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

111–120 of 404 posts

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#111

Post by bhahn »

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?

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

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#112

Post by gruez »

paulpauper wrote: post #87
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

speculative bubbles are independent of monetary and fiscal policy. if someone thinks they can make 100% returns on their investment,what difference does 0 vs 2% interest rate makes? Look at the housing market in the 2000s , which surged despite interest rates being high.

>speculative bubbles are independent of monetary and fiscal policy

If the fed pumps a few trillion dollars into the market and causes everything to go up in price, and bystanders look at that and decide to buy in, then that seems like that the fed's action caused the speculative bubble.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#113

Post by adabyron »

ditonal wrote: post #90
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…

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…

M1, E-Trade, Trading 212, Interactive Brokers, TD Ameritrade/Schwab and WeBull halted options as well.[1] There are a few more I'm missing.

I wasn't happy about it but I don't blame them. As much as people were talking about over 100% of GME shorted, I can't imagine how much margin on top of margin people were trading while there options had yet to be settled. If anything the issue should be how long it takes a trade to settle.

[1]https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/robinhood-we...

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#114

Post by raziel2701 »

granzymes wrote: post #47

Headline financials: FY Ended December 31, in millions except percentage and assets per user | 2019 | 2020 | YoY ---------------|--------|--------|------- revenue | $278 | $959 | 245% op ex | $384 | $945 | 146% net income | $(107) | $7 | (107)% assets held | 14,136 | 62,979 | 346% monthly users | 4.3 | 11.7 | 172% assets per user| 3,287 | 5,382 | 64%

Also the cash - liabilities calculus not looking good.

$8.8B in cash - $7.7B in liabilties = - $1.1 billion

I'll pass.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#115

Post by hef19898 »

rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #109
hef19898 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it was a shoe shine boy on wall street. So, especially back tue day, he should have been quite well informed!

Yes, this apocryphal story sucks. Why wouldn't a shoe shine boy (or an uber driver -- for contemporary equivalence) not have insight from the many conversations he would have with informed people during their day? The casual throw away statement about business made during transit from a passenger might be important info. This story is just elitism, and exactly the argument Wall Street used against RH. "unsophisticate…

There are two aspects to the story. One, the shoe shine boy probably heard a lot of stuff. Two, he definitely had no business in trading stock. And two is the important one, once "dumb money" shows up in droves it is maybe time to get out.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#116

Post by cyral »

arcturus17 wrote: post #106
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…

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…

> In the US I know as a fact that some banks like Charles Schwab have also made retail investing accessible for ages…

I was helping a friend open an IRA with Schwab the other day. After you sign up, it just plops you into their dashboard with no instructions at all. Search function was useless, actually took tons of clicks for me to figure out how to fund the IRA and invest it in an index fund (for example, the list of target date funds isn't found anywhere on their menus, I had to google and use their secondary fund site to find the symbol).

Basically they sure didn't make it easy or accessible for new users, where as with Robinhood it is immediately obvious how it works (I know Robinhood doesn't have IRAs but the patterns for regular investing with other brokers are similar levels of clunkiness)

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#117

Post by mym1990 »

sithlord wrote: post #28
tofuahdude wrote: post #13

Risk factors are lovely: We have been subject to regulatory investigations, actions and settlements and we expect to continue to be subject to such proceedings in the future, which could cause us to incur substantial costs or require us to change our business practices in a manner materially adverse to our business. We are involved in numerous litigation matters that are expensive and time-consuming, and, if resolved…

I am 100% sure most companies can and do have those exact same risk factors, they don't really mean that much. Any company that operates in a highly regulated area (finance/health/gambling/etc) are going to have regulatory on their risk factors. Any Company whose business is run on an app or a website is going to have the tech failure one.

I think it is one thing to have regulatory risks(of course those are always present), but another to have a recent history of investigation and to be wrapping up the largest fine in history.

Obviously some or even many people will take these risks as a possible promise of greater returns and for the sake of Rh, I hope they get better and better at navigating the regulatory waters. It would be interesting to see the financials if and when another prolonged downturn happens.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#118

Post by jiocrag »

mdoms wrote: post #81
abriosi wrote: post #32

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

The value of what? The US Dollar? Are you claiming some kind of runaway inflation? Because I don't know of any economists who agree with that.

What were the economists saying in 2007? 1999? 1987?

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#119

Post by adabyron »

Apocryphon wrote: post #77
caymanjim wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you tried TD Ameritrade's Think or Swim?

Think or Swim is awesome if you're technical or putting a lot of time & geeking out into this world.

Robinhood is awesome if you're new or want something much simpler.

If I was daring, I might compare it to Linux/MS vs Apple on here but I don't dare because people would take that the wrong way.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#120

Post by kolbe »

raziel2701 wrote: post #108
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…

So the Big Short was spot on when it showed the SEC lady using that position to leverage her way into a job in the sector she's supposed to regulate. It makes sense an SEC regulator knows all the ins and outs and would be the best person capable of finding and exploiting loopholes.

It also makes sense as a quid pro quo. But we can only speculate either way.
Post reply on HN