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

321–330 of 404 posts

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#321

Post by bumblelad »

this_user wrote: post #218
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…

> Finally, the GameStop fiasco was unforgivable and only a naive fool would accept the explanation given. Citadel is the MAJORITY of Robinhood revenue and was opposite that trade. Only someone who doesn't understand how any of this works would believe these absurd conspiracy theories. 1) Citadel is one of FIVE of wholesale market markets RH use. Even if they did refuse to accept orders for GME, why wouldn't their fou…

You can skim the S-1 and see why that is problematic.

In 2020, 34% of their revenue came from Citadel. 75% of their entire revenue stream comes from forwarding their clients' orders to one of FOUR market makers like Citadel. This practice in and of itself is contentious, and they readily admit this in their risk factors section of the filing.

They also readily acknowledge the absolute thrashing they would receive financially if even one of the four market makers decide to not do business with them.

Of these four, Citadel is the largest.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#322

Post by thedudeabides5 »

bumblelad wrote: post #321
this_user wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Finally, the GameStop fiasco was unforgivable and only a naive fool would accept the explanation given. Citadel is the MAJORITY of Robinhood revenue and was opposite that trade. Only someone who doesn't understand how any of this works would believe these absurd conspiracy theories. 1) Citadel is one of FIVE of wholesale market markets RH use. Even if they did refuse to accept orders for GME, why wouldn't their fou…

You can skim the S-1 and see why that is problematic. In 2020, 34% of their revenue came from Citadel. 75% of their entire revenue stream comes from forwarding their clients' orders to one of FOUR market makers like Citadel. This practice in and of itself is contentious, and they readily admit this in their risk factors section of the filing. They also readily acknowledge the absolute thrashing they would receive fin…

I’m sure if they could sell that order flow to 1000 institutions, they would

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#323

Post by valleyer »

tonfa wrote: post #199
wanderingmind wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider legalising drugs as good for the society? Do you think drugs won't be advertised like how cigarettes and alcohol is being advertised. This is the price to live in a free society. You allow people to make their mistakes and live by its consequences.

> Do you think drugs won't be advertised like how cigarettes and alcohol is being advertised Many countries ban advertizing for cigarettes. So while it's not banned the cost on society and public health is large enough that it's worth restricting advertizing. I realize that likely seems totally weird for US folks, but that's really not weird at all in Europe. Same as regulating advertizing targeting kids, etc.

The US has banned tobacco ads on TV and radio for over half a century. It does not seem "totally weird" to us.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#324

Post by arcturus17 »

JoelSanchez wrote: post #181
arcturus17 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don’t understand this “democratizing” thing. In Spain, banks have allowed to trade on all kinds of assets for ages. Some with low fees. If you wanted to buy a certain asset you could do so in like three clicks. In the US I know as a fact that some banks like Charles Schwab have also made retail investing accessible for ages… Robin Hood has “democratized” trading in the sense of aggressively expanding it thro…

Just curious, what banks are those? Renta 4 is mainly focused on funds, and traditional banks like, say, BBVA, don't have any stock trading features in their apps / websites, as far as I know? I'm using Degiro for stocks.

BBVA or Bankinter certainly have brokers! I’d assume many other Spanish retail banks do as well.

BBVA has a standard broker that charges about 5€ per trade and also a trading platform called Trader with different conditions.

Bankinter has had a standard broker for ages - some people in my family are pro investors and they’ve been using since the 00s.

Both have a massive selection of funds on top of stocks.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#325

Post by garyfirestorm »

WYepQ4dNnG wrote: post #159
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…

> Index funds democratized investing. Robinhood “democratized” the worst part of investing and exposed unsophisticated investors On the spot! Robinhood has made it so easy to trade that I have seen many people trading from their mobile while having a coffee or commuting! I would really like to see all these "traders" in 5/10 years ... if it is true that 80% of day traders loose money .. I bet tons of improvised trade…

In the last 2-3 yrs the market has only gone up. No matter how bad you’re at day trading, you’d have only made money. That being said, options are highly risky things and it will barely take a week for someone to lose their savings.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#326

Post by lottin »

gruez wrote: post #185
lottin wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>If you are a bond holder, and the Fed buys $1000 worth of bonds from you for $1000 Then what, do you just keep that $1000 in cash while inflation slowly eats away at it? No, you'll invest it in something else (eg. stocks), so now the market for that has an extra $1000 injected into it.

You already had a bond.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#327

Post by ta1234567890 »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #226
gruez wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Looks like it might be happening. Robinhood’s CEO’s phone has been seized: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx5p8z/feds-seized-robinhood...

Why the downvotes? Just pointing out a fact, I’m not supporting any conspiracies.

Here’s an excerpt from the linked article:

> The company also said it is under investigation by a series of regulators, state attorneys general, the SEC, and the U.S. Department of Justice in proceedings associated with the trading restrictions; the company said its CEO Vladimir Tenev has also had his cell phone seized by federal attorneys.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#328

Post by plank_time »

DSingularity wrote: post #92
gberger wrote: post #75

The Chief Legal Officer, Daniel Gallagher, made $30M this year. It breaks down into $257k cash, $4.2M bonus and $25.5M in stocks and options. This is a far larger amount than any other executive. In 2011-2015, Daniel Gallagher was 1 of 5 Commissioners of the SEC (Securities and Exchange _Commission_), the highest role of the SEC, appointed by the US President. He was hired by Robinhood in May 2020, and his previous j…

How do you value the stock options of a company that hasn’t had its IPO?

409a valuation.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#329

Post by plank_time »

bhahn wrote: post #111
DSingularity wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you value the stock options of a company that hasn’t had its IPO?

You generally use 409a valuations, which increase in regularity and accuracy as the company matures (ie. gets bigger and closer to an actual IPO).

As a former Uber employee, I assure you they do not become more accurate. It’s all based on funding rounds etc. The stock market is a different beast altogether.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#330

Post by missedthecue »

8note wrote: post #187
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…

What do you mean when you say "democratized investing" ? That people can get benefits from the stock markets? Or that investment/economic decisions van be made democratically? Index funds rely on the the folks making the index to determine which stocks get bought -- who's on the s&P 500 is not a democratic process

Board members are voted for by stockholders
Post reply on HN