31–40 of 318 posts
If the SEC has gone through and has accounted for the 34 million in cost to consumers, why are they not having robinhood reimburse the customers for their lost money on the trades and then charging the additional 30 million on top for lying? Why does the SEC take all the money?
This is probably why VC's have historically shied away from heavily regulated industries. It's just too easy for " insanely ambitious" founders to run afoul of the rules and laws. Fortunately for AirBnB, these rules and laws weren't enforced all that often.
In AirBnB's case were there actually any preexisting rules? It would seem strange to have rules in place governing short term rentals before there was really even a market for that.
This is probably why VC's have historically shied away from heavily regulated industries. It's just too easy for " insanely ambitious" founders to run afoul of the rules and laws. Fortunately for AirBnB, these rules and laws weren't enforced all that often.
In AirBnB's case were there actually any preexisting rules? It would seem strange to have rules in place governing short term rentals before there was really even a market for that.
If the SEC has gone through and has accounted for the 34 million in cost to consumers, why are they not having robinhood reimburse the customers for their lost money on the trades and then charging the additional 30 million on top for lying? Why does the SEC take all the money?
SEC can't provide retribution to customers. That's a job for the courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In AirBnB's case were there actually any preexisting rules? It would seem strange to have rules in place governing short term rentals before there was really even a market for that.
surely, you jest? A simple google search of AirBnB and illegal will more than satisfy your curiosity. And yes, a good portion of the laws broken are directly broken by the lessors, but many are also broken by AirBnB itself.
If the SEC has gone through and has accounted for the 34 million in cost to consumers, why are they not having robinhood reimburse the customers for their lost money on the trades and then charging the additional 30 million on top for lying? Why does the SEC take all the money?
I don't know the answer in this specific case, but often in the case of small rewards like this, it's because administering the return of the money would consume a large fraction of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sad truth of this is that this is just three letter agencies doing as three letter agencies does. I don't think anyone at the SEC was looking after consumers here. If they were, they would similarly investigate other brokerages with the same practices (which is many).
The SEC doesn't have infinite resources to investigate every possible case like this. As with most prosecutions, they just go after the most obvious/high-profile/egregious cases that have the highest probability of success.
The cynical take is that Congress profits from insider trading, tax evasion, etc. and want to prevent themselves from being investigated. Whether that’s true or not would be hard to prove.
If the SEC has gone through and has accounted for the 34 million in cost to consumers, why are they not having robinhood reimburse the customers for their lost money on the trades and then charging the additional 30 million on top for lying? Why does the SEC take all the money?
Disappointing since they were already fined by FINRA for Best Ex. this time last year although on further reading this seems to relate to the same time period.
Interesting that Massachusettis also announced an enforcement action against them this week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know the answer in this specific case, but often in the case of small rewards like this, it's because administering the return of the money would consume a large fraction of it.
Why cant Robinhood cover those costs as well?