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

Post by calyth2018 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

mediaman wrote: post #329

philip1209 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lens to look at this through is - "why is short selling allowed?" Advocates cite increased "liquidity." But, does society really benefit? Short-selling really just lets trading firms extract value from the failure of others. In that sense - professional trading firms that participate in short-selling could be grouped into a monolithic "Wall Street" in the sense that they are extracting value without a benefit for s…

Most advocates argue that short-sellers help find the accurate price of a security, in service of the broader market goal of capital allocation. People who argue that markets should be long-only wind up advocating for frauds and failures to be mispriced in the market. Liquidity is not usually the primary benefit. That’s usually the argument for high frequency trading firms.

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

aynyc wrote: post #293

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who's the decider/calculator of the risk? The lender. As in all loans. As is in every detail described in one’s margin contract.

I looked at my margin document, other than Federal Reserve requirements and account restriction, there is no provision stating they can block a specific eligible stock as long as I meet their margin requirement.

Post by fairity » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

ddevault wrote: post #380

fairity wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's not Robinhood's responsibility to protect retail clients. They are not financial advisers. By doing this they have violated their mandate. Why? Maybe it's for their clients, but when you consider their incentives, that seems at best suspiciously convenient, and at worst deliberate market manipulation to save their ass.

Post by kgwgk » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

risyachka wrote: post #222

obmelvin wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s not my fault their business model is failing for a particular ticker on a particular day. As I see it, regardless of how it should be, one needs to accept that trading with RH has limitations/trade-offs compared to a "proper" brokerage. I get your statement, but like you said, their track record already speaks for itself.

It's not just RH. I am paying for Interactive Brokers, they also stopped buy transactions.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

willis936 wrote: post #360

_jal wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a murderous insurrection bent on overthrowing democracy about 3 weeks ago. I rather think tempers are high enough that you'd get a lot of affirmative answers right now.

1. It failed. 2. It was stupid. 3. It violated the principles of our society. That is the point I’m trying to demonstrate. Solutions come from within, not without.