Live data from Hacker News

Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

wsj.com

81–90 of 220 posts

Re: Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had enough money to cover users' trades in securities other than GME, though, right? If I sell GME to buy AMZN, does that have different collateral implications to selling GME to buy GME an hour later? If I send them a bank transfer for $10k, they should have that money as soon as it clears right? There are many other ways they could have handled it beyond halting buying (and buying only) in an individual stock.…

>> just stop letting customers trade with unsettled funds. I can think of nothing an app-based brokerage could do that would anger customers more. The entire point of the app is to facilitate quick and easy trading. The job of the app providers is to abstract away all of the backroom accounting. Requiring customers to wait for settlement would cause a riot.

You can't trade with unsettled funds, it's an SEC violation

Re: Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

#82
post #16
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you though? What's the advantage of using Robinhood vs. say Fidelity which your 401K and other investments are already on? Robinhood executed on a few things well, one of which was how mobile friendly and low friction it was to execute trades. Long term investment doesn't require that. Pseudo day trading from work and speculating? Yes.

Robinhood added fractional shares before other brokers (and some still don’t have them) which is a minor advantage I guess.

Instant Deposits & Withdraw.

Access to detailed MorningStar analysis for just $5/mo.

(May be other brokerages have started matching Robinhood but the one I use ETrade still takes 2 full days to settle and then another 3 days to withdraw cash. It also takes 2-3 working days to deposit cash. So if you spot a buying opportunity you can't. Or, you'd always keep cash lying around and ready in the account.)

Re: Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Not being able to transact GME" is one thing, but they disabled the ability to buy, and kept the ability to sell. It wasn't a symmetric freeze - it was a deliberate action that could only have one outcome on the stock price. Because Robinhood didn't have enough margin to keep buying GME. But if you sold GME, that reduced the margin Robinhood had to keep. ------- In other words: Robinhood has no more money to buy G…

I'm not confused why they did what they did. I understand the situation they were in. I'm saying they shouldn't have done it, and that there is an obvious conflict of interest when there's a short squeeze on hedge funds going on, and Robin Hood's paying customers are hedge funds. Stock freezes happen. They are, all things considered, fairly routine affairs. This was not a stock freeze - it was a company that got out…

I wonder if Robinhood could have changed their GME margin requirements? Not sure if that's allowed, but surely that would have allowed them to unwind some (margin call everyone who is leveraged long), and some customers who were willing to put up 100% to cover their GME buys could keep buying.

Re: Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Not being able to transact GME" is one thing, but they disabled the ability to buy, and kept the ability to sell. It wasn't a symmetric freeze - it was a deliberate action that could only have one outcome on the stock price. Because Robinhood didn't have enough margin to keep buying GME. But if you sold GME, that reduced the margin Robinhood had to keep. ------- In other words: Robinhood has no more money to buy G…

This is another way of saying Robinhood did not have the capital reserves required to fulfill their obligations as a broker-dealer to their customers. Also, it is not correct that they "didn't have enough money to buy GME". Restricting trading of GME was a choice they made to post less collateral, which they didn't have.

> This is another way of saying Robinhood did not have the capital reserves required to fulfill their obligations as a broker-dealer to their customers.

That's basically how the entire financial system works. You're supposed to be able to withdraw deposits as cash, but if everybody does it (from say, an internet meme event), the banks obviously wouldn't be able to "fulfill their obligations [...] to their customers". It's also unreasonable to have 100% of deposits as cash on hand on the unlikely chance that occurs.

>Also, it is not correct that they "didn't have enough money to buy GME". Restricting trading of GME was a choice they made to post less collateral, which they didn't have.

I don't get what distinction you're trying to make here? That "money" doesn't mean "collateral"? Those seem fairly interchangeable in this context.

Re: Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not confused why they did what they did. I understand the situation they were in. I'm saying they shouldn't have done it, and that there is an obvious conflict of interest when there's a short squeeze on hedge funds going on, and Robin Hood's paying customers are hedge funds. Stock freezes happen. They are, all things considered, fairly routine affairs. This was not a stock freeze - it was a company that got out…

I wonder if Robinhood could have changed their GME margin requirements? Not sure if that's allowed, but surely that would have allowed them to unwind some (margin call everyone who is leveraged long), and some customers who were willing to put up 100% to cover their GME buys could keep buying.

As mentioned in my other comment, they can't use customer funds to fund collateral requirements.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31209268

Re: Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

#86
post #8

This is what happens when your clients come to realize they're getting screwed in exchange for "free" trades. Search "robin hood order flow".

Robinhood is legally obligated to provide users with the lowest spread they can find. They make money because market makers are willing to pay robinhood to bring them customers who get the exact same price as everyone else. The market makers do this because they realize robinhood users are schmucks who are more likely to lose money than other investors.

No, they do it because they know the flow from Robin Hood isn't toxic. It's not about them losing money (market makers hold flat positions, they don't care what happens beyond the immediate future) but about them not being more informed about immediate market moves.

If an asset manager wants to buy treasuries for hedging purposes, or an ETF manager wants to buy equities to rebalance, they are also uninformed from the perspective of a market maker.

Re: Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

#87
post #63
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't help but say, elevator's are designed to handle jumping, even many people jumping.

There's a good chance you'd trigger the failsafe though, right?

Specifically a failsafe that temporarily halts the operation of the elevator ;)

Re: Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Not being able to transact GME" is one thing, but they disabled the ability to buy, and kept the ability to sell. It wasn't a symmetric freeze - it was a deliberate action that could only have one outcome on the stock price. Because Robinhood didn't have enough margin to keep buying GME. But if you sold GME, that reduced the margin Robinhood had to keep. ------- In other words: Robinhood has no more money to buy G…

I'm not confused why they did what they did. I understand the situation they were in. I'm saying they shouldn't have done it, and that there is an obvious conflict of interest when there's a short squeeze on hedge funds going on, and Robin Hood's paying customers are hedge funds. Stock freezes happen. They are, all things considered, fairly routine affairs. This was not a stock freeze - it was a company that got out…

> I'm saying they shouldn't have done it

They had no choice. They literally couldn't obtain any more GME stock. You cannot squeeze blood out of a stone. What do you want Robinhood to do?

The GME situation got into a "sold out" situation. Much like how a toy-store runs out of Furbies back in the 90s, Robinhood ran out of GME-stock to sell to its customers.

They would allow "selling", because Robinhood can then obtain that customer's GME stock, and then give it to another customer almost immediately.

------------

All of this margins and stuff is probably just overcomplicating things. You're basically getting mad at toy stores for running out of Furbies, PS5 (or whatever fad-toy is available) during Christmas. Sold-out means sold-out, they can't sell you anymore.

But they were willing to accept sell orders (aka: buy GME stocks from others), because that would replenish their stocks of GME to sell to other customers. If some PS5 scalper came up to (insert store here) saying "I wanna sell my PS5 at market prices", of course the toy-store would buy the PS5 (and immediately sell it to the next customer for a higher price).

Re: Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Not being able to transact GME" is one thing, but they disabled the ability to buy, and kept the ability to sell. It wasn't a symmetric freeze - it was a deliberate action that could only have one outcome on the stock price. Because Robinhood didn't have enough margin to keep buying GME. But if you sold GME, that reduced the margin Robinhood had to keep. ------- In other words: Robinhood has no more money to buy G…

I'm not confused why they did what they did. I understand the situation they were in. I'm saying they shouldn't have done it, and that there is an obvious conflict of interest when there's a short squeeze on hedge funds going on, and Robin Hood's paying customers are hedge funds. Stock freezes happen. They are, all things considered, fairly routine affairs. This was not a stock freeze - it was a company that got out…

There's a big difference between a stock freeze imposed by an exchange, and a broker prohibiting its clients from trading a given stock. If you're actively preventing your clients from selling the stock they own, that costs them actual money if the stock goes down and can very well end in expensive lawsuits. If you prevent them from buying more stock, they only lose the opportunity cost, which is generally much harder to recover by legal means.

Re: Robinhood reports 43% revenue decline

#90
The one thing I have to give Robinhood credit for is the good marketing that appealed to Zoomers and the WSB crowd. But, much like Crytpo Andys, a lot of these people just don't understand how anything works.

Take the GME short squeeze, which a lot of people still fundamentally misunderstand. RH allowed (allows?) you to sign up, promise to deposit funds and trade on credit, essentially, until those funds arrive (typically in no less than 3 days). That settlement process dind't go away. RH just abosrbed the risk.

That's fine when the market is normal. Some people might buy GE and others might sell GE so it all evens out. By this I mean the default risk to RH is mitigated (but still real).

The problem with GME is everyone was buying in a short space of time to the point RH had to borrow billions to cover the collateral requirements to the point it was risking making the company insolvent. That's how extreme it was. So what happens if people sign up, buy GME on credit and then GME crashes? RH is left holding the bag. That was the problem. It's also why GME blocked further purchases bu tallowed sales because sales decreased their overall risk no matter where they came from.

But no, how things actually work is ignored in favor of the system protecting hedge funds.

Personally I don't use any free brokerage because of the order flow issue, which is to say that all your orders are sold to hedge funds and that's where RH makes it's money. Just like with free online services that sell advertising: you are the product. It's so wild to me that people bitch about the evils of advertising but accept without question the selling of order flow, which is directtly taking money from your pockets. Crazy.

It's even crazier when you consider that the aforementioned evil hedge funds supposedly protecting GME short sellers are directly funding and benefitting from RH order flow but they get no flak for that.

You can only get away from not knowing how the underlying thing works. It'll eventually come back to bite you in the ass.

Post reply on HN