Live data from Hacker News

Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

bloomberg.com

71–80 of 103 posts

Re: Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

#71
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promontory_Interfinancial_Netw... On any given night your dollars are spread out at banks all over the country. Likely at tiny little community banks that you've never even heard of. It's pretty impressive how banks manage to maximize FDIC insurance.

Maybe it's because I don't understand how deposit insurance works. Maybe it's because I live in a country where there are relatively few banks. But is this insurance actually meaningful? For example, if RBC "failed" in Canada, woulnd't the payout largely come from the Bank of Canada printing more money and all this could essentially happen without CIDC existing? You might get your money back, but now a loaf of bread…

In the US, FDIC is primarily funded by fees banks are required to pay, and there is an actual fund held by the FDIC to cover this. However, if the fund is exhausted the FDIC is backstopped by the federal government, which would step in and cover any losses.

Like any other form of government spending, that is not directly covered by "printing money"; that can't be done by the federal government. Instead, the money would come from a mixture of spending cuts, additional taxes, and additional borrowing. (Given current US politics, most of the money would probably come from borrowing.)

Now as part of an independent process, the central bank conducts open market operations where it sells and purchases US debt to try and keep inflation and interest rates within targets. When it purchases debt, money is effectively created, and if the US was forced to borrow a large amount of money to cover an FDIC shortfall some of that debt would no doubt end up purchased at least temporarily by the central bank, so:

> woulnd't the payout largely come from the Bank of Canada printing more money [...] You might get your money back, but now a loaf of bread costs $1000.

In the US, some portion of the funds would indirectly come from the central bank printing more money, but only to the extent that it would not cause that sort of spike in inflation.

(Also note that even when a pretty big bank goes under, they still have a lot of assets, and the actual cost to the insurance program once everything has been liquidated is generally very small if not zero. Even if extreme cases such as Iceland when Landsbanki went under, the desposit insurance guarantees were eventually covered by assets recovered in liquidation.)

So basically: 1) Deposit insurance is very important to prevent bank runs (ie, people panicing and causing bank failures even when the bank is actually solvent and 2) It's not that expensive, and doesn't represent the sort of risk or potential costs you can imagine. There aren't a lot of policies which are basically all upside, but deposit insurance comes close.

Re: Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

#72
post #2

Somebody from Robinhood's legal team either said "yeah, the SPIC will totally be okay with this" or management ignored any advice to the contrary, whichever it was those people need to pull their heads out of their asses. Even Schwab, an investor bank, has insurance from the FDIC for their deposit (and sweep) accounts - if they could have gotten away with just SPIC coverage don't you think they would have?

While I agree this doesn't look great, I'm sure theres a few more possible explanations.

Eg Robinhood could have notified the sipc some more or less reasonable time ago, that they were planning this product, and the sipc took a(n un) reasonable time to get back to them.

Maybe they played golf with someone at the sipc who said they'd sort it, and it would be fine.

Re: Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

#73
post #69
post #23

I think it's becoming increasingly clear what happened. As whitepoplar noted here ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18691477 ) other similar services are FDIC insured because the funds are swept into FDIC bank accounts behind the scenes. But FDIC insured bank accounts pay very, very little interest, and Robinhood wanted to offer a high interest rate. Their innovation was, instead of sweeping the funds into FDIC…

The only treasuries over 3% are pretty long term. Like, decades long. How do you sweep short term deposits into 20 year bonds? Like I get generally how a treasuries backed money market fund works, but the average maturity there is like 2 months, not 20 years.

The idea is that they would be sweeping it into short term treasuries, and no, they don't pay 3% either, but it's more than a chequing account pays.

The remainder would presumably come from interchange fees. Ie, you put $500 into Robinhood, you then pay for something using your debit card, a cut goes to Visa, a cut of that goes to Robinhood, and a cut of that goes to subsidise your 3% interest.

Re: Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

#74
Why is everyone acting like robinhood stole people’s money or destroyed people’s lives? They wanted to make a product that would have been incredible value for costumers, got yelled at by the existing market and are now retooling to see if they can still put it out another way. No one has been hurt and they are just pushing forwards to get this out.

You guys make it sound like they sold people’s private info to undercut the democratic process or killed innoscent people by putting untested self driving cars on the road.

Re: Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

#75
post #32

As noted by @asanwal[0] this can be seen as both deceptive and smart. Here's the reality - when you get a $6B valuation, you are accepting VC-fueled growth fate, which means you are on a tightrope to grow at all costs . It's a gamble, but if executed successfully will lead to exponential growth and thus outsized investment returns. Here's my personal problem - there is much needed punitive damages for this type of be…

> there is much needed punitive damages for this type of behavior I'm a fan of Robinhood. But this calls for more than a slap on the wrist. Not punishing someone misrepresenting their FDIC or SIPC insurance status is a horrible precedent. Not only does it show a green light to scammers. It also corrodes the protective, anti-run value these programs provide to depositors and investors.

But at this point, have they actually offered this service to anyone? If you already have an account, can you use this today? If not, it kind of seems like no harm, no foul. But even if so, it's hard to see how anyone has been injured at this point.

Re: Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

#76

Why is everyone acting like robinhood stole people’s money or destroyed people’s lives? They wanted to make a product that would have been incredible value for costumers, got yelled at by the existing market and are now retooling to see if they can still put it out another way. No one has been hurt and they are just pushing forwards to get this out. You guys make it sound like they sold people’s private info to under…

> They wanted to make a product that would have been incredible value for costumers

It was nothing new or groundbreaking, it was just a checking account with an unusual high interest rate.

The government inurement don't like that because there are two usual cases of unusual high interest rate:

* plain scams

* overoptimistic bank managers that can't pay the interest rate when they are due.

Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish the cases.

Re: Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is much needed punitive damages for this type of behavior I'm a fan of Robinhood. But this calls for more than a slap on the wrist. Not punishing someone misrepresenting their FDIC or SIPC insurance status is a horrible precedent. Not only does it show a green light to scammers. It also corrodes the protective, anti-run value these programs provide to depositors and investors.

I don't know. The fact that it was done completely publicly (and therefore was discoverable and discovered immediately) basically moots any need for harsh penalties. They were essentially testing the fences. That isn't bad , especially when it's done completely in the open. It gives the regulators an opportunity to say "no" and shut it down immediately if they want to, or say nothing and let it proceed. If they say n…

> If they say no, it doesn't happen long enough for anybody to really come to any harm.

They just got 600k people to signup. Even if they convert 10% of those for brokerage accounts (and not checking) it's probably worth it.

This reminds me of Lance Armstrong and Trek Bicycles. Trek doesn't have to return any of its record profits for all of the years they sponsored a cheater. (for the record, I own several Trek bikes and they're fantastic)

Re: Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

#78
post #72
post #2

Somebody from Robinhood's legal team either said "yeah, the SPIC will totally be okay with this" or management ignored any advice to the contrary, whichever it was those people need to pull their heads out of their asses. Even Schwab, an investor bank, has insurance from the FDIC for their deposit (and sweep) accounts - if they could have gotten away with just SPIC coverage don't you think they would have?

While I agree this doesn't look great, I'm sure theres a few more possible explanations. Eg Robinhood could have notified the sipc some more or less reasonable time ago, that they were planning this product, and the sipc took a(n un) reasonable time to get back to them. Maybe they played golf with someone at the sipc who said they'd sort it, and it would be fine.

Ifs, buts, maybes. The margin for error is a lot smaller when you're asking people to trust you with their money.

Re: Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

#79
If they really were "disruptors", they could have tapped their VCs for money to provide their own insurance, while they tried to work things out with the SIPC.

Instead, they made a shambles out this announcement, hurt customer trust and made themselves look like a fly-by-night operation.

Re: Robinhood Will Retool Checking Product Following Scrutiny

#80
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more surprising when everyone lets them try a second, third, or fourth time

Has Robinhood here slipped up multiple times like this? I'm asking as someone who's only heard of the product, never tried it, doesn't look remarkably interesting to me/doesn't fill a financial need I have, never gave it much thought aside from this latest fuss.

Not to my knowledge, this is a pretty big screwup, at least reputationally. Robinhood's entire spiel is about how the big banks are bloated and sell you products you don't need (all of which can definitely be true). But I have never once doubted my bank's ability to comply with financial regulations and keep my cash safe.
Post reply on HN