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

Robinhood is limiting purchases of stocks: AMC, Blackberry, Nokia, and GameStop

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Robinhood is limiting purchases of stocks: AMC, Blackberry, Nokia, and GameStop

#201

Post by koheripbal »

kmeisthax wrote: post #175
speeder wrote: post #9

This sort of stuff will put people more and more on edge, there is the deplatforming going on, people asserted their power financially, and now getting that removed too, the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence? Even more with some irresponsible newspapers blaming the whole thing on GamerGate and Alt-Right, effectively pushing away people that previously could b…

If I were running a financial brokerage I'd totally do this, too. It's not a matter of "helping my hedge fund broker friends", it's a matter of "how do we keep the SEC off our backs". Remember: Robinhood is already being charged with securities law violation for giving their customers a raw deal on order execution. We usually don't see distributed market manipulation like this, but I wouldn't be surprised if a shitto…

It's not only that - the current price of AMC, GME, etc... are being manipulated artificially.

This is text-book illegal activity.

There is no logical derivation of GameStop's financial books that would warrant the kind of stock price it has.

It is very very clearly market manipulation, and these exact sorts of manipulations are commonly prosecuted.

Re: Robinhood is limiting purchases of stocks: AMC, Blackberry, Nokia, and GameStop

#202

Post by Bud »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #87
speeder wrote: post #9

This sort of stuff will put people more and more on edge, there is the deplatforming going on, people asserted their power financially, and now getting that removed too, the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence? Even more with some irresponsible newspapers blaming the whole thing on GamerGate and Alt-Right, effectively pushing away people that previously could b…

> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence? What's even more concerning to me is that, to platforms looking for an excuse, your comment could be painted as trying to "incite" violence, and used as a justification to ban you.

There's not any real reason to be concerned about this. Not yet, at least.

Furthermore, this comment is offensive. Let's please not pretend that Facebook and Twitter were "looking for an excuse" before deplatforming Trump. They were entirely justified and would have been justified in doing so many years before they eventually did so.

Let's also not put the word "incite" in dick quotes barely three weeks after an insurrection and attempted coup. There was actual incitement of violence in that case.

Re: Robinhood is limiting purchases of stocks: AMC, Blackberry, Nokia, and GameStop

#203

Post by bagacrap »

zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #84

This is interesting, can individual brokerages refuse to trade individual securities or to only allow them to be sold. Unless the SEC authorized these actions I think it arguably makes the brokerages liable for losses and is arguably market manipulation. Transferring securities positions between brokers is relatively costly and time consuming - takes at least a day and there is usually a $40-70 fee - so is a temporar…

what losses can you prove? It's not like you were blocked from selling at the high, the high was blocked from being reached. And this applies whether you have a rh account or not.

Re: Robinhood is limiting purchases of stocks: AMC, Blackberry, Nokia, and GameStop

#204

Post by dahdum »

tim333 wrote: post #158
wyldfire wrote: post #26

Can someone help me understand Robinhood's POV? This just seems so outrageous that there must be some sane rationale that I'm not seeing. Why do Robinhood, Reddit, Discord, etc feel like they have to respond to this? Whether the investments being made are responsible or not, it doesn't seem like it should be their place to intervene. If the hedge funds over-shorted GME and WSB recognized that and traded against that…

From Schawb “It is not uncommon for us to place restrictions on some transactions in certain securities in the interest of helping mitigate risk for our clients,” from Massachusetts secretary of the commonwealth “It is very clear to anyone looking at the numbers that the whole marketplace is being manipulated here,” he said. I imagine Robinhood's thinking is similar

I think you're entirely right, but Citadel is the customer Robinhood is protecting. The retail investors are the product.

Re: Robinhood is limiting purchases of stocks: AMC, Blackberry, Nokia, and GameStop

#205

Post by tim333 »

zarkov99 wrote: post #37

This is unbelievable. If there ever was a time to be outraged. This is naked corruption as usual hiding under the shabbiest veil of virtue. RobinHood traders can bankrupt and kill themselves, and that is fine, we will continue prodding them to trade more often, but once we get a call from one our hedge fund buddies, moaning about the rubes stopping him from raping another company, we will shut the rabble down.

It could also be RobinHood trying to avoid their traders bankrupting and killing themselves by restricting them from buying gamestop etc. shares at 10x what they are worth.

Re: Robinhood is limiting purchases of stocks: AMC, Blackberry, Nokia, and GameStop

#206

Post by ceilingcorner »

psychlops wrote: post #184
bko wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence? Do you honestly believe this? Somehow we'll go from not being able to buy certain stocks to violence? Banning collecting rain water on your own property didn't do it. Abject failure of politicians keeping drinking water clean didn't do it? Not being able to buy cheese from unpasteurized milk didn't do it. Can't grow a…

It's true that today's population is complacent. Many should take another look at how flimsy the reasons were why Americans fought a war of independence.

I’ve always thought that if the Revolution happened today, you’d have big media corporations like The NY Times writing hit pieces on George Washington everyday.

Re: Robinhood is limiting purchases of stocks: AMC, Blackberry, Nokia, and GameStop

#207

Post by llampx »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #122
wyldfire wrote: post #26

Can someone help me understand Robinhood's POV? This just seems so outrageous that there must be some sane rationale that I'm not seeing. Why do Robinhood, Reddit, Discord, etc feel like they have to respond to this? Whether the investments being made are responsible or not, it doesn't seem like it should be their place to intervene. If the hedge funds over-shorted GME and WSB recognized that and traded against that…

Reddit and discord are afraid they'll be implicated in what is a classic pump and dump. Robinhood only exists because the SEC has chosen to look the other way concerning the pattern day trading rule which clearly is in jeopardy if big money starts complaining.

What? RH enforces the PDT rule, as does every other US broker. SEC is not looking the other way there at all.

Re: Robinhood is limiting purchases of stocks: AMC, Blackberry, Nokia, and GameStop

#210

Post by bko »

psychlops wrote: post #184
bko wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence? Do you honestly believe this? Somehow we'll go from not being able to buy certain stocks to violence? Banning collecting rain water on your own property didn't do it. Abject failure of politicians keeping drinking water clean didn't do it? Not being able to buy cheese from unpasteurized milk didn't do it. Can't grow a…

It's true that today's population is complacent. Many should take another look at how flimsy the reasons were why Americans fought a war of independence.

Sadly it's more than today's population. Take for instance Wickard v. Filburn (1942), a law was upheld that prevented farmers from growing food in order to prop up food prices. An Ohio farmer was forbidden to grow wheat to feed his own livestock, not even sell it.

> An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Post reply on HN