Is there a currently updated Twitter or a Tumblr catching ridiculously silly app UX decisions like this? Similar to:
https://twitter.com/internetofshit or the defunct Read the Fucking HIG
Robinhood replaced “call” and “put” with “up” and “down”
31–40 of 55 posts
Re: Robinhood replaced “call” and “put” with “up” and “down”
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's wrong because we don't want to simplify concepts to a level beneath the minimum information needed for understanding them. Call and Put specifically refer to what happens on maturity or exercise of the contract. You either call the stock from the counterparty, or you put it to the counterparty. The only reason we don't refer to them as "buy" and "sell" options is because you can both buy and sell either of them.…
Isn't tempting people into making losing trades the point, though? Robin Hood presumably has some way of profiting from trades which does not include directly charging people, such as commissions. So the more confused novices are, the more valuable they are as resources whose money can be systematically extracted by counterparties.
IIRC aside from Robinhood Gold, they are mostly profiting from all the waiting you have to do (few business days) when you put the money in or take it out.
Re: Robinhood replaced “call” and “put” with “up” and “down”
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's wrong because we don't want to simplify concepts to a level beneath the minimum information needed for understanding them. Call and Put specifically refer to what happens on maturity or exercise of the contract. You either call the stock from the counterparty, or you put it to the counterparty. The only reason we don't refer to them as "buy" and "sell" options is because you can both buy and sell either of them.…
Isn't tempting people into making losing trades the point, though? Robin Hood presumably has some way of profiting from trades which does not include directly charging people, such as commissions. So the more confused novices are, the more valuable they are as resources whose money can be systematically extracted by counterparties.
How long do people stay around if they lose every time?
In an ideal world, people using Robin Hood would "win" like 49% of the time. Enough to keep them coming back like the casino, but let's not be unrealistic and expect some guys clicking around to out trade wall-street.
Re: Robinhood replaced “call” and “put” with “up” and “down”
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's wrong because we don't want to simplify concepts to a level beneath the minimum information needed for understanding them. Call and Put specifically refer to what happens on maturity or exercise of the contract. You either call the stock from the counterparty, or you put it to the counterparty. The only reason we don't refer to them as "buy" and "sell" options is because you can both buy and sell either of them.…
How many people who trade options actually call up the shares at the end or vice versa? I'd imagine very few and even fewer on Robinhood's platform. I think a level of abstraction that clarifies things is fine.
> How many people who trade options actually call up the shares at the end or vice versa?
In-the-money options are automatically exercised by OCC at maturity, unless the holder contacts them and tells them to do otherwise. American listed single-stock options are physically settled, meaning that you either exercise them for stock, or you don't exercise them at all.
If you're short in-the-money options, you generally assume they will be exercised.
Also, if you have a deep in-the-money call option on a stock that pays a dividend, you may need to exercise it to capture the dividend. You will lose money if you fail to exercise.
Option exercises are sometimes contrarily decided (that is, not exercised when they are in the money) if the holder of a very large option position has a hedge that cancels out his stock delivery. In practice, this is infrequent, and you usually only do it when the market impact of trading out of your residual shares will lose more money than the intrinsic value you forgo by failing to exercise your options.
Robinhood will liquidate options prior to maturity if the holding account cannot afford to exercise them, but (A) this is done at a loss and (B) this will not happen if the account has enough capital to perform the option exercise.
"Up options" and "down options" are not a clarification nor a level of abstraction. Rather, they are a misnomer that suggests a false level of simplicity.
Re: Robinhood replaced “call” and “put” with “up” and “down”
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much BS in your post and most of everyone ("elitist") here. If someone came here say this kind of thing about programming they would be voted to hell. ie. If you do not know how pointers work you have no busines programming because you'll undoubtedly screw your app.
I don't think your analogy holds water, if only from the fact that "pass by reference vs value" is rooted in pointer knowledge, and is rather key to "not screwing up your app." (And as sister posts pointed out, messing up an app usually does not put ones finances on the line) I also disagree with the core thrust of your post, but that's subjective so I'm listing this second. As someone who went from "financially clue…
> so a new entrant can't even easily bootstrap their knowledge
This is where the pointer analogy works. You don't need to use, but by knowing what a f pointer is, you increase your knowledge about the domain as you've put, by knowing the difference of "pass by reference vs value".
And messing up an app does not put "owns" finances at risks. But may put others by tons of different ways of bad written software (if released or used anyway). So you have more responsibility with software because it MAY affect others and not just yourself blowing your own money.
Re: Robinhood replaced “call” and “put” with “up” and “down”
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trouble is that Robinhood has a very low barrier of entry and now you have laymen who, if they don't understand basic finance terms, likely do not understand the fundamentals of trading options.
The terms are out dated. I disagree with "up" and "down" because that is even more wrong (I'm up for buying that stock like I'm up for a game of chess, and I'm down to sell these like I'm down to go to the movies? Is that what they mean? Way too colloquial for my liking). Just be more descriptive instead of trying to re-purpose other words. A "call" should be "Buy on Date", abbreviated to BOD, and a put should be "Se…
I don't understand your terms, though. You can buy or sell calls and puts on any date prior to expiration.
Simplification[1] is in the eye of the beholder.
Re: Robinhood replaced “call” and “put” with “up” and “down”
#37Honestly, this doesn't surprise me at all. The interface in Robinhood makes me think it can only be useful for people that have 0 idea what they are doing. Case in point: their graphs (at least on Android) have no labled Y axis! Seriously, WTF.
> their graphs (at least on Android) have no labled Y axis!
It's the same on iOS.
I can't say I'm happy with Robinhood. It's dumbing down something that can get you into a world of financial pain if you don't know what you're doing.
If they want to target people that don't understand what they are playing with, they shouldn't be giving away options/crypto access/margin buying to people that don't understand those concepts. Expect a lot of people to lose a lot of money. /r/stupidfinance has some pretty great posts in which people were left in the cold after playing with fire in RH.
Re: Robinhood replaced “call” and “put” with “up” and “down”
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't tempting people into making losing trades the point, though? Robin Hood presumably has some way of profiting from trades which does not include directly charging people, such as commissions. So the more confused novices are, the more valuable they are as resources whose money can be systematically extracted by counterparties.
IIRC aside from Robinhood Gold, they are mostly profiting from all the waiting you have to do (few business days) when you put the money in or take it out.
I don't know exactly how they would profit from option trades, but I have heard of something called "payment for order flow" and I believe it is a substantial reason why discount broker commissions are so low these days, let alone free at Robin Hood. I have faith that if a population of traders can be identified that consistently lose money, someone will figure out how to legally exploit that. Paying to attract them is also a good sign someone knows how to exploit them.
Re: Robinhood replaced “call” and “put” with “up” and “down”
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's wrong with removing the jargon from stock trading? Because you're removing all specificity from it at the same time. If you show me that screenshot without the text in the tweet, I'd have no idea what action it actually refers to. It could mean you're buying or selling an option. Or it could mean you're buying or selling a stock (potentially short selling). It could even mean you're buying stock on margin. I…
So much BS in your post and most of everyone ("elitist") here. If someone came here say this kind of thing about programming they would be voted to hell. ie. If you do not know how pointers work you have no busines programming because you'll undoubtedly screw your app.
There are many kinds of programming you can do without being an expert or having a degree...but it's scary if there is systematic encouragement of unskilled programmers to write smart contracts that risk real money.
Re: Robinhood replaced “call” and “put” with “up” and “down”
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to write programs without really having a clue, that's fine and educational for most purposes, just not if you're hacking your personal vehicle, pacemaker, or nuclear reactor.
If someone want to burn all their personal money, so what? So basically: At least they will not be programming insecure things, even websites that leak millions of records every week by "thinking they know programming". Too much double standard: "Lets make programming accessible so everyone can become code monkeys without clue, but do not touch my precious stock trading terms. We do not want anyone trying to get rich…
This is like arguing against literacy because gambling has legal restrictions.