Live data from Hacker News

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

sec.gov

61–70 of 318 posts

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

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I like "Friendo" or "Bud" personally

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

#62

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.

Yeah because taxes surely didn't exist before AirBnb started.

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-airbnbs-guerrilla-war-aga...

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

#63
What is the purpose of such small fines? Their valuation has gone from 1.3B in 2017 to 10.2B in August 2020 [0]. Only having to pay a $65m fine for that amount of growth sounds like a great deal. /s

Obviously it's more relative to their revenues but it still seems like peanuts.

[0] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/robinhood-statistics/

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

#66
post #56

They deserve every single bit of this. Please use a real reputable broker / platform like Schwab. Sure, they don't have a mobile app - but they also don't sell your trading info to front-runners, actively manipulate the charts they show you to influence your decisions and let their platform crash and just tell you "thats how things go". edit - I didn't realize Youtuber RH fanboys read hacker news...

Schwab also receives payment for order flow (AKA selling your orders): https://www.schwab.com/legal/order-routing-1. In fact, every retail brokerage I'm aware of receives payment for order flow. Schwab also has outages although not as bad as Robinhood was this year.

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

#67

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?

What's perhaps a bit weirder is that the SEC is allowed to settle, instead of having to go through the judicial system.

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

#68
post #63

What is the purpose of such small fines? Their valuation has gone from 1.3B in 2017 to 10.2B in August 2020 [0]. Only having to pay a $65m fine for that amount of growth sounds like a great deal. /s Obviously it's more relative to their revenues but it still seems like peanuts. [0] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/robinhood-statistics/

I assume they can't pay the fine with their stock

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

#69
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are already lots and lots of rules.
Post reply on HN