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

Post by imtringued » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #66

Dem_Boys wrote: post #38

This whole Game Stop situation has made the power of the rich so obvious and disgusting. They temporarily shut down the market, banned the discord server, and are now preventing people from buying stocks on the most popular app used by small time investors. All of these moves hurt the small time investor trying to cash in on the next bitcoin-like bubble. This just creates more division, more disgust, and more of a cl…

Just invest in Bitcoin now, it is going to do the same thing in a few months. And it can’t be censored like this. I admire the gme crowd’s efforts but they are so misguided. Investing in zombie companies we actually hate is pointless. Yes you might bankrupt a hedge fund or two but the system will continue. Bitcoin was created for the disruption to the corrupt financial system that they are seeking.

Post by Denvercoder9 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #840

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #834

It's interesting to see the outrage about this. Everyone who has done a bit of research into this kind of broker knew this. It's the only way to get the commissionless trading they advertise with. Just another case of "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold".

Not really, the outrage is over a short of GME being a customer. If the headline was about Firm XYZ without a short in GME paying $100M it wouldn't be as newsworthy.

Post by alea_iacta_est » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:14 PM UTC

lastofthemojito wrote: post #370

I know some language nerds who like to debate about whether certain aspects of language should be descriptive (dictionaries document how real people use language) or prescriptive (very smart people know the correct way to spell/use words, and that should be imparted to the less knowledgeable). In that light, I'd always seen the stock market as purely descriptive - the price of a stock can be completely detached from…

Post by sltkr » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:14 PM UTC

defen wrote: post #619

sltkr wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the short sellers think the stock is overpriced, and there's others that think its underpriced, then both sides are placing their bets and will deal with the result, either by making or losing a lot of money. I don't think it's really a case of people disagreeing on the real value of GameStop stock. Framing it like this ignores important facts. This stock was trading around $4 in August, around $20 in the beginn…

> But no way anyone sincerely believes GameStop is worth $400/share. In February 1997 AAPL was worth 15 cents per share. You could have overpaid by 100x at the time and you'd still be up 9.4x after 24 years (not counting dividends), which is an annualized gain of almost 10%. Maybe Ryan Cohen taking a big stake in Gamestop is their Steve Jobs moment, who knows? Disclosure: long GME

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #840

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #834

It's interesting to see the outrage about this. Everyone who has done a bit of research into this kind of broker knew this. It's the only way to get the commissionless trading they advertise with. Just another case of "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold".

Not really, the outrage is over a short of GME being a customer. If the headline was about Firm XYZ without a short in GME paying $100M it wouldn't be as newsworthy.