5 ms·
I closed my account with them during the GameStop debacle and never looked back. I wasn't trading GME but was appalled at their reaction.
by njovin 4y ago
I closed my account with them during the GameStop debacle and never looked back. I wasn't trading GME but was appalled at their reaction.
- shahmeern 4y agowhat exactly were you appalled at?
- mey 4y agoNot parent, but I assume it's something in relation to https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/30/robinhood-to-pay-70-million-dollars-after-causing-users-significant-harm.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/30/robinhood-to-pay-70-million-...
- gpt5 4y agoThis fine has nothing to do with the GameStop debacle.
- junon 4y agoThey effectively told their users "you're being children, we know better than you".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- wcoenen 4y agoI don't think Robinhood had any choice there. Trades don't settle instantly. Robinhood needs to post collateral with the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation while settlement is pending, and the required collateral goes up with volatility. During the "GameStop debacle" they had to raise billions of USD in additional capital for this purpose, so no wonder they had to hit the brakes.
- COGlory 4y agoThey could have frozen trades in both directions.
- SamReidHughes 4y agoThey could have... prevented users from exiting their positions? How would that be better?
- COGlory 4y agoIn the context of what was happening in the market (the "short squeeze" that may or may not have ever happened), allowing sells but not buys clearly biased one position, could be seen as interference.
- masterjack 4y agoBlocking selling is a good way to get sued, so brokerages are very hesitant to do it. If the price drops the trader can claim they wanted to sell and are owed the difference. Blocking buying doesn’t have this issue since you can’t sue for theoretical gains.
- rubatuga 4y agoI think you still can? But yeah probably much harder in court.