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

141–150 of 404 posts

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#141

Post by gruez »

kolbe wrote: post #132
gruez wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder why giant market-making hedge funds would pay for that order flow... Another tech faustian bargain. It really isn't. They're making money off the spread (eg. $105.01 bid vs $105.02 ask), which exists regardless of PFOF (regulation NMS mandates that the price be better or equal to NBBO). The reason why they want retail flow is that it's mostly "uninformed" and they're less likely to get run over. matt levin…

Former CBOE market maker here. You and the person you're responding to both have valid arguments. The problem is you are choosing only to present the ones that make this situation look good, and he's only insinuating the bad ones. The fact is that this "spread" you speak of is a much more theoretical concept than Matt Levine understands. There is ample liquidity between the bid-ask in 99.9% of markets, and by selling…

>and by selling order flow to someone who will internalize it at the worst legal price possible, they are intentionally failing to fill an order at the best possible price.

AFAIK they have duty of best execution, so they're supposed get the best price irrespective of PFOF. Obviously this conflicts with their own incentives, but that's what the laws are for.

>RobinHood also features various dark patterns that are designed to remove money from the pockets of their users and put it into their own pockets. Off the top of my head, I can list the following:

I'm not a user so I didn't know any of these. Thanks for bringing these up. Informed complaints like these are far better than the "they're front running you!" complaints that people seem to repeat endlessly.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#142

Post by kgwgk »

hardtke wrote: post #26
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #16

The share count and price are redacted, though likely to be somewhere in the $30 billion range. Regardless, that helps put the $70 million fine from yesterday [1] in context. It was the largest fine in FINRA history, but will it have been worth it? The $65 million fine in December suggests they weren't sufficiently deterred to change. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27690543

$81B in assets under management vs. Fidelity with $10T? At some point, your revenue is capped at a fraction of a percent of assets under management.

If you have high enough turnover in your account sky is the limit.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#143

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

edoceo wrote: post #55
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Front-running?

A rose by any other name...

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#144

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

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?

ToS is pretty good. Takes some getting used to though and is sometimes confusing.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#145

Post by mgfist »

BoysenberryPi wrote: post #36
tw600040 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on why you think robin hood is better than etrade?

Robinhood's value is all UI and UX. Every other finance app is in the past. Vanguard, Etrade, even ThinkOrSwim; none of them even come close to how easy Robinhood is to use. I also left Robinhood after the GME thing but man their app is so streamlined compared to everyone else.

I use RH sometimes to look at prices and then go back to Etrade to make actual trades.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#146

Post by abriosi »

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.

deleted

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#149

Post by kolbe »

gruez wrote: post #141
kolbe wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former CBOE market maker here. You and the person you're responding to both have valid arguments. The problem is you are choosing only to present the ones that make this situation look good, and he's only insinuating the bad ones. The fact is that this "spread" you speak of is a much more theoretical concept than Matt Levine understands. There is ample liquidity between the bid-ask in 99.9% of markets, and by selling…

>and by selling order flow to someone who will internalize it at the worst legal price possible, they are intentionally failing to fill an order at the best possible price. AFAIK they have duty of best execution, so they're supposed get the best price irrespective of PFOF. Obviously this conflicts with their own incentives, but that's what the laws are for. >RobinHood also features various dark patterns that are desi…

> AFAIK they have duty of best execution, so they're supposed get the best price irrespective of PFOF. Obviously this conflicts with their own incentives, but that's what the laws are for.

There is a duty of best execution. I honestly don't even know if its a crime or a licensing requirement or what. Reg NMS seemed to have obviated it, and judging by the failures to execute properly on the parts of major banks (e.g. my family had a major bank execute a bond trade for them that another bond trader friend of mine said was 10% below a competitive market price. That is, they paid 90, when you could have paid 100 in the competitive market), my impression is this law is totally unenforced.

Also, it looks like no one will be able to see my criticisms because YC wants to protect their investment going into the IPO by crushing this comment thread

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#150

Post by dang »

abriosi wrote: post #32

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

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27702432 and marked it off topic.

Please don't take HN threads on generic tangents.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

Post reply on HN