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

Robinhood S-1 IPO

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 404 posts

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#61

Post by elliekelly »

caymanjim wrote: post #45
lame-robot-hoax wrote: post #17

“ A substantial portion of the recent growth in our net revenues earned from cryptocurrency transactions is attributable to transactions in Dogecoin. If demand for transactions in Dogecoin declines and is not replaced by new demand for other cryptocurrencies available for trading on our platform, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. For the three months ended March…

What's most ridiculous about this level of crypto trading volume on Robinhood is that you don't even own the crypto you trade there. You can't use your own wallet, you can't transfer it to your own wallet. Robinhood holds it; you're just gambling on their holdings.

It really irks me because “owning” it in that way flies in the face of cryptocurrency’s supposed raison d’être: anonymous decentralized currency. Dogecoin held at RH is none of those things.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#62

Post by rezistik »

pedroma wrote: post #53
rezistik wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question is whether RH is sticky, they have good traction in growth, and I think it will be sticky. If enough people are doing fractional shares trading it's really hard to transfer out fractional shares to different brokers. Might actually not be possible.

I did an ACATS from RH. They just sell the fractional shares at market price and send the cash.

Right so you have to purchase your fractional shares on your next platform, which I guess would only amount to the fractions so maybe not a huge deal if you have 100.5 of a stock you're only losing the .5, but it could add up if you have a really diverse portfolio.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#63

Post by [deleted] »

whateveracct wrote: post #59
paulpauper wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this logic makes no sense. did you get this from peters schiff.com or something? Tech stocks surged in the 90s despite the fed raising rates and the treasury runing a budget surplus.

Monetary policy makes people viscerally upset for some reason

[deleted]

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#64

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

paulpauper wrote: post #40
abriosi wrote: post #32

That's what happens when you spend a decade printing a lot of money Value becomes diluted

this logic makes no sense. did you get this from peters schiff.com or something? Tech stocks surged in the 90s despite the fed raising rates and the treasury runing a budget surplus.

Why can't low interest rates be good for tech stocks, but also all the innovation in the 90s be good for tech stocks?

It appears like you're saying that only one of these can possibly be good for tech stocks.

Why not both?

How do you know tech stocks couldn't have done much better in the 90s under different monetary conditions (ZIRP and a Federal Deficit of 35% of GDP)?

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#65

Post by drewburg »

pavlov wrote: post #10
rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #6

buy buy buy. Bullish! Opinion: * RH will drag the industry to T+0 settlement, thus breaking wall street shenanigans with 100%+ short selling. Inevitable to see the merging of on-chain settlement with traditional stonks. * RH has the largest amount of Dogecoin AUM globally (8.7B $USD equiv) * RH has a lot of bitcoin, ether and other coins AUM. * RH will eventually be the biggest broker in the US (world)? * RH encourag…

> “ lots of first time investors (18-24), who over time will grow to be big investors” Or will be burned by the next prolonged downturn and exit the market permanently.

Does this remind anyone else of the high APR (20-30%) credit cards offered to college students? I remember a table set up outside the main dining hall where they pitched getting started building that credit history ASAP. Now it's about building that portfolio ASAP and offering it to the most risk-tolerant age demographic. Subtly updated buying whatever you want on credit and worrying about whether you could afford it later, to buying into whatever risky position you want and worrying about covering it later.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#66

Post by [deleted] »

agumonkey wrote: post #44
reidjs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of these meme stocks as baseball cards or pokemon for gen-z and everything starts to make sense.

10$ a good amount of defi is trying to sell a few finance tricks to teens through web-scale lingo

[deleted]

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#68

Post by beambot »

rburhum wrote: post #48

I understand that many give Robinhood crap because it is not "sophisticated enough" or because of the Gamestop fiasco. Although many startups like to claim that they are "democratizing [x]", I honestly believe they did it. I have many friends that never traded before, and after they got their Robinhood account they feel comfortable enough to do it often. Even myself, who used to only trade a couple of times a year, s…

Your use of the word "trade" versus "invest" perfect encapsulates the nuance of Robinhood.

What exactly is Robinhood's product? It's certainly not the newly-minted traders -- their orders are "free". If you follow the money, it looks like it's mostly Pay For Order Flow (PFOF). I wonder why giant market-making hedge funds would pay for that order flow... Another tech faustian bargain.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#69

Post by swarnie_ »

I imagine a large portion of the internet newly flushed with GME/AMC/WISH cash are lining up to short this in to the ground.

I'll personably be buying everything i can get my hands on three months after launch

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#70

Post by [deleted] »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #64
paulpauper wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this logic makes no sense. did you get this from peters schiff.com or something? Tech stocks surged in the 90s despite the fed raising rates and the treasury runing a budget surplus.

Why can't low interest rates be good for tech stocks, but also all the innovation in the 90s be good for tech stocks? It appears like you're saying that only one of these can possibly be good for tech stocks. Why not both? How do you know tech stocks couldn't have done much better in the 90s under different monetary conditions (ZIRP and a Federal Deficit of 35% of GDP)?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN