Live data from Hacker News

Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer

wsj.com

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer

#31
post #14
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If so, why doesn’t this happen all the time? In fact, when has it EVER happened before, or since? If it was normal wouldn’t there regularly be stocks that can’t be bought but can be sold?

Because stocks valuations don't jump by 2000%, with volumes up 3000% 'all the time'. And when they do, they aren't solely driven by retail investor mania pig-piling the exact same brokerage. And, uh, particular brokerages have stopped uni-directional trades for volatile stocks in the past, for the exact same reason. You may notice that no retail brokerage makes any guarantees to its customers that they will be able t…

I’m not a fan of Robinhood, but everything that vkou has been saying is true.

My understanding is that Robinhood is self-clearing, not that Citadel is its prime brokerage.

The clearing margin requirement came from NSCC. Clearing margins CANNOT be satisfied using client funds. So it’s Robinhood’s own capital—and whatever credit lines they’ve negotiated—that would need to meet those requirements.

If I deposit 100k into Robinhood and keep it there as cash for 2 years, then one day I plunk all of it into GME, then until all my trades settle two days later, Robinhood will have increased clearing margin requirements based on the VaR of my unsettled trades. (Unless, my trade offsets someone else’s from within Robinhood, in which case I believe RH’s margin would reduce—but I’m not sure about this part.)

And if one day after my trades, GME’s stock goes up 10x, the VaR goes up roughly 10x as well. Even though I would have a claim to a lot higher value in my account once everything is settled, until the trades are settled, it’s a major cash crunch for RH.

The fact of the matter is that RH was not under-capitalized or have disproportionately small credit lines as a portion of their AUM, as compared to other brokerages. It’s just that their users were the ones that acted in a most coordinated way on a stock whose VaR was going through the roof.

Re: Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer

#32
post #19
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Clearing houses don't lose anything during a short squeeze, as long as funds committed to a trade actually clear. They aren't the ones on the hook for a short exploding. They raise their collateral requirements during a period of high volatility. As it turns out, when you run a zero-fee brokerage, you don't just have a couple of extra billions of dollars lying around that you can put up as collateral on a m…

> The only people allowed to naked short are market makers The SEC made naked short selling illegal after the 2008 financial crisis. Market makers are not allowed to naked short. > Clearing houses don't lose anything during a short squeeze, as long as funds committed to a trade actually clear Exactly my point — as long as funds clear , which they were at risk of not doing, thus putting clearing houses like the DTCC o…

Do you have evidence that Citadel is RH’s prime brokerage? Being an executing broker or a trading counterparty or paying for order flow has nothing to do with being a prime brokerage or clearing RH’s trades.

Re: Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer

#33
post #21

there's no way to bet against freshly issued IPOs, right? I think for both shorting puts, there's a lockout period after the stock is issued. And limited inventory for borrowing. Or has that changed? I see almost all recent high-flying IPOs as overly inflated investor cashouts. Steve Blank had a post about this...

>there's no way to bet against freshly issued IPOs, right? Sell call options? Buy puts?

[deleted]

Re: Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer

#34
post #7
post #5

Just a reminder that robinhood prevented people buying certain stocks while allowing them to sell, causing many people to lose money, but supporting the short selling hedge funds, whilst claiming to be “investment for the people”. Possibly they are rushing to IPO before facing court. I would neither buy shares IN Robinhood nor would I buy shares using a Robinhood account.

Just a reminder that Robinhood didn't prevent this. Automatic increases to clearing house collateral requirements prevented this. If Robinhood allowed those trades to go through, they'd have been cut off from the clearing houses, and none of their customers would have been able to perform any trades. Unfortunately, due to the low level of public understanding of how stock trades actually settle, the conspiracy narrat…

> Automatic increases to clearing house collateral requirements prevented this.

I don't think they were automatic? They were raised way more then what was standard.

Re: Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer

#36
post #19
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Clearing houses don't lose anything during a short squeeze, as long as funds committed to a trade actually clear. They aren't the ones on the hook for a short exploding. They raise their collateral requirements during a period of high volatility. As it turns out, when you run a zero-fee brokerage, you don't just have a couple of extra billions of dollars lying around that you can put up as collateral on a m…

> The only people allowed to naked short are market makers The SEC made naked short selling illegal after the 2008 financial crisis. Market makers are not allowed to naked short. > Clearing houses don't lose anything during a short squeeze, as long as funds committed to a trade actually clear Exactly my point — as long as funds clear , which they were at risk of not doing, thus putting clearing houses like the DTCC o…

> The SEC made naked short selling illegal after the 2008 financial crisis. Market makers are not allowed to naked short.

Actually, they are allowed to naked short. It’s essential for them to be able to do so to hedge their exposure and provide a bid/ask at all times.

https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm

Re: Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer

#37
post #7
post #5

Just a reminder that robinhood prevented people buying certain stocks while allowing them to sell, causing many people to lose money, but supporting the short selling hedge funds, whilst claiming to be “investment for the people”. Possibly they are rushing to IPO before facing court. I would neither buy shares IN Robinhood nor would I buy shares using a Robinhood account.

Just a reminder that Robinhood didn't prevent this. Automatic increases to clearing house collateral requirements prevented this. If Robinhood allowed those trades to go through, they'd have been cut off from the clearing houses, and none of their customers would have been able to perform any trades. Unfortunately, due to the low level of public understanding of how stock trades actually settle, the conspiracy narrat…

Robinhood implemented restrictions before any other platform though they were not the only ones to do so, held restrictions longer than any of their competitors, used restrictions (sell only) in a way that was unique to Robinhood and falsely made public claims (later to be retracted) that they had chosen to do some or all of this "for the public good."

I would not trust them with a single dollar.

Re: Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer

#38

This definitely calls for that one four-panel image macro with drake saying no thanks in panel one to something in panel two, and approving in panel three to what’s in panel four. You know the one right? So then panel two: Buying meme-stocks And panel four: Buying stonks in the platform that everyone is using to buy meme-stocks. It’s too bad that I don’t actually have any money to buy Robinhood IPO though :^) :’)

You must have missed the 420 memos where clearly bizarre fuckery around "meme stocks" was supported by Robinhood suspending trading of them, resulting in a mass migration from RH to Fidelity and others.

You probably shouldn't talk condescendingly about things you clearly are so behind on.

Re: Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer

#39
post #23
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only people allowed to naked short are market makers The SEC made naked short selling illegal after the 2008 financial crisis. Market makers are not allowed to naked short. > Clearing houses don't lose anything during a short squeeze, as long as funds committed to a trade actually clear Exactly my point — as long as funds clear , which they were at risk of not doing, thus putting clearing houses like the DTCC o…

> Not to mention the math on vote tallies in GME's latest 8-K filing from 2 days ago clearly proves more GME shares exist than should be mathematically possible, enabled only by naked short sellers who never covered. You mean the 8-K that showed 55M votes out of 70M shares outstanding? How does that prove anything? Maybe you're confusing shares outstanding with the float.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

For context, last year's 8-K showed 66% of shares voted. The 8-K also reported a total of 42,886,817 shares voted last year. This year's 8-K, issued 2 days ago, showed 55M votes out of 70M possible. Therefore, 78.5% of shares were voted.

However, unusually, this year's 8-K did NOT report the total number of votes actually received.

Unsurprisingly this is likely because 8-K filings cannot legally show over 100% of shares voted. GME's votes were counted by Computershare [1]. When more votes are received than shares outstanding, the vote tabulator (Computershare) will "scale" the votes proportionally to never exceed 100%. Computershare have publicly documented procedures in place for how they scale votes in the event of overvoting [2].

An off-by-1 rounding error in the 8-K on votes for Lawrence Cheng, compared to all the other board members, is highly suggestive votes have been scaled.

Retail brokers like eToro reported only 63% of eligible votes were cast [3]. Countless international brokers either refused or were unable to allow their shareholders to cast votes.

Since the initial squeeze, the buy-sell ratio as reported by Fidelity [4] vastly favours buying over selling. It's slightly lower than it has been at the moment (currently 76% buys), but back at April 14th when the vote deadline was, it was higher than it is today. This shows retail are not selling, only buying more.

Additionally, the broker non-vote figures in this year’s 8-K are significantly less than in previous years. This is another indicator of vote scaling, given the huge push from retail investors to vote their shares.

These filings are only 2 days old, and truthfully, only time will tell what will come of this. I’ve been watching the price action of GME follow very predictable patterns around option expiry and settlement dates over the past few months, clear patterns are emerging. For more on this you can search “GME FTD cycles”.

My comments here really just cover the tip of the iceberg, and I hope they provided some food for thought for others. I didn’t even start on the blatant media coverups, or the obvious patterns of brand new Reddit accounts almost exclusively being used to encourage sell-offs. Nor coordinated pump-and-dumps on WSB for stocks Citadel own long positions in. Or crypto markets tanking within minutes before liquidity tests begin. Or CNBC abruptly cutting off guests who mention naked shorting. Or brokers who are unable to locate shares. Or Michael Burry, the famed investor who made billions from shorting the housing market in 2008, having taken a long position on GME. Or GameStop only actually publicly acknowledging the potential of a squeeze on their social media, the exact same day their chairman would have received the initial (non-scaled) vote counts.

I could keep going on in more detail but I’ll let others do their own research. I feel I’ve read enough to be confident in my assessment that shorts have not covered, but if I’m wrong, I don’t have more skin in the game than I can afford to lose. We’ll see!

---

[1] Page 11, section 9: https://news.gamestop.com/static-files/8f795a88-54a3-4320-b3...

[2] https://www.computershare.com/ca/en/Documents/CPU_OVER_VOTIN...

[3] https://twitter.com/eToro/status/1402643555403829256

[4] https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/gotoBL/fidelityTopO...

Re: Robinhood and Didi to Kick Off a Hot IPO Summer

#40
post #21

there's no way to bet against freshly issued IPOs, right? I think for both shorting puts, there's a lockout period after the stock is issued. And limited inventory for borrowing. Or has that changed? I see almost all recent high-flying IPOs as overly inflated investor cashouts. Steve Blank had a post about this...

>there's no way to bet against freshly issued IPOs, right? Sell call options? Buy puts?

This is generally unavailable until 1 day after IPO.
Post reply on HN