Robinhood Hit with Class Action After Blocking GameStop Trades (vice.com) 216
Robinhood is already facing a class action lawsuit after the microtrading platform deliberately blocked users from trading GameStop stock as the stock catapulted in value. From a report: The news shows some nearly immediate impact to Robinhood after the snap decision. "Robinhood purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removing the stock 'GME' from its trading platform in the midst of an unprecedented stock thereby deprived retail investors of the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulating the open-market," the class action complaint reads. Fox Business journalist Lydia Moynihan tweeted news of the class action earlier on Wednesday.
No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, they're suing because Robinhood is doing it's own manipulating to stop them from manipulating the stock. This is mostly a demonstration that any concept that stocks are anything other than a gamble is baloney.
Isn't it wonderful how so many of us have our retirements tied to this garbage?
Re:No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:5, Funny)
If you have enough money to put into retirement, you're one of the rich, and Robinhood is stealing from you. Sounds legit.
Re: No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:2)
Define "money".
Becauuse you ain't buying my work force with anything made from gambling! Because I've got to actually work for that! So unless "you*" did too, fuck off!
* I don't mean literally you, dear reader.
Re:No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:5, Insightful)
if you think having a 401k makes you rich you have no real concept of exactly how unbelievably wealthy actual rich people are. The people you are calling rich are a lot closer to being homeless than they are to being, say, Mark Cuban.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those poor guys. They're in a completely different camp [youtu.be] than Cuban.
Re:No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:4, Interesting)
The people you are calling rich are a lot closer to being homeless than they are to being, say, Mark Cuban.
If everything I own was given to a homeless person, their life would profoundly change. They could afford food, a home, and a comfortable life.
If I was given Mark Cuban's wealth, it would make little difference in my life. I could afford a bigger house, but my kids are gone to college, and I already have more space than I need. I could afford a fancy car, but I am not a "car guy," so I don't care. I could buy a yacht, but I get seasick easily. I can't buy a better laptop because there are no special "laptops for billionaires".
Re: (Score:3)
This only emphasizes how messed up it is for a microscopic number of people to hold astronomic wealth
Not really. Mark Cuban's wealth has no negative impact on my life.
Perhaps you believe the fallacy that an economy is zero-sum, so if one person is rich, they are "taking" from someone else who is poor. Real economies don't work that way. If Mark was banned from earning billions, his investments would have never happened, and much of his wealth would have never been created in the first place.
Most of his wealth is invested in productive assets. If his assets were seized and sold to raise money to feed th
Re: (Score:3)
Having people around who are ultra rich does impact your life in ways you probably don't even realize. I chose Cuban because he is insanely wealthy but is still way less wealthy than the richest billionaires. Having people around with that kind of money impacts the laws made in your jurisdiction, it impacts the way labor and business relate, it has an impact on labor laws, it is probably a good portion of what keeps medical insurance tied to employment in this country.
The money from people like that goes
Re: (Score:3)
I had no idea that attempting to be responsible for my own future instantly qualified me as "rich".
Having savings used to be called "responsible".
Re: No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:5, Interesting)
Stopping trading on an asset to give shorts an opportunity to cover or hedge at minimal expense is a bit different from pooling your money to buy call options. The latter can describe almost any corporation buying options.
Re: No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:2, Insightful)
They chose to take those short positions, if they go bad then fuck them, let them take their chances with everyone else. They are playing bullshit games and they should win bullshit prizes like everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:3)
âoe Isn't it wonderful how so many of us have our retirements tied to this garbage?â
As opposed to what? Property? When the currencies collapse the cops will be too busy to defend what it says on your title. Cash? If the market implodes so will the value of cash. Glold or silver? Better be armed to the teeth and silent about possession, and willing to wait until society stabilizes enough that you can you say you told us so.
You make the best decisions you can based on the short and medium term prosp
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gold will be about as useful as rocks in a total collapse. Food, usable fuel, ammunition and solar/wind generators will be the non-renewable resources that have real value.
I see Dave Ramsey showed up. Gold has - literally - millennia of being a universal currency. Nothing will change that.
If a hurricane wipes out your town drinkable water will be one of the most valuable commodities for a couple of weeks until utilities are restored.
If a crazy government destroys your currency, on the other hand, gold will retain its value completely. Look at Zimbabwe, Venezuela, even Germany back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if gold does maintain it's value...who is going to benefit from gold in the case of such an apocalypse? The people who have some digital record in a computer that they invested in gold? Or the people who actually have the gold?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's what most people who are saying "invest in gold" are talking about - they don't mean in gold commodities trading - they mean buying literal gold in some form or another. Bars, jewelry, nuggets, etc. You take a risk in that it's very much susceptible to theft, but actual gold typically will hold its value.
Of course keep a good stock of the other stuff too. Now is not the time to buy ammo as it's become scarce and prices have gone up, but just keeping a decent supply of ammunition and non-pe
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of nuclear annihilation, gold would probably not be used as it would be advised to avoid it or die, since gold can neutron capture and become a gamma emitter.
Most people like their form of currency or value storage to not be something that kills them from simply being in the same room.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Only because something was needed as a currency. Now that the world has moved to currency not based on shiny ore dug out of the ground but rather abstract relative values to other currencies, the shiny ore dug out of the ground is simply a proxy for other currencies, rather than being the currency itself.
Short version: gold only has value because we say it has value. Just like any other currency used as a medium of value exchange. Gold is no more inherently valuable than iron except that we say it does -
Re: (Score:2)
The GP didn't say anything about a total societal collapse, just retirement. Property might actually be a decent investment as far as that goes. Of course, using property as an investment creates problems being able to afford a place to live for anyone who just wants to live somewhere.
Re:No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:5, Insightful)
> Basically, they're suing because Robinhood is doing it's own manipulating to stop them from manipulating the stock.
This stock stopped being manipulated about a month ago after it got shorted all the way down to about $3 a share. That was market manipulation.
What is happening now is a bunch of ultra rich investors getting punished for being too greedy and robbing the same cookie jar multiple times. Play stupid games win stupid prizes and all that.
Blocking average people from buying shares (but continuing to let the investment class buy them) does nothing but protect all those assholes as they desperately bail out of their short positions. This is literally the kind of thing the SEC exists to investigate, but they are worried about a bunch of guys in their moms basement making 3 figure investments. Disgusting.
Re: (Score:3)
Blocking average people from buying shares (but continuing to let the investment class buy them) does nothing but protect all those assholes as they desperately bail out of their short positions. This is literally the kind of thing the SEC exists to investigate, but they are worried about a bunch of guys in their moms basement making 3 figure investments. Disgusting.
Welcome to high finance. The old boy's club is very very good at looking after its own and pretty hostile to outsiders. Things go up, things go
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is really only slightly different than speculating that any other stock is going to rise or fall for any other reason.
Pandemic, so people are gonna have to buy more stuff online? Buy online-retail stock. Sell movie theater and restaurant stock.
Company X is anticipated to post better than expected profits? Buy Company X stock
Company Y, who has cornered a market, is about to be upset by a new competitor, Company Z? Sell Company Y stock
Only in this case it's
Notice that someone has put themselves in
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. What they're doing is no different than the guys who buy up all the bottled water and plywood for miles after a tornado goes through town. They're just trying to make a profit by selling it to people who need it more than they do, preferably the rich people who can pay the most. The intrinsic worth has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it wonderful how so many of us have our retirements tied to this garbage?
That's as dumb as tying your health care to your job.
Re:No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always thought that property is one of the best investments, because even if prices crash you still own a piece of property. Besides, it's a limited supply, they're not making any more except in Hawaii and Holland.
Re: (Score:3)
even if prices crash you still own a piece of property
But I can't dig it up and move it to a state that isn't getting ready to tax the hell out of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No fair, you're manipulating my manipulating (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the entire thing was in response to hedge funds manipulating stock prices in the first place, Robinhood has made it very clear that they have not suspended it because investors are manipulating the price, they suspended it because the wrong investors were manipulating the price.
Semantic nit (Score:2)
"Risk-taking" and "Gambling" are two different things. We take risks many times throughout the day. Every time you get on the road, for example. We cannot exist without taking risks, but we can use our brains to judge the risks and only take ones worth taking.
"Purchasing" and "gambling" are ALSO two different things. When you gamble you risk an amount of money in hopes of getting more in return. When purchasing you trade an amount of money in exchange for legal ownership of some kind of property. When
Re: (Score:3)
This argument that a group of people on Reddit are "manipulating the stock" is utter bullshit. Sorry, but momentum purchasing is a legitimate strategy employed by many fund managers. They see momentum (often in other funds) and they jump on it. Perfectly legal. Of course, these funds are really the only ones typically able to capitalize on momentum because they're able to utilize HFT and direct connections to the market to back out of the momentum swings faster than a retail trader (I won't even get int
economist: no, but . . . (Score:2)
>Buying the shares to drive up the price makes perfect sense.
Speaking as an economics professor . . .
Buying to drive up price doesn't work, the math is against it: the individual shareholder's fraction of the outstanding amount isn't enough to give him the equivalent of "market power" in monopoly/cartel activity.
Even hordes of small investors don't have a rational path there, its a massive variation fo the Prisoners' Dilemma.
As another cautionary issue, we *know* that once the dust settles, the price is
Re: (Score:2)
This is a gross mischaracterization of what's going on.
The issue is that Wall Street is fine with just about any kind of gross manipulation when it's other people's money and livelihoods getting ruined in the process, but once someone beat them at their own game, they're trying to block people from carrying on through moves of incredibly dubious legality.
Rules for thee but not for me at i
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is necessary to take into consideration the youthful groups that Robinhood is marketed to (their ads make it seem like a learning tool), AND the detrimental effect that trading has had on at least on Robinhood user (suicide after over-reacting to projected losses).
In which case, I AGREE with you SuperKendall, they should teach the value of buy and hold instead of placing bets at a roulette wheel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except they aren't choosing who to do business with. They are choosing what business their customers can do. If you are looking for an equivalent, this isn't Twitter banning Trump from tweeting. This is Twitter banning everyone from tweeting about Trump (and while that might sound like a great thing, it would be a legitimate complaint against Twitter).
Re: (Score:2)
So the best example you could come up with was a company that maintained a list of business categories that they refused to do business with (including weapons and munitions) and then they refused to do business with a company that operates in the realm of weapons and munitions? Well that's a relief. For a minute there, I thought you were going to have a valid counterargument
Grab popcorn (Score:4, Insightful)
This will be fun. They manipulated the market to stop us from manipulating the market to punish those who are manipulating the market. I hope people from all three groups can be found guilty for manipulating markets in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is doing anything illegal but the reddit group is screwing around with the larger hedge funds at their own detriment.
If you want to see what the big boys do, read Michael Lewis' book Flash Boys. short version - Day traders are basically screwed
Re:Grab popcorn (Score:5, Informative)
That's why you're not a lawyer. You can pool resources in the market. This is the same as someone going to their buddies and saying, hey, I think this stock is undervalued, what if we got together and each invested a ton of money in it, and if it goes up, then we get rich.
And then that's what happened and a bunch of algorithms at the market saw the investment and decided "hey, they must know something I don't, buy buy buy"
But then the hedge fund managers at Wall Street decided that their algorithm made a mistake, they called their buddies at the tech sites and said, "hey, block them while we sell off our shares" and so they got blocked from making trades.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you're not a lawyer.
Based on your response, you don't seem to be a lawyer either. You make no mention of intent which would be the most critical aspect of whether a crime has been committed.
This is the same as someone going to their buddies and saying, hey, I think this stock is undervalued, what if we got together and each invested a ton of money in it, and if it goes up, then we get rich.
Now I know you aren't a lawyer. This is not even close to what is happening. You are describing investing based on market fundamentals (convincing other investors the stock is undervalued). That is explicitly allowed. What is not allowed is to go to friends and say "hey I think this stock is cheap enough for us to buy a large enough volume
Re: (Score:3)
Except GameStop stock IS undervalued. Someone is going to buy a large amount of stock in the near futrue.
Re:Grab popcorn (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing from the redditor's side has been illegal. They're buying stocks, into a bubble that they know is a bubble.
If that is all they are doing, there is nothing illegal happening. But what reports seem to indicate is they are trading based on reasons outside of market fundamentals. They are intentionally trying to trigger trading activity which would benefit them, instead of trading based on their view of a stock's worth. That is what market manipulation is.
Wash Trading [investopedia.com] is the closest defined form of market manipulation I know of which illustrates similar behavior. It involves buying and selling stocks very quickly to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Grab popcorn (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks, I learned that here.
Learning doesn't seem to be your forte.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that, Robinhood autoselling user shares (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just one guy on Twitter, but if true...
Robihood is selling user shares without permission [twitter.com].
Re: (Score:3)
This was probably a margin call.
That's a mighty small margin (Score:2)
This was probably a margin call.
A margin call on 0.09 shares of stock? With the sell price of $330, around where the stock was for a while at that point?
More like, Robinhood thinking "hey if we just autosell shares for everyone who owns under one whole share, no-one will ever notice". In total that could be in the hundreds of thousands (or more) shares as there was a widespread group of people buying.
Re: (Score:2)
Fractional shares are inherently margin securities on most platforms. When securities have unstable price activity, margin requirements increase; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the bubble will pop eventually with the run-up that was created.
I thought about buying a put today for shits and giggles, but the premiums were just WAY out of whack for me.
Re: (Score:2)
This was probably a margin call.
I am not savvy enough to know, so asking. Can they do that while you are solidly in green?
Juicier by the minute (Score:2)
There must be a Juicero bag flavor called "short" that we can squeeze for this. The whole story gets juicier by the minute. The Juicero story reminds me that shorts have their place--why else would anybody disassemble a juicer or analyze a business to find its flaws; but everything has its limits. These shorts went way past their limits, and the justice juice is flowing!
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This is mostly just people using their own money to cause problems for people whose trading practices they donâ(TM)t like. Nothing illegal. If I would be such a person, it would have been fun. I have a few hundred floating around trading accounts. Could have bought early, and if it were all gone, well, I donâ(TM)t a few nights in a bar.
Robin Hood and all the firms that limit the free speech, and SCOTUS has equated money with free speech, just to protect their rich friends and family, deserve to be hammered in the courts, in my opinion to the point of bankruptcy. There is no basis to limit trading here, as long as trades are in cash. Again, end margins and shorting, fine. But we should be free to trade whatever we wish using our own money, no matter how stupid or inconvenient others think it is.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Shorts in and of themselves are not bad things. farmers for example short their own crops ( actually it's more complicated). That the whole basis of the options markets. For the farmers it means they make less money when they have a bumper crop, but they make more money when they have a bad crop. It evens out their income year after year and there are less farm bankruptcies.
The problem is that these hedge funds have streched all marketing techniques way out of shape.
Re: (Score:2)
Shorts in and of themselves are not bad things. farmers for example short their own crops
The good thing about laws is you can make things legal or illegal based on intent instead of just the activity itself. While there are enough technical differences between put options that farmers use and short selling to craft laws that affect one and not the other, you shouldn't even really have to. Just enact rules to target those with the intent to short stocks for speculative purposes. Those are harder to prosecute but would at least have the ability to punish wrongdoing without removing the benefits t
Re: (Score:2)
The good thing about laws is you can make things legal or illegal based on intent instead of just the activity itself.
Thats actually a terrible thing, and so is any other idea you have about making things illegal based on other strictly unprovable things.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats actually a terrible thing, and so is any other idea you have about making things illegal based on other strictly unprovable things.
While it seems we disagree, I can assure you intent is a very important part of our legal system. Most crimes require intent for an act to be considered illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
futures contracts on actual commodities make since - it is paying a price today for a product produced tomorrow giving confidence and means to the producer. Big difference is I have the $ for the product and they will produce the product and then the product is consumed..
Stocks are not commodities.... I wish they would go back to simple you have to have it to sell it and you have to have the $ to buy it aka. trading....
Re: (Score:2)
to be clear, a farmer pre-selling (by whatever means) 80% of his crop is hedging and reducing risks.
A farmer entering these transactions for 120% of his crop this way is gambling/speculating/increasing risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can the SEC force price changes and reversals? (Score:2)
Can the SEC force price changes and reversals?
Best case say it's rolled back to the when they stopped the buying?
or maybe go back 1 week and fully refund all buys cash + ALL FEES and let the shouter keep there funds.
But don't refund buys - fees or force them to take and loss + fees and let the big ones off to make $$$ off there shorts
Wait for the whole story (Score:5, Informative)
I am really looking forward to finding out exactly what motivated the Robinhood execs to try to push down the GameStop stock. They took clear and documented action against one class of investors in favor of others. Clearly someone has a direct interest, or someone called them in a panic for a personal favor.
House representatives are now calling for investigations.
I don't see any good outcome for them about this. The best they can hope for at this point is to get an out-of-court settlement under NDA. And I doubt they can afford it.
Not just the House... (Score:2, Insightful)
House representatives are now calling for investigations.
Even better than that, not just house members but also Ted Cruz is agreeing with democrats in the house (well AOC anyway) calling for investigations... this could finally be the thing that unites the populist left and right, to fight against BigCorp left and right.
Maybe this is where people realize the real party lines are not where they thought at all...
My hope would be this puts rapid and extreme pressure on the SEC to not be acting solely on behalf
Re: (Score:2)
GME still at $230 or thereabouts. To paraphrase a Klingon, today is a good day to buy.
You think so? I question how long the rag tag rebel army can keep this up, much less push up far enough to make the risk worth it. I have no great love for the ghoulish short traders that were trying to destroy the company for an easy profit, but I am not rich enough to want to commit capital I would lose once the bubble bursts.
The current valuation is incredible and has nothing other than the desire of a social media group to prop it up. What value do you think they will get it up to?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, Cruz is just grandstanding, that's pretty much all he ever does. A nice "campaign contribution" from Goldman Sachs or some interesting insider information and you'll see him change course so fast you get whiplash.
Re: (Score:2)
You forget, Joe Manchin is still considered part of the Democratic caucus, even though he votes pretty much all the time with the Republicans and has never demonstrated any sort of party loyalty. The Democratic majority is actually pretty ephemeral in the Senate.
You're right about Pelosi though, and pretty much everyone else who has been in Congress for more than a decade too (with a few obvious exceptions).
Re: (Score:2)
Or what they really do is trading against their clients.
Re:Wait for the whole story (Score:5, Informative)
I am really looking forward to finding out exactly what motivated the Robinhood execs to try to push down the GameStop stock. They took clear and documented action against one class of investors in favor of others. Clearly someone has a direct interest, or someone called them in a panic for a personal favor.
We already know what motivated Robinhood. Robinhoods trades are handled by Citadel (Citadel handles the trades for about 40% of the individual investor market, and Citadel is also a large source of Robinhood's revenue). Citadel recently invested $2 billion into Melvin Capital Management, the firm that is making all the short trades which the WSB folks are trying to squeeze. So Citadel has a vested interest in making sure Melvin doesn't lose money.
Melvin shorted the stock, hoping it would drop and they can profit. But the stock price has gone up, so Melvin is actually in the red right now. Normally they could just ride it back out (nobody in their right mind believes the current GME value is representative of the company's real value...it's a bubble, and it's going to burst), but if the WSB folks can push the stock price high enough, Melvin can be forced to close out their position to cover their short (alternatively they can inject more money to cover their position, if they can get someone to give them more money, which is how Citadel got involved in the first place).
So Melvin (and thus Citadel) would like to see the stock price not go up, or better yet, drop. Well, what happens when holders of GME stock want to sell their position but a large portion of the market is forbidden from buying? Well, with less buyer competition, the price drops.
It's clear as day how the manipulation is working here.
Re: (Score:2)
It's clear as day how the manipulation is working here.
Thanks for this explanation. Somebody please mod that up.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, alleged. But the guys on WSB looked at the trading volume on shorts that day and compared it with previous statements from Melvin about their short position, and it's not even close to matching. There wasn't enough volume for them to close out. Plus I think it was after they allegedly closed out their position that they said the shorts are due Friday (which is BS). I'm not sure how they'd be due if they already closed them out. So they're making a bunch of contradictory statements (ie: lying). They jus
Well that was (Score:2)
Hope you read that EULA. (Score:2)
Generally, services like this have a "User Agreement" which lets them do just about anything they like. Don't be surprised when they point out that every agreed to allow them to do this.
Re: Hope you read that EULA. (Score:2, Insightful)
&EULA ... do just about everything
Except in civilized countries with a legal system, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW Silver (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Eh, the commodities market is not at all similar to the stock market. When the Hunt Brothers bought a lot of the world's silver, entire industries such us jewellery makers etc who still needed to buy silver had to pay inflated prices. Also, note that the Hunt Brothers had bought heavily on margin - i.e. they were basically borrowing to corner the market.
In the stockmarket, nobody "needs" the stock that you bought, except of course short sellers who had knowingly placed a dangerous bet out of greed (and prob
Re: (Score:2)
>Wall Street suddenly decided to allow only selling silver, but not buying.
That's, err, impossible.
There's no way to sell without someone buying at the same time.
Certain *types* of transactions can be limited, such as, for example, buying on margin.
Those who attempt to corner a market usually fail. And when they fail, they tend to do so in a spectacular manner. Trading Places wasn't particularly inaccurate in the depiction.
hawk
I don't know the TOS or the law but . . . (Score:2)
If I was drafting TOS for an online service in a highly regulated field, I would:
At this point it is hard to tell if this is a legitimate peasant revolt or a pump-and-dump. But the outcome will be the same and I don't think it involves RobinHood becoming a stock trading co-op..
The market has remained irrationa
Everyone is free to do this (Score:3)
This is why I tend to stick with "regular" investments, I suck at predicting the thundering herd. I've never made a ton of money, unfortunately, but I've never been on the losing end very badly either. Just a steady, if not slow, tick upwards that's better than the rate of inflation.
A short summary of what's happening (Score:5, Interesting)
(More detailed version here [battleswarmblog.com].)
1. Some big hedge funds shorted more GameStop stock than actual shares outstanding. This is called a "naked short" and is illegal.
2. Some redditors noticed this, and bought the stock.
3. The stock soared as more and more investors bought.
4. To close out their short positions, those hedge funds must purchase shares of GameStop, even if it means suffering a huge loss. This is what's know as a "short squeeze."
5. Rather than sucking it up and taking their losses, many hedge funds not only doubled down on shorts, they went crying to the Biden Administration and their friends in the media that it was unfair they had been beaten at their own game.
6. Result: Ameritrade, Robinhood and others halt retail accounts from buying the stock, ostensibly due to "volatility," but actually to bail out the hedge funds.
Re: (Score:2)
Some big hedge funds shorted more GameStop stock than actual shares outstanding. This is called a "naked short" and is illegal.
Do you have a source for this naked short claim?
Why is the king singling out Robinhood? (Score:2)
Robinhood and some reddit group together don't have the $ power of any of the individual big banks or investment firms, and those have been involved in these market manipulations for freaking ever.
Is some other manipulator being covered up and/or is this just an excuse to tax the small investor more?
WTF?
"Purposefully and knowingly"? (Score:2)
Honestly, this looks like something that could have happened automatically in the face of events that would otherwise cause the company to lose money if they had not ceased trading.on the stock.
Can you (rightfully) sue a company for not doing business with you when they would have otherwise only been able to do so at a financial loss in the first place?
Robin Hood (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just put back the trading fees (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, let's make the barrier to entry higher. That must be the answer. These people are hurting the rich, therefore they are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
When people act without intelligence, they risk harming themselves and others. In many domains we require people to get a license (driving, flying, medicine, etc.) before they can participate, as proof that they are competent enough to act without ruining everything for everyone else.
For the basic act of buying stocks, there is no license required. The trading fee (apart from compensating the brokers for the services rendered) implicitly served as a means of filtering out a whole class of people who don't
Re: (Score:2)
Counter argument: If you're not the customer you're the product. Robinhood makes money by selling the info on pending trade requests, which is purchased by traditional Wall Street players who will front run those trades. The customers are not happy with the competing demand while they unwind their short positions and found a way to reduce it.
I agree a low barrier to trading isn't really the problem here. But no fee at all means Robinhood has an incentive to sell the individual traders out.
Sort of (Score:2)
Eliminate Payment For Order Flow (PFOF) which is what enables the commission-free trading. The market makers pay RH for orders because their business relies on volume. PFOF was actually pioneered by Madoff. Yes. That Madoff. When they were picking through the wreckage on his case, many concluded that PFOF should be illegal, but they also realized that due to decimal trades, margins were slim in market-making so there wouldn't be enough volume for a competitive market. So they allowed PFOF to continue.
Re:Just put back the trading fees (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to the bigger flash crashes and bubbles this is nothing.
Re: (Score:2)