100 ms·
The problem with this analysis is that Robinhood didn't choose to block buy orders, they were forced to because they were no longer able to fulfill them. You ca
by Denvercoder9 4y ago
The problem with this analysis is that Robinhood didn't choose to block buy orders, they were forced to because they were no longer able to fulfill them. You can argue about whether Robinhood should've been better prepared for the volatility that arose (and that could be an interesting conversation by itself), but they weren't. GP claims "they shouldn't have done it", but continuing wasn't an option. The only other choice they had was to suspend trading in GME all together (both buy and sell orders), but I don't see how that wasn't strictly worse for them and their clients.
- chii 4y agoit might have made robinhood look better to uninformed retail traders if they disabled both the sell button as well as the buy button.
- freemint 4y agoNo it wouldn't have. People who knew they could sell in theory and couldn't in practice would complain to and maybe sue for damages (justified or not) the correct option would have been to let users "lend" robinhood the money for 2 days to process the transaction and have this be explained in the interface.
- Denvercoder9 4y ago> the correct option would have been to let users "lend" robinhood the money for 2 days to process the transaction and have this be explained in the interface As explained elsewhere in this thread, regulations don't allow this.