3 ms·
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 ma
by 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 agoIt 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]