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

161–170 of 404 posts

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#161

Post by _qbjt »

caymanjim wrote: post #57
mulcahey wrote: post #18

I remember seeing their first public demo at LA Hacks in 2014. Seemed like a couple of kids right out of college. They had the iPhone's screen hooked up to the projector and one of their friends kept sending them silly text messages the whole time that they had to dismiss. This was before the Do Not Disturb feature came out. I remember wondering how it took so long for someone to make a half decent stock trading app…

I know better, and I still use Robinhood. I also use Fidelity, but their mobile and web apps suck beyond description, and used to use Scottrade, who also suck. Robinhood doesn't just look better (although that's important); it's easier to use and faster; bank transfers are WAY easier; you don't have to jump through hoops to enable options trading (which means a lot of people who shouldn't trade options now do, but it…

I feel like the only person who actually likes the Fidelity app. Sure, it's not visually attractive like Robinhood but the amount of information you get is far greater. Also the iOS app works on both my iPhone and iPad whereas Robinhood only renders the phone view on iPad. The app even has proper support for the Magic Keyboard so cursor interactions work the way they should on iPadOS. Fidelity definitely has a "boomer UX" quality about it but once you get used to it, it's really not that bad.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#162

Post by [deleted] »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #73
yreg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I went for this positive spin, I'd talk about democratising investing, not democratising trading. Democratising trading is not inherently good, similar to democratising gambling.

If people want to gamble (or do drugs), why should we be nannies and stop them? I get the desire to stop commercial banks from gambling YOUR savings. But why shouldn't you be able to gamble your own savings if you want to?

[deleted]

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#163

Post by raziel2701 »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #35
fullshark wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~70% was transactions and ~20% was interest. For comparison about 60% of Etrade's revenue is interest and 30% is fees + commissions. Either Robinhood has found a smarter business model re: selling order flow or they are making a killing on crypto fees. The commission business model is dead for good I think. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/net-interest-revenue-will-fo...

>or they are making a killing on crypto fees. They don't charge commissions to trade crypto. Not sure where they're skimming the money but the terrible order fills you get there gives me an idea.

In the S-1 they write: "For the three months ended March 31, 2021, 17% of our total revenue was derived from transaction-based revenues earned from cryptocurrency transactions, compared to 4% for the three months year ended December 31, 2020."

So they do charge something on crypto transactions?

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#164

Post by lottin »

gruez wrote: post #135
lottin wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the Fed doesn't pump dollars into the market. The fed buys bonds in the open market with newly created deposits. This alters the composition of balance sheets of financial institutions but not the size.

>Actually the Fed doesn't pump dollars into the market Except when they did. Random google search: >The central bank began purchasing ETFs such as the iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) and the Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond ETF (VCIT) in early May last year. However, even if all they do is buy bonds, money is fungible so those purchases will still spill over to other markets as inve…

If you are a bond holder, and the Fed buys $1000 worth of bonds from you for $1000, how is this causing everything to go up in price? Notice that your purchasing power is exactly the same before and after the purchase.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#165

Post by Consultant32452 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #107
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people want to gamble (or do drugs), why should we be nannies and stop them? I get the desire to stop commercial banks from gambling YOUR savings. But why shouldn't you be able to gamble your own savings if you want to?

Huge societal costs that we all bear?

A few randos going bankrupt is a minor societal cost at worst. The big societal costs are when the big boys get bailed out, usually by deflating all of our currency.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#166

Post by lquist »

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…

Democratizing investing is akin to democratizing gun ownership. Yes, more people have access to the technology/service/etc. but is it really desirable?

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#167

Post by meowface »

gruez wrote: post #128
ditonal wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Index funds democratized investing. Robinhood “democratized” the worst part of investing and exposed unsophisticated investors to the instruments they are most likely to underperform on. Individual stock picking is probably worse than indexes but fine, however the incentive to day trade or trade complex derivatives is almost certainly going to hurt people far more often than a Vanguard account. It’s not a coincidence…

>Source? Not a single investigation other than the word of Robinhood CEO I'd welcome an investigation, but based on the rest of your comment ("apologists", "only a naive fool would accept the explanation given") my guess is that your mind is already made up.

Not to mention "it was the fraud of the century".

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#168

Post by waych »

elliekelly wrote: post #160
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…

> Even myself, who used to only trade a couple of times a year, started with $300 in my Robinhood account a few years back. Now I have at least ~60k that I rotate around in my Robinhood account on a daily/weekly basis. I don’t think trading more stocks and trading them more frequently is a “better” or even “democratized” outcome. For the vast majority of people trading more shares more often is an objectively terribl…

While "day trading is an objectively terrible investment strategy" for most, having more people in the market and market participants being more fluid in their investments than not, is strictly more efficient than a market with less participants who act more illiquid in their positions.
Post reply on HN