Current Events > The CEO of Robinhood looks like Kylo Ren

(+) Yeah! (+)

PurestProdigy posted...

I was watching from the sidelines until I went to buy some AMC the other morning. I had no investment emotional or otherwise in this situation until this nonsense was pulled.

probably should have kept it that way

---

Frolex posted...

probably should have kept it that way

Nah. What they're doing is wrong, and it should be called out even if it's just keyboard warrior justice

---

PurestProdigy posted...

Nah. What they're doing is wrong, and it should be called out even if it's just keyboard warrior justice

well, pumping up their trade volume is definitely what will show them

---

Frolex posted...

If the central clearinghouse is raising their collaterization requirements on the stock, robinhood has to front that collateral regardless of if they have their own clearninghouse or not

Huh? Dude you keep beating around the bush on this and giving me dud responses. We're not even talking about the collateral here. The article you linked me to stated Robinhood has it's own clearinghouse similar to a few other brokerages. RH is the only one that imposed restrictions on their stocks, none of the others had any.

The CEO has come out publicly and said their decision was a result of clearinghouse deposit requirements.

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.

The fewer people Robinhood has trading on margin, the less collateral they're going to have to put up on the stocks. The problem in this case being that still didnt bring robinhood to a position where they could afford to front the cash on the trades being made.

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.

Robinhood didn't stop trades to "protect wall street". "Wall street" are the ones driving most of this market activity and the first place and far and away the ones who stand to make the most profit from this.

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?

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.

I'm done wasting my time here, I don't want to keep going in circles with you on this


---

crayola555 posted...

RH is the only one that imposed restrictions on their stocks, none of the others had any.

What? Webull did the same thing. This is 100% a collateral issue, reddit is just being stupid as usual.

Frolex posted...

well, pumping up their trade volume is definitely what will show them

I sincerely hope you don't think I have any funds left on RH after they tried cockblocking a purchase I was trying to make after selling stock the previous day with the intention to make said purchase

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

What? Webull did the same thing. This is 100% a collateral issue, reddit is just being stupid as usual.

I'm just going by the article that was linked to me from Frolex. I know webull had their issues, and they explained it. Others I'm a bit dubious about.

---

St0rmFury posted...

Wait, why is Robinhood the bad guy now? I wasn't really following the whole Gamestop saga but I thought they are instrumental to the outcome.

They were. They protected the hedgefunds so by making it hard for thenindividual investors to buy any real volume.

---

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

---

PurestProdigy posted...

I sincerely hope you don't think I have any funds left on RH after they tried cockblocking a purchase I was trying to make after selling stock the previous day with the intention to make said purchase

on that we agree

---

crayola555 posted...

I'm just going by the article that was linked to me from Frolex. I know webull had their issues, and they explained it. Others I'm a bit dubious about.

They all had the same issue with liquidity. These services use middleman called clearinghouses to actually buy the stock for their users. Clearinghouses require a deposit that is greater than the price being paid for the stock, as they are responsible for covering the cost when the trade fails. If the market becomes extremely volatile the deposit becomes high enough that the clearinghouse stops accepting buys all together.

The "RH stopped allowing the little guy to buy so they could protect the hedge funds!!!!" narrative was made up on reddit and spread by people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's just something people want to believe.

ScazarMeltex posted...

They protected the hedgefunds so by making it hard for thenindividual investors to buy any real volume.

Please read the topic.

crayola555 posted...

We're not even talking about the collateral here. The article you linked me to stated Robinhood has it's own clearinghouse similar to a few other brokerages. RH is the only one that imposed restrictions on their stocks, none of the others had any.

1. Robinhood is a tiny fucking company compared to people like Merrill Lynch. They don't have 1/10th the capital or liquid of people who've been in the business for decades.
2. Robinhood has their own clearing house but not everyone uses Robinhood so if you'd trading with someone there's a chance it has to go through multiple clearing houses.
3. When that happens, it's cleared through a company known as the DTCC who has a literal monopoly (>95%) on clearing transactions like these.
4. The DTCC "surprise changed" collateral requirements from 1-3% to 100%
5. Because RH marketed itself as retailer friendly, many retailers were there filing disproportionate buys on RH who did not have the cash to handle the collateral imposed by the DTCC.
6. In theory sugar and rainbows universes if everyone trading was doing this on Robinhood this wouldn't have happened.
7. However as the goal was to intentionally take from hedgefunds, buys were targeting stocks not traded through Robinhood. Sticking Robinhood with the brunt of collateral overhead.

So you see the little guy is getting fucked here because of a quadrillion dollar clearing house but it's important to understand the perspective here that compared to people like Citadel, DTCC, and others, Robinhood is ALSO the little guy and they are more than happy to throw Robinhood under the bus to profit themselves which is what's happening now. Robinhood tanking doesn't hurt them, it hurts us and it hurts Robinhood.

So your anger is misplaced. It should be directed at Melvin Capital, Citadel, Ken Griffin, Steven Cohen, and the DTCC.

---

Ok I thought I was done here, but this guy rambling some more so I gotta do this before I go

Frolex posted...

Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about. Read the article.

Ok so no actual response? Or are you just agreeing with me? This is like the third post you have that's got no context and completely out of the ways of what we're talking about. Just give it up for this at this point.

wrong. there were other retail brokers that were also stopping trades on those tickers.

Err, I'm just going by what was said on that article. It's comparing RH to other brokers which has their own system clearinghouses, not to all other brokers. And on that end, RH was the only one which has restricted trades.

If you had actually read the article, you would see the section where I pulled that quote from.

Did you see in my post I said I don't care who else said it wherever else? He should have an answer right during the interview, especially given ample chances when Cuomo gave him openings and leads into it.

They deemed it problematic after their collateral requirements increased beyond their ability to cover them, not after they got "called out"

Nope. First off, you don't know that information. And secondly those list of stocks were all volatile before, why only snuff out gme one day and the rest later on when the requirement bearings has been too much for them?

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.

This is what we're discussing here. The point being there's very incriminating evidence and behavior RH is siding with the aforemention firms and short sellers by limiting the transactions of stocks. Other brokers also did the same thing, some did not. But if it this is what happens with RH, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility those others are doing the same thing.

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?

Which according to Vlad was not an issue at all. When Cuomo asked about why they were restricting trades he did not mention at all anything about collaterals and fees. All he kept stressing was they did it to "follow rules and guidelines", so obviously the cost and bankruptcy was not even a thought that crossed their minds.

well, happy trails I guess. kudos on naming yourself after your favorite snack food, tho

Yes, thank you. And just like how you are uninformed in this whole topic, you are also uninformed about me. My name here is not named after any snack food actually. Close, but no cigar


---

crayola555 posted...

Did you see in my post I said I don't care who else said it wherever else? He should have an answer right during the interview, especially given ample chances when Cuomo gave him openings and leads into it.

He did say it was because of clearing house guidelines. He didn't say exactly what the guidelines were but we know what they are now.

crayola555 posted...

Nope. First off, you don't know that information. And secondly those list of stocks were all volatile before, why only snuff out gme one day and the rest later on when the requirement bearings has been too much for them?

We do know because the CEO of WeBull told us what happened at the DTCC and it was a surprise to everyone. They were happy trading as much stock as you wanted when the collateral requirements were 1-3%, not 100%

crayola555 posted...

This is what we're discussing here. The point being there's very incriminating evidence and behavior RH is siding with the aforemention firms and short sellers by limiting the transactions of stocks. Other brokers also did the same thing, some did not. But if it this is what happens with RH, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility those others are doing the same thing.

RH did it to protect themselves that's not up for debate, but you have to ask what they are protecting themselves from.

crayola555 posted...

Which according to Vlad was not an issue at all. When Cuomo asked about why they were restricting trades he did not mention at all anything about collaterals and fees. All he kept stressing was they did it to "follow rules and guidelines", so obviously the cost and bankruptcy was not even a thought that crossed their minds.

So you think Bankruptcy wasn't a thought when they were suddenly required to pay up front $300+ per trade potentially millions of times a day?

---

crayola555 posted...

Ok so no actual response? Or are you just agreeing with me? This is like the third post you have that's got no context and completely out of the ways of what we're talking about. Just give it up for this at this point.

If you still don't understand the point after i've explained it to you multiple times and linked you multiple other articles explaining it to you, I don't know what else to tell you.
crayola555 posted...

Err, I'm just going by what was said on that article. It's comparing RH to other brokers which has their own system clearinghouses, not to all other brokers. And on that end, RH was the only one which has restricted trades.

That's a very different claim from saying Robinhood was the only broker that stopped trades on GME
crayola555 posted...

This is what we're discussing here. The point being there's very incriminating evidence and behavior RH is siding with the aforemention firms and short sellers by limiting the transactions of stocks. Other brokers also did the same thing, some did not. But if it this is what happens with RH, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility those others are doing the same thing.

No, there's not. baseless speculation from people who didn't know what clearing house even was until a few hours ago does not constitute "very incriminating evidence" of financial malfeasance.

crayola555 posted...

Which according to Vlad was not an issue at all. When Cuomo asked about why they were restricting trades he did not mention at all anything about collaterals and fees. All he kept stressing was they did it to "follow rules and guidelines", so obviously the cost and bankruptcy was not even a thought that crossed their minds.

wrong yet again. read the articles.

crayola555 posted...

Yes, thank you. And just like how you are uninformed in this whole topic, you are also uninformed about me. My name here is not named after any snack food actually. Close, but no cigar

nah, from the sound of things i was right the first time


---

Frolex posted...

nah, from the sound of things i was right the first time

Sorry bro, no dice


---

Isn't the clearinghouse argument saying they ran out of money to clear these buys?

Yet gamestop stocks aren't the most expensive stock.
They still let people buy tesla which was $400 more and even was losing value.

Did they make people who bought a share of tesla on margin sell it?

No.

darkphoenix181 posted...

Isn't the clearinghouse argument saying they ran out of money to clear these buys?

Yet gamestop stocks aren't the most expensive stock.
They still let people buy tesla which was $400 more and even was losing value.

Did they make people who bought a share of tesla on margin sell it?

The 100% collateral requirements from the DTCC only applies to GME, AMC, and KOSS

So...

darkphoenix181 posted...

No.

But actually Yes.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

But actually Yes.

They made people sell tesla? Got a link?

darkphoenix181 posted...

They made people sell tesla? Got a link?

They didn't force people to sell Tesla but there was a valid reason why the more expensive, more frequently traded security was allowed while GameStop wasn't and that's because they had different collateral requirements.

---