LogFAQs > #950087247

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The CEO of Robinhood looks like Kylo Ren
Frolex 01/30/21 11:35:55 AM #59:	crayola555 posted... Huh? Dude you keep beating around the bush on this and giving me dud responses. We're not even talking about the collateral here. Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about. Read the article. crayola555 posted... RH is the only one that imposed restrictions on their stocks, none of the others had any. wrong. there were other retail brokers that were also stopping trades on those tickers. crayola555 posted... No he did not. He didn't say anything about it on the interview on CNN. Even if someone did, I don't care. Fact is something of this magnitude of importance is easily ready to be explained, even when caught off guard. You don't have to spend some time, plan and say it in some interview afterwards in some obscure article. That also throws your whole thing of them not wating to look broke out of the water. If you had actually read the article, you would see the section where I pulled that quote from. crayola555 posted... Why only gme on that first day though? That list of other stocks were similarly volatile than they were before, they only deem it problematic after being called out? Again, this is a point that could easily be made in one or two sentences during the interview on CNN. They deemed it problematic after their collateral requirements increased beyond their ability to cover them, not after they got "called out" crayola555 posted... That's absolutely not what we're talking about here. Robinhood stopped trades to protect hedge funds like Melvin and firms like Citron in order to help short sellers recuperate potential losses. Laughable you keep stressing RH was the only one not trading gme and a lot others are. No duh? The fact that there are other brokerages still trading GME does not mean robinhood was the only one stopping trade on those tickers. including others who have no direct association with melvin or citron. you would know these things if you were at all informed. crayola555 posted... RH is a big player with a large userbase in app free trading. Them doing their part in restricting stock trade absolutely does affect the stock price of a company. how much less of an effect do you think it would have had if they bankrupted themselves to cover the cost of the new trades? crayola555 posted... I'm done wasting my time here, I don't want to keep going in circles with you on this well, happy trails I guess. kudos on naming yourself after your favorite snack food, tho --- https://imgur.com/HOLHd4k https://imgur.com/six2WTN <cite>Frolex posted [p:950087247] in The CEO of... [t:79267809]...</cite> <quote>crayola555 posted... </cite> <quote> Huh? Dude you keep beating around the bush on this and giving me dud responses. We're not even talking about the collateral here.</quote> Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about. Read the article. crayola555 posted... </cite> <quote>RH is the only one that imposed restrictions on their stocks, none of the others had any.</quote>wrong. there were other retail brokers that were also stopping trades on those tickers. crayola555 posted... </cite> <quote>No he did not. He didn't say anything about it on the interview on CNN. Even if someone did, I don't care. Fact is something of this magnitude of importance is easily ready to be explained, even when caught off guard. You don't have to spend some time, plan and say it in some interview afterwards in some obscure article. That also throws your whole thing of them not wating to look broke out of the water.</quote> If you had actually read the article, you would see the section where I pulled that quote from. crayola555 posted... </cite> <quote> Why only gme on that first day though? That list of other stocks were similarly volatile than they were before, they only deem it problematic after being called out? Again, this is a point that could easily be made in one or two sentences during the interview on CNN.</quote> They deemed it problematic after their collateral requirements increased beyond their ability to cover them, not after they got "called out" crayola555 posted... </cite> <quote> That's absolutely not what we're talking about here. Robinhood stopped trades to protect hedge funds like Melvin and firms like Citron in order to help short sellers recuperate potential losses. Laughable you keep stressing RH was the only one not trading gme and a lot others are. No duh?</quote>The fact that there are other brokerages still trading GME does not mean robinhood was the only one stopping trade on those tickers. including others who have no direct association with melvin or citron. you would know these things if you were at all informed. crayola555 posted... </cite> <quote>RH is a big player with a large userbase in app free trading. Them doing their part in restricting stock trade absolutely does affect the stock price of a company.</quote> how much less of an effect do you think it would have had if they bankrupted themselves to cover the cost of the new trades? crayola555 posted... </cite> <quote>I'm done wasting my time here, I don't want to keep going in circles with you on this</quote>well, happy trails I guess. kudos on naming yourself after your favorite snack food, tho --- https://imgur.com/HOLHd4k https://imgur.com/six2WTN</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1