Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#291

Post by eight2inf » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

ycombobreaker wrote: post #256

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ladder short attack caused the price to drop during the low volume. Every time artificial limits were imposed by RH, the price dropped in __all__ the restricted stocks. That is when they restricted shares to 0, or to 2, and subsequently to 1, and again to 0. On Friday, there were puts expiring and HFs stood to lose a lot, they didn't, and the answer is obvious as to why.

Everything I can find online about this "ladder short attack" points to the GME activity. Does anybody have any explanation for this that predates the last week? This is not the first short squeeze, nor the first outage for retail traders during a volatile period. The only explanation I see on reddit refers to hedge funds lowering their bids, which isn't sufficient to explain the market actually dropping (there were…

Here’s from investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/030102.asp

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#292

Post by peterthehacker » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

peterthehacker wrote: post #200

austhrow743 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market manipulation requires intent to artificially change the stock price. It isn't everything that changes the stock price otherwise any large organisation or person with clout would be constantly market manipulating all day long.

The argument that Reddit/WSB users manipulated the market is a more difficult one to make vs. the argument that RH manipulated the market when they restricted their users to only sell GME. If they stopped both buying and selling then GME would not have dropped the way it did. RH CEO’s denial said they made the move to protect the firm and their customers, but blocking buying and selling would’ve given them the protec…

Looks like I fell for a “conspiracy theory” here... I’m going to avoid any stock-market related comments on HN from here on out :p

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#293

Post by 8ytecoder » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 1:03 AM UTC

thinkingemote wrote: post #233

8ytecoder wrote: post #98

This thread is full of people who have no idea how the exchanges, brokers, clearing firms and clearing houses operate. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-29/reddit...

This happens in every thread about every subject. Most users don't know anything, any expert will tell you it's the case when their subject is discussed here. The onus is on the knowledgeable to educate and correct and help and be charitable, and we usually see this. We shouldn't try to shame or label users without at least trying to help first. Try to improve a situation and not make things worse. That way HN gets b…

Of course. This thread was extremely off-base. The entire thread from the top comment to the last comment assumes maleficence by Robinhood.