Live data from Hacker News

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

sec.gov

251–260 of 318 posts

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

#251
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is also a good point. Retail trades are more likely to express real demand. When a retail traders puts in an order for 135 shares, say, it's most likely that's an accurate and complete signal of that traders intentions: they are looking to buy 135 shares. For institutional players, it could be an iceberg order: once the 135 shares are filled, the refill the order with another 135, again and again. So the ac…

What's the specific risk when handling these trades? Is it that the quoted price should be higher, given that there is more demand than there seems to be? If that's the risk, though, it's not a risk of loosing money you have, but rather a risk of not making as much money as you could by selling at a higher price, right?

No it's the risk of losing money.

So let's say I'm quoting a tight spread and a small buy order comes in and I get hit. No problem. I don't adjust my quotes because that small of order will not impact the price. But now more orders are coming in from the same institution, buying more and more (basically one big meta-order broken up into small orders so as to conceal intent). If I don't realize that all of these small orders are from the same institution and that they actually represent one big order, I will probably lose money because I am treating each order in isolation. Everytime I sell to the buyer, the price goes up, making me lose money because my spread is too tight and I haven't identified the true intent of the buyer. Every time I sell, I am increasing my short exposure to the asset/derivative, so if the price moves up (against me), I am in a very real sense losing money.

If I can identify the meta order, I can shift my quotes up in order to compensate for the price impact all these small orders are going to have (remember, though they are individually small, they actually represent one big order).

So basically, market making is a game of predicting the short term future price of a security, and quoting buy/sell offers at appropriate levels. The less volatile and less toxic and more liquid a market is, the tighter I can quote. The more volatile and toxic a market is (and less liquid), the looser my spread must be. Remember that I'm not trying to make money on the directional moves of an asset (I'm trying to be "delta neutral"), but rather profit off of the bid-ask spread. My goal is to turn over inventory as quickly as possible (ideally buying and selling at the same exact time).

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

#252
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good reason to trust the FDA is that they have contributed to the safest food in the world! Our strict food regulations in the USA make things like trichinosis very difficult to spread around.

What evidence is there that U.S. food is safer than Japanese food, or even say Canadian food? I don't have strong evidence but I don't regard U.S. food to be particularly safe relative to most first world countries. It's not terrible by any means and you're right in that you won't get any immediate damage from anything you eat, but I suspect most other first world countries have food and safety and health standards t…

At a 10x difference, it should clue you in that something is wrong. Choice quotes from a UK Gov page:

> A report published by the FSA has found it is not possible to compare foodborne disease rates effectively between countries.

> The report concludes that attempting to accurately compare different countries’ foodborne disease rates is an almost impossible task. The only way you could attempt this would be for different countries to have the same type of study with the exact same study specifications, over the same time period. Even then, differences in underlying surveillance data available in each country could cause issues, particularly in terms of determining what proportion of IID cases are due to food.

https://www.food.gov.uk/news-alerts/news/report-into-interna...

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

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you trust the FDA?

A good reason to trust the FDA is that they have contributed to the safest food in the world! Our strict food regulations in the USA make things like trichinosis very difficult to spread around.

Trichinosis is also very well controlled in many third world countries that just have a bunch of good local regulation agencies. The FDA shines more on the regulation of mass produced packaged food on an unprecedented scale. The only other countries that can independently feed their populations with mass produced packaged nutritious food are some Asian countries that also have rich governments. Even in Europe they piggyback on work that the FDA does via international cooperation.

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

#254
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a notional standard "best price", the NBBO, that a broker-dealer has to meet; you can't take payment to route an order somewhere that doesn't meet the NBBO. But the NBBO captures pricing from all kinds of traders. Retail traders are cheaper to trade with than institutional traders, because retail traders aren't moving gigantic blocks of stock that are going to blow up the market makers that are facilitating…

>20/80 is worse than other retail brokerages (virtually all of which do PFOF, because none of them are especially competent at actually executing trades) --- even if you factor in the lack of trading fees, (1) I don't think you can make a blanket statement about the split and trading fees. If I bought 1 stock for $100 this year I'm better off with the 20/80 split than a trade commission. Conversely, if I bought 10,00…

I'm literally quoting the SEC here. 80/20 wasn't an example I came up with for funsies. They did the math; the outcomes were worse for RH customers. Which seems like it would have been OK, except that RH said the opposite thing in its promotional material.

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

#255
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robinhood probably has a binding arbitration clause in their contract that prohibits users from joining a class action lawsuit, no?

You can put a clause in your contract that prohibits someone from using specific legal action at your discretion? That sounds wild so I am interested. What is the justification for this? How could anyone basically preemptively and effectively exempt themselves from specific legal action regardless of wrongdoing? What would happen if the other party tried anyway?

If you're in the US, you should pay more attention to the contractual agreements you're entering into.

I would find it incredible that you haven't agreed to binding arbitration many times throughout the normal course of your financial and commercial activity.

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

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW InteractiveBrokers, in their Pro accounts (the one you pay albeit very low commission fees for) doesn't accept payment for order flow. Their Lite accounts (the one they launched to compete with RobinHood) do accept PFOF. [1, 2] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-brokers-fees-idUSKBN1... [2] https://gdcdyn.interactivebrokers.com/Universal/servlet/Regi...

IB Pro is the reason I used the word "virtually". :P

Makes sense, I'm just shilling; I like IBKR. Not, you know, their app or website. Their order execution, margin rates and other features (debit card, bill pay) are really solid.

And hey, no PFOF.

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

#257
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get it. If you sell stocks at the market price it wouldn’t be the market price but something cheaper that RB would buy and then sell at the real market price?

Not Robinhood on the other end of the transaction, but yes. If you and someone else both mashed SELL at the exact same instant, they'd get $48 for their stock and you'd get $47.99 and your confirmation screens would both say "we sold your stock at the highest price we could find". In exchange for sending their customers to a place where they'd only get $47.99 instead of $48, Robinhood received direct cash payments.

That's not what happened here. Everyone gets cash rebates for directing orders. Robinhood just dialed those rebates in higher than other firms, while claiming not to have done that.

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

#258
post #53

I feel that if a company is paying a fine of 1M or more, someone should also be going to jail - otherwise there is not going to be any meaningful accountability.

Get that law passed, bearing in mind that half the country is represented by a political party that is opposed in principle to financial regulations of almost any sort.

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

#259
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are putting it almost exactly how Matt Levine puts it. I would just sneak in the point that, to my understanding --- and the previous commenter would know better than I do --- one of the big information advantages institutional traders have is simply the knowledge that their order is the first of 1000 identical orders they're about to follow up with.

Yes, this is also a good point. Retail trades are more likely to express real demand. When a retail traders puts in an order for 135 shares, say, it's most likely that's an accurate and complete signal of that traders intentions: they are looking to buy 135 shares. For institutional players, it could be an iceberg order: once the 135 shares are filled, the refill the order with another 135, again and again. So the ac…

Gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks!

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

#260
post #146
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is front running and illegal.

Yes, exactly. That's what this submission and charge by the SEC is all about. Is everyone just forgetting the entire purpose of this submission is that Robinhood used pay for order flow to facilitate front running?

Front running is a very specific malfeasance, and this release does not accuse Robinhood of it, by name or otherwise.
Post reply on HN