51–60 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?
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?
More like - you are free to get into arbitration as you agreed to in their TOS.
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.
Medical Software / Device startups.
Energy startups.
The list is too long. A basic search will yield you bountiful results.
edit - I didn't realize Youtuber RH fanboys read hacker news...
Will this kill their public offering?
Investors like things to be cleared up, even with damages, because the damages can be seen as a limited, tangible thing they can just write down and move past.
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 believe this is to punish RH for offering zero commissions. Especially on options. I seriously think what RH offers, for anyone who’s traded options on the retail side, is a game changer.
For example, if a bank starts giving out 0% interest 100 year mortgages (with some fine print that gives them some obscure revenue source to make it possible for them to make such an appealing offer) the bank should still get in trouble in my opinion if the consumer isn't informed about how they're getting such an amazing deal, because you're removing the consumer's ability to make an informed decision.
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…