Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 318 posts

Re: SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

#41

Post by colejohnson66 »

nojito wrote: post #16
gamerDude wrote: post #6

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.

But who would bring the suit to the courts? Just some random law firm starting a class action? We all know how that turns out (in terms of retribution[a]). There has to be a better way.

[a]: Because class actions technically aren’t about retribution, but discouragement

Re: SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

#42

Post by whimsicalism »

lwigo wrote: post #21
gamerDude wrote: post #6

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?

They don't actually care about the little people. It's more about keeping the company in check so it doesn't become a monopoly for retail thumb traders faster than the next closest competitors in that category can catch up (which would be Webull I guess?). It's also a reminder that, hey, there's a shitton of (old) money in this field, better not get cocky. Possibly too cynical of a take, but I'll reiterate the SEC do…

The SEC has regulatory capture issues. Way too close of ties with the people it is supposed to be regulating.

Take the example of this SEC investigator [0] whose boss got a call from one of those Wall Street hedge funds under investigation and suddenly he's fired! Mysteriously, that boss gets a job with the same firm a few months later. Oh, the kicker? The person who made that call from the hedge fund? Appointed to be the SEC chair in 2013 (she rejoined the hedge fund's counsel at the end of Obama's term in 2016).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_J._Aguirre

e: for those downvoting, I'd love to hear your thoughts - I think it is an interesting issue.

Re: SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

#43

Post by colejohnson66 »

phillnom wrote: post #24
plouffy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He/She does.

I didn't downvote but wanted to suggest just using "they" when you don't know.

I’d recommend “OP” and “GP” as they are pretty common acronyms on the internet

Re: SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

#44

Post by ceejayoz »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #36
jgalt212 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean laws that existed at the time AirBnB was started, which you seem to imply in your comment. I still think it's strange that the government can tell you how long of a duration you have to rent your property for, but it definitely is the law now.

Laws on short-term rentals, hotel zoning, etc. were all in existence long before AirBnB.

Many AirBnB listings were violating laws from the very start. The platform didn't invent a new type of violation, it just made them a lot more common.

Re: SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

#45

Post by whimsicalism »

chairmanwow1 wrote: post #3

I know this may be a slap on the wrist for Robinhood, but honesty the SEC is one of the branches of government that I trust almost as much as the FDA. I appreciate the work they do and I hope they continue it.

> the SEC is one of the branches of government that I trust almost as much as the FDA

Hm. I made this comment elsewhere but:

The SEC has big structural problems. Way too close of ties with the people it is supposed to be regulating.

Take the example of this SEC investigator [0] whose boss got a call from one of those Wall Street hedge funds under investigation and suddenly he's fired! Mysteriously, that boss gets a job with the same firm a few months later. Oh, the kicker? The person who made that call from the hedge fund? Appointed to be the SEC chair in 2013.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_J._Aguirre

Re: SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

#46

Post by whimsicalism »

jgalt212 wrote: post #29
dimitrios1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is inaccurate. Some of the most successful startups in recent memory made their bankroll by skirting regulations. It eventually catches up to them, but by then they've made a decent sized war chest to comply and plow forward. Eventually the startup just becomes the next established player. Rinse and repeat.

Please cite some examples from "heavily regulated industries".

Uber is the canonical one.

Re: SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

#47

Post by ISL »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #31
gamerDude wrote: post #6

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 doesn't work on behalf of consumers, it works on behalf of the federal government. Robinhood customers are still free to bring lawsuits against the company and those would be heard in courts.

Moreover, the SEC charges and investigation are likely to have material impact on any such civil cases.

Re: SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

#48

Post by remote_phone »

I wish the SEC would force companies to plead guilty instead of weasel out and pay a fine without admitting guilt. It doesn’t help anyone. If Robinhood is engaged in fraud or lying to their customers they should be forced to admit guilt and all the consequences from this. All this is is a slap on the wrist and political theater and I’m sick of it. I want some real teeth even if it results in less fine being paid. Or have them pay a crippling fine, one that takes away most of their cash. Something with meaning, not a meaningless fine

Re: SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

#49

Post by bfdm »

whimsicalism wrote: post #42
lwigo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't actually care about the little people. It's more about keeping the company in check so it doesn't become a monopoly for retail thumb traders faster than the next closest competitors in that category can catch up (which would be Webull I guess?). It's also a reminder that, hey, there's a shitton of (old) money in this field, better not get cocky. Possibly too cynical of a take, but I'll reiterate the SEC do…

The SEC has regulatory capture issues. Way too close of ties with the people it is supposed to be regulating. Take the example of this SEC investigator [0] whose boss got a call from one of those Wall Street hedge funds under investigation and suddenly he's fired! Mysteriously, that boss gets a job with the same firm a few months later. Oh, the kicker? The person who made that call from the hedge fund? Appointed to b…

There really need to be rules about this kind of crap. It's nasty business.

Re: SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

#50

Post by underseacables »

gamerDude wrote: post #6

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?

Possibly because Robinhood doesn’t have the money. It’s gone.
Post reply on HN