Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by ypeterholmes »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #628
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…

Everybody screaming "class action lawsuit" is lying to themselves. I'm pretty confident this is totally within Robinhood's rights according to their terms and conditions (that everybody with an account agreed to).

So is closing the account and moving to a better app.. Robin Hood is going to take this on the chin.

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

#762

Post by cirgue »

So am I crazy, or is WSB a fairly transparent ploy for larger investors to get more stupid money into the market? Like the people making out here are the ones that sold the short positions before everyone hopped on the bandwagon. Am I missing something here?

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

#763

Post by f-word »

techsupporter wrote: post #538
joering2 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now they made enemies of most of their clients. I bet not more than few weeks before you will see advertising from big shot lawyers on national TV welcoming you into class action lawsuits. Frankly, I am terribly disgusted by this news from Robinhood and I hope they will be sued into eternity... and then hopefully DOJ step in an see what they did was illegal. If you have Robinhood account, write you state AG. Show you…

> you will see advertising from big shot lawyers on national TV welcoming you into class action lawsuits Like all darling start-ups, Robinhood has a section of its terms of use whereby users give up their right to sue. Because courts are only for the rich and those with the power to negotiate. The rest of us clicking on take-it-or-leave-it contracts can pound sand. Section 38: https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinho…

Hi! Sorry, not an american.

Exactly how is it legal to forego your right to a fair trial on an "agreement" between two parties who for any intents and purposes do not know each other?

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

#764

Post by kchr »

karlmcguire wrote: post #88
thepasswordis wrote: post #25

Ah cool so does this mean that all the other stocks are safe and will only make me money? Very cool of Robin Hood to protect me from ever being exposed to any risk like this. It’s just really cool to know that they remove the ones that can lose me money.

Nice, Robinhood is a publisher now!

Release the sock puppets!

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

#765

Post by jandrese »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #628
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…

Everybody screaming "class action lawsuit" is lying to themselves. I'm pretty confident this is totally within Robinhood's rights according to their terms and conditions (that everybody with an account agreed to).

EULAs can't override federal law.

That said, even if the SEC does rule against Citadel I wouldn't expect the fine to be anything that bothers Citadel. The message time and time again is that the fees are way less painful than not cheating in the first place.

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

#766

Post by codecamper »

The only problem I see here is that market makers can still buy the stock to prop it up so they don't have to pay out on the options they sold.

Restricting retail from buying the stock is a good idea. There is no legitimate reason to buy these stocks. They are doing naive investors a favor.

People who own the stock can either hold or sell. You sell if you think the current price exceeds the value.

I can guarantee that also no institutional investors are buying the stock. They just don't really need someone to tell them that.

Brokers are attempting to limit complaints by limiting their user's losses. They have done this in self interest.

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

#767

Post by thanksgiving »

beachwood23 wrote: post #673
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…

I don't think this was Robinhood's choice. Robinhood doesn't actually execute any trades. They sell user's trade orders to Citadel, a trade executor. Citadel then buys the shares on the market, and sells them to Robinhood for a slight markup. It's how Robinhood offers trades for $0 fees. You pay pennies more per share, but don't have to spend $5 per trade. Citadel, and other trade executors, are refusing to buy share…

> This is definitely illegal.

I think there must be laws that say the CEO and the board must get prison terms (preferably life, with no possibility of parole) for these crimes.

No, I will not listen to hogwash like "you shouldn't be responsible for the actions of people you hire". BS. They report to you. Even if they did it on their own, why didn't you reverse it? If you are not responsible for the actions of your employees or contractors, don't hire them. Close down. See if I care.

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

#768

Post by sgregnt »

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…

It's not just Robinhood, I'm on Schwab and they blocked trading GME this morning (didn't try it but SELL might still be open)

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

#769

Post by [deleted] »

beagle3 wrote: post #678
simias wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While what you say is plausible, can't it also simply be that they saw a gigantic portion of their userbase making these incredibly risky bets and they were worried that it'd end up blowing in their face?

A broker is nit your friend who refuses to buy junk food for you because he suspects you’ll be sick. A broker is yiur fiduciary/agent; their discretion at refusing your order should be limited to well defined circumstances, and I would be surprised if this is one of them. (I would not be surprised if the EULA lets them do what they want, but I would be surprised if it would actually be found legal in court —- though…

[deleted]

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

#770

Post by prepend »

Loughla wrote: post #739
snowwrestler wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to make money in a bubble like this is to sell right before the pop. At some point the word will go out that it’s over—“we won”—and everyone will rush to sell their GME and take profits. It’s not possible for all those people to succeed. Broker apps like Robinhood will be absolutely overwhelmed with sell orders, many of which will run into technical problems and/or no counter parties. A lot of people are goin…

>Companies learned that helping their customers shoot themselves in the foot can come back to bite them, even if it was all legal and what customers wanted at the time. What a dismissive, awful, terrible way to phrase this. Having parents that were nearly the victims of one of those upside down mortgages, it's not that simple. They didn't ask for a 400k mortgage. They asked for a home they could afford. When the bank…

> when the people responsible for looking after your money, the actual, literal bank

The bank doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to mortgage customers.

If someone wants someone responsible for looking after money and large purchases, they need a fiduciary financial advisor, not their bank.

The fact that people think the bank is supposed to look after money is part of the problem. The bank is just a vault. Not only are they not responsible for helping someone pick a mortgage and house, they aren’t even competent to do so.

I can’t imagine some retail bank even employing people who could competently assess individual debt/income ratios.

The training is that individuals should have financial literacy enough to know what banks do and don’t do well. And to recognize cross-marketing.

I knew tons of people who made dumb decisions in the 00s and bought way too much house. The bank letting them was part of the problem. But people being stupid was a big part too. I knew families making $50k/year buying $400k houses and refinancing every six months for cash out to pay the mortgage. The bank shouldn’t have done that. But people were really stupid to do this once much less multiple times.

Post reply on HN