail brokerage to do it (instead of only halting buying) seems like something that straight-up shouldn't be legal. Basically because of the balance of upside and downside -- If I can't buy into a stock that's suddenly spiked, at best I'm experiencing FOMO and at worst I'm missing out on some potential profits. If I can't liquidate my position on a stock that's suddenly spiked, then at best I'm missing a chance to realize my gains and at worst I'm being forced to sit there and lose money. (I realize this is only considering long buying. TBH, I can't really think up a story for retail short sellers more compassionate than "caveat vendor." Nor am I sure why I should try to.)

filoleg 4y ago
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that freezing selling as well as buying would have screwed their retail customers even worse? You aren't missing anything. This is fairly obvious to anyone who understands how exchanges/brokers operate even on a basic level. The bottom line of it is, disabling buying was a hard necessity to avoid a complete disaster for everyone involved (including customers). Disabling selling wasn't a necessity in any way whatsoever. It wouldn't have solved any problem at all, and would only add an extra problem for customers who wish to exit their positions.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  OK, thanks for the validation. I think the next step, then, is to observe that I don't see how this can be characterized as a case of Robinhood getting out over their skis. Gamestonk looks for all the world to me like it was a black swan event that nobody could have anticipated. And the amount of reserve money Robinhood's clearer required is, realistically, set by the clearer. I suppose technically Robinhood could have held more, but that seems like the kind of thing that no consortium of mere humans would ever actually do, right? Just something a monday morning quarterback might say they should have done.
  - filoleg 4y ago
    > I suppose technically Robinhood could have held more, but that seems like the kind of thing that no consortium of mere humans would ever actually do, right? Yep. That's why RH wasn't the only major brokerage that disabled buying of GME on that day. They just got the most media coverage. Probably because most of superstonk users, I assume, used RH instead of other brokerages, or because RH was an easy target for the media. Webull, Schwab, IB, and some other brokers restricted GME trading activity during that time as well, here is a list with details on each major brokerage someone on WSB has compiled[0]. I cannot verify all of those myself, but I can confirm that Webull definitely restricted it as well, as I used it myself during that time period. But that little fact wouldn't support the whole "shadow cabal" conspiracy theory though, so it gets conveniently omitted in almost every discussion of it by superstonk users. 0. https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6xlw3/robinhood_td_ameritrade_charles_schwab_trading/ https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6xlw3/robi...

filoleg 4y ago

> Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that freezing selling as well as buying would have screwed their retail customers even worse? You aren't missing anything. This is fairly obvious to anyone who understands how exchanges/brokers operate even on a basic level. The bottom line of it is, disabling buying was a hard necessity to avoid a complete disaster for everyone involved (including customers). Disabling selling wasn't a necessity in any way whatsoever. It wouldn't have solved any problem at all, and would only add an extra problem for customers who wish to exit their positions.

mumblemumble 4y ago
OK, thanks for the validation. I think the next step, then, is to observe that I don't see how this can be characterized as a case of Robinhood getting out over their skis. Gamestonk looks for all the world to me like it was a black swan event that nobody could have anticipated. And the amount of reserve money Robinhood's clearer required is, realistically, set by the clearer. I suppose technically Robinhood could have held more, but that seems like the kind of thing that no consortium of mere humans would ever actually do, right? Just something a monday morning quarterback might say they should have done.
- filoleg 4y ago
  > I suppose technically Robinhood could have held more, but that seems like the kind of thing that no consortium of mere humans would ever actually do, right? Yep. That's why RH wasn't the only major brokerage that disabled buying of GME on that day. They just got the most media coverage. Probably because most of superstonk users, I assume, used RH instead of other brokerages, or because RH was an easy target for the media. Webull, Schwab, IB, and some other brokers restricted GME trading activity during that time as well, here is a list with details on each major brokerage someone on WSB has compiled[0]. I cannot verify all of those myself, but I can confirm that Webull definitely restricted it as well, as I used it myself during that time period. But that little fact wouldn't support the whole "shadow cabal" conspiracy theory though, so it gets conveniently omitted in almost every discussion of it by superstonk users. 0. https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6xlw3/robinhood_td_ameritrade_charles_schwab_trading/ https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6xlw3/robi...