Live data from Hacker News

WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

thinkingthrough.substack.com

211–220 of 475 posts

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#211
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSB has basically recreated a "boiler room", which is an ages old scam where a small group of insiders would encourage people to buy stock, drive them value up, and then the insiders dump the stock. The key insight here is that for every person selling the stock and making millions, somoene has to be buying. There's a narrative about short squeezes forcing a small number of hedge funds to buy stock, but in practice m…

This is categorically false.

Prove it.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#212

They are blocking buying, and only allowing selling GME, BB and others. How is this not evidence of a corrupted free market system? A CEO of one company can call up his connections in retail trading platform firms, CNBC, and Nasdaq and protect his profits? Why is Reddit the scandal and not that? Reddit is full of rocket emojis and YOLO jokes. But what we see here, especially with the moralizing about gambling, is an…

> They are blocking buying, and only allowing selling GME, BB and others. How is this not evidence of a corrupted free market system?

I can almost guarantee you that this decision was made to protect retail clients -- not as part of some conspiracy against them. It's very clear that retail is going to lose their shirts in the end of all of this, and by blocking new buy orders, the brokerage is effectively protecting its naive clientele.

Come back to your comment in a month, and I think your perspective will have shifted.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#213
post #27

Feel like the platforms are helping out hedge funds by making it challenging to put more pressure on the short squeeze before Friday. Sounds a bit like a cartel in co-ordinating activity under the guise of "reducing risk exposure" - shepherded on by the Financial media. Trade itself is no longer on technical merits (except those in early) but have you looked at valuations across the stock market these days -- everyth…

That everything is off is just your assessment which a lot of people disagree with. When it's difficult to do business and make better use of the money then equites are more attractive place to keep your money. This is especially true with a lot of additional money supply and low interest rates. It makes perfect sense to me why we had the run we had during the pandemic. Anything else would be a big surprise.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSB has basically recreated a "boiler room", which is an ages old scam where a small group of insiders would encourage people to buy stock, drive them value up, and then the insiders dump the stock. The key insight here is that for every person selling the stock and making millions, somoene has to be buying. There's a narrative about short squeezes forcing a small number of hedge funds to buy stock, but in practice m…

Thats not the same narrative I see on reddit. People are okay with losing as long as the big sharks are hit hard. It seems like an emotional reaction not a boiler room

It can be both. You can use the emotional reaction to push the scenario the poster was talking about. Ultimately , to the instigators in a boiler room, it doesn't matter why others invest, as long as they do. Having a compelling underdog story serves them well.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robinhood is a free service. The customers don’t pay anything. If the order internalizers decide to stop paying them for their order flow, then they have to route to the exchanges. which charge fees. Trading is still ongoing at the exchanges. It’s just the free platforms, where it’s shut down. If someone wanted guaranteed access to the exchange, then they shouldn’t have used a free broker. Are you saying that Robinho…

Yes. They should be forced to provide the service they promised. It’s not my fault their business model is failing for a particular ticker on a particular day. If they can’t, then some advance notice is needed. Making this decision instantly without giving customers time to move their holdings elsewhere is not okay. That being said, I’m surprised people are still using them for day trading. They don’t have a great tr…

> It’s not my fault their business model is failing

"You" (well not you but you get what i'm saying) picked the service...

If folks are capable of investing directly in stocks they should be expected to understand the ramifications of picking a free service like Robinhood.

They ESPECIALLY should with all this populist banter going around...

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#217
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robinhood is a free service. The customers don’t pay anything. If the order internalizers decide to stop paying them for their order flow, then they have to route to the exchanges. which charge fees. Trading is still ongoing at the exchanges. It’s just the free platforms, where it’s shut down. If someone wanted guaranteed access to the exchange, then they shouldn’t have used a free broker. Are you saying that Robinho…

It's not just robinhood, platforms that charge commission such as IBRK [1] have halted the trade of options (which is different from not allowing buying) but it definitely suggests some behind the scenes coordination for all these online brokers to all decide this today. [1] https://www.axios.com/robinhood-gamestop-restrictions-370adf...

Options are different than equities. The possibility of losses far exceeding the initial position is easily possible. If the customer loses all their money, the broker is in the hook.

IB clearly is concerned about the credit risk, when the stock could literally rise or fall by a factor of ten in a day. They’re still allowing trading in the underlying stock.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen very little evidence of people investing money in the stock market that is not budgeted as “gambling” (ie disposable income). WSB embraces the idea that memetrading is gambling. This is not a surprise to anyone but a few outsiders.

But it kind of goes against the story that this is “the people” against Wall Street. “The people”, by and large, do not have a ton of spare gambling money sitting around. “Upper middle class folks with spare disposable income vs Wall Street” isn’t quite as persuasive a hook, though.

But one could argue the upper middle class's interests are aligned with the lower class. So it's “upper middle class folks with spare disposable income on behalf of everyone else vs Wall Street”, which is such a mouthful that "the people vs Wall St" is probably close enough.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#219

They are blocking buying, and only allowing selling GME, BB and others. How is this not evidence of a corrupted free market system? A CEO of one company can call up his connections in retail trading platform firms, CNBC, and Nasdaq and protect his profits? Why is Reddit the scandal and not that? Reddit is full of rocket emojis and YOLO jokes. But what we see here, especially with the moralizing about gambling, is an…

Robinhood is a free service. The customers don’t pay anything. If the order internalizers decide to stop paying them for their order flow, then they have to route to the exchanges. which charge fees. Trading is still ongoing at the exchanges. It’s just the free platforms, where it’s shut down. If someone wanted guaranteed access to the exchange, then they shouldn’t have used a free broker. Are you saying that Robinho…

This is the second day in a row I've been unable to log in to Ally Invest, a service I absolutely pay for.

Re: WallStreetBets vs WallStreet: It's not about the money anymore

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see how that's the case. They aren't going to suffer for this, let alone personally. Even if the fund tanks, they can set up a new one, probably with sympathetic money or just cruise off into the sunset with their millions.

Loosing billions still hurts a lot I would guess.

It's not their money, it's the money from LPs who invested in the fund.
Post reply on HN