301–310 of 475 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forcing big leveraged players to sell is fantastic for everyone else. There will be a lot of cheap stocks to pick up for everyone else.
Sell, what exactly? They won't buy after that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we talking about cutting your own nose off to spite someone else's face?
Is that any different to taking a day off work to go to a protest? Both situations have you losing money in order to bring issues to light. Same with union workers going on strike.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also quite ignorant of investing and also contract law, but technically, Robinhood's recent disabling of buying new options or shares [1] falls under their terms of service [2]: You agree that, without notice, _Robinhood may terminate these Terms and Conditions, or suspend your access to the Service or the Content, with or without cause at any time and effective immediately._ [...] Robinhood shall not be liable t…
I am not a lawyer, but I assume that they would not get in trouble for contract breach but rather for market manipulation.
So you're telling me that by buying GameStop stock, I can help screw over hedge fund managers? I have not bought a single stock in my whole life, but I'm in. How do I start?
You're probably late to the party here. Reddit is holding for $1000, but there comes a point where the funds would be so unable to fulfil their shorts that any ones left holding it will declare bankruptcy rather than pay, and you lose yours too. Even if you're willing to risk throwing away some money to "stick it to the man", it will take a while - It may be easier in the US, but I signed up to Degiro to get some sha…
I would really appreciate it if somebody could explain to me how people who sell short a stock are somehow “suffocating it” or “killing jobs.” And I say this as someone who has about 18 years of investing experience. I continue to believe stock shorting is one of the most poorly understood parts of equity markets and the wrong parts are most commonly parroted by people with little to no experience with short selling…
This is what I don't get either. I keep thinking of Danny DeVito's speech at the end "Other People's Money." "You know, at one time there must've been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw. Now how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company?" GameStop sells buggy whips. Why shouldn't people bet a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> high frequency traders are probably making a bundle. I've heard from a former colleague at a major HFT firm, that they hit their entire revenue target for the year, just in the past week.
What kind of self-respecting HFT firm has revenue targets? Surely you're talking about P&L.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
But apparently Interactive Brokers is now doing the same. Much stronger argument to be made there. They're a pay service, with supposedly big-boy ideas about their clients, right?
EDIT: Also, note that Robinhood's decision isn't just affecting their own clients. They're screwing the wider market by restricting the pool of buyers. People who have no relationship with RH are now seeing their holdings lose value because fewer bids are making it to the books. I'm a TDA client. I didn't agree to Robinhood's TOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The line is blurry. There was an immediate and emphatic appeal to the regulators, and the way the SEC works is often by encouraging self regulation. The CEO of the NASDAQ even went on air to ask for more SEC regulation. This isn't unusual, it's pretty much how "government intervention" via the SEC, and a lot of other regulatory bodies, actually works.
So, the SEC is hands off and encourages self regulation, so any instance of self regulation is considered government intervention?
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…