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

Post by VikingCoder » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

batmenace wrote: post #148

pdevr wrote: post #50

99.99% (or more) of people who buy lotteries, lose ALL their money. However, government allows anyone to buy them. There is no meaningful restriction for an assured destruction of wealth for most of those who buy them. While this GME/AMC run will not end well for many people, restricting people from buying those stocks - whether it is through actions of trading platforms or governing agencies - smacks not just of pat…

Im guessing their argument would be that while a majority of people know what they're doing / the risk they are exposed to, a lot of people are seeing the gains online right now and are jumping into it blindly. Big difference between WSBers buying in at 10-30$, and people from all around the internet now buying in at 300$

Post by sschueller » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

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

Post by Aunche » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

zarkov99 wrote: post #57

Sure. Robinhood got a call from someone very powerful in their circle, politely asking them to stop the amateur plebes from interfering with their professional market manipulation. We are taking about people commanding titanic amounts of capital and (indirect) regulatory power. Robinhood then had the choice, do we make enemies out of these people or do we just screw, er, I mean protect, our customers? Unburdened by a…

Post by m3kw9 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

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…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

josho wrote: post #457

vergessenmir wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so true. It's all connected. It's probable that Reddit, Discord, RobinHood have all received calls to disrupt retail traders from political players or financial backers. There's no evidence of this, the truth is we'll never know, but how its most obvious reason. If only RobinHood would live up to its namesake. It is alarming that "soft" circuit breakers are being used to target retail traders on exchanges. I…

I look forward to the investigations on market manipulation that RH, Schwann, and TD did by not allowing their customers to trade on that stock. Or is it normal for brokers to independently halt trades on stocks they deem too risky?