21–30 of 74 posts
RobinHood had to of known this was a potential outcome or they actually have the most inept management possible. I don't know how they plan on weathering this storm given how much of a public enemy they've made themselves into overnight.
RH is counting on that, that only a small percentage of users will leave them.
What can the financial services committee realistically do to Robinhood?
The fact that Ted Cruz and AOC completely agree on this shows you how unprecedented this all is.
You get what you pay for with a 'free' app
Personally, I think they should have left trading open in cash accounts, but it is completely reasonable to block purchases of high risk shares especially on margin. Same as many brokerages limit OTCs, penny stocks, F shares, etc.
If someone really wants to buy more, it only takes a few minutes to open an account with another online firm. If they hadn't allowed sales and potentially prevented someone from stopping a loss that would be a much bigger deal, but for some reason AOC specifically called this out as suspicious.
RobinHood had to of known this was a potential outcome or they actually have the most inept management possible. I don't know how they plan on weathering this storm given how much of a public enemy they've made themselves into overnight.
The fact that Ted Cruz and AOC completely agree on this shows you how unprecedented this all is.
Now, I agree that there's a good first principles argument (and also a bad populist one) that people should be allowed to trade their own money into scams if they want. But the idea of proving damages here based on the idea that GME was going to CONTINUE TO GO UP after a 500% increase triggered by a short squeeze is just insane, sorry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a super simple non partisan issue that can get him some press that isn't about his sedition
About that... https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1354848253729234944
Well not that much of a watershed moment I guess.