51–60 of 547 posts
When retail in traders en masse decide that a trading platform is impinging upon their rights, the SEC should be obligated to open an investigation. Isn't this pretty much a major component of their intended purpose?
Just as I was wondering how many retail investors might be involved: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947674 From the number of Playstore votes it seems quite a few? Will be interesting to see if it stays that way. Or if they can somehow cheat their way out of it and get all recent ratings deleted or something. Any guesses?
If they keep selling people's stocks without their consent, then yeah, I'm pretty sure it'll stay until RH can buy better reviews. [edit] though there are some reports that the stocks were bought on margin, which makes it more(?) okay, I guess?
https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHS%20Custo...
4. Liquidation. In the event of the death of the Customer, or in the event the margin in any account in which the Customer has an interest shall in either Robinhood’s or the Introducing Broker’s discretion become unsatisfactory to either Robinhood or the Introducing Broker, or be deemed insufficient by either Robinhood or the Introducing Broker, Robinhood is hereby authorized; (a) to sell any or all securities or other property which Robinhood may hold for the Customer (either individually or jointly with others); (b) to buy any or all securities and other property which may be short in such accounts; and/or (c) to cancel any open orders and to close any or all outstanding contracts; all without demand for margin or additional margin, notice of sale or purchase, or other notice or advertisement, and that any prior demand or notice shall not be a waiver of its rights provided herein.
(emphasis added, and if you like that there's an arbitration agreement too.)
https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHS%20Margi...
WE CAN SELL YOUR SECURITIES OR OTHER ASSETS WITHOUT CONTACTING YOU. Some investors mistakenly believe that their brokerage firm must contact them for a margin call to be valid, and that their firm cannot liquidate securities or other assets in their accounts to meet the call unless the firm has contacted them first. This is not the case. Although we may attempt to notify you of margin calls, we are not required to do so. However, even if we have contacted you and provided a specific date to meet a margin call, we can still take necessary steps to protect our financial interests, including immediately selling the securities without notice to you. We may forcibly liquidate all or part of your account without prior notice, regardless of your intent to satisfy a margin call, in order to protect your interests or our interests.
YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CHOOSE WHICH SECURITIES OR OTHER ASSETS IN YOUR ACCOUNT(S) ARE LIQUIDATED OR SOLD TO MEET A MARGIN CALL. Because the securities are collateral for the margin loan, we have the right to decide which security to sell in order to protect our interests.
WE CAN INCREASE “HOUSE” MAINTENANCE MARGIN REQUIREMENTS AT ANY TIME AND ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOU ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE. These changes in policy often take effect immediately and may result in the issuance of a maintenance margin call. Your failure to satisfy the call may require us to liquidate or sell securities in your account(s).
When retail in traders en masse decide that a trading platform is impinging upon their rights, the SEC should be obligated to open an investigation. Isn't this pretty much a major component of their intended purpose?
The SEC has led the charge of government agencies away from anything that could reasonably be called regulation. Take note of how often the term 'oversight' is used vs 'regulation' when these guys are talking.
Could we see a class action? Is there a case?
https://twitter.com/justinkan/status/1354853920762253315?s=2...
When retail in traders en masse decide that a trading platform is impinging upon their rights, the SEC should be obligated to open an investigation. Isn't this pretty much a major component of their intended purpose?
The SEC has led the charge of government agencies away from anything that could reasonably be called regulation. Take note of how often the term 'oversight' is used vs 'regulation' when these guys are talking.
That feels like a huge violation of their stated intent though.
Could we see a class action? Is there a case?
I wonder what percentage of Robinhood users hold GME - if it's more than 25% I'd say they're finished. If we assume 25% of users hold GME and 80% of GME holders will not return after this fiasco that's extremely significant IMO. Not to say that they'll cease to exist, but I doubt they'll remain the "#1 trading platform."
According to Motherboard it's more than half. https://twitter.com/motherboard/status/1354798244455395328 EDIT: This is untrue, please refer to jaywalk's reply.
Can someone who knows more about such things than I explain to me why their weird response to the situation (halting buying, but still permitting selling) was deemed by them to be the best of their options (the other two obvious ones being to temporarily stop dealing in those securities entirely (halting buying and selling), or to continue letting people trade them as they had the previous day)? It's confusing to me.…
Halting buying and selling is even worst - it means that people are locked into owning GME even if it tanks to 0. (someone please correct if wrong) Edit: I know they haven't halted selling, this is directly in response to a part of the parent's comment