201–210 of 322 posts
Matt Levine comments on this today: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-14/nyse-n... "There is a lot of confusion about what Robinhood’s thing is. Delightfully, it is called “Robinhood Checking & Savings,” apparently because calling it a “checking account” or a “savings account” would come too close to implying that it is a real bank account insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., while “checki…
That's great. It's like the "chicken wyngz" you can buy at the grocery store that are probably chicken but can't legally be called wings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I buy a house in a neighbourhood that is zoned single family residential, Am I an "inefficient incumbent" because I expect that over the mid-to-long term it will stay that way? The incumbents I was referring to are clearly hotels and taxis. But I think it's also important to point out that I wouldn't presume to tell you who to rent to or for what duration since you own the home and it's your property. AirBnB is…
> The incumbents I was referring to are clearly hotels and taxis. Sure, but you're forgetting about another party in the transaction: everyone else . You don't have to remember about them most of the time, because unlike Uber and AirBnB, most businesses aren't dumping externalities on non-customers. > I think it's also important to point out that I wouldn't presume to tell you who to rent to or for what duration sinc…
We live in a time/place where money is reasonably readily available; You take that away and "society" makes all sorts of accommodations for "you're preventing homelessness" and "you're doing what you have to do to pay your debts". Though given rising inequality, we might be closer than we think.
It's Bloomberg reporting so they probably got it completely backwards, or made it up, or misunderstood what was told to them. Not saying they're right or wrong, i'm saying Bloomberg is a very unreliable news source, especially in tech.
Which leads to one of two scenarios: 1) They knew SIPC wouldn't cover it, but decided to lie about it anyway 2) They weren't competent enough to assess the risk that SIPC wouldn't cover it, but decided to launch anyway without contacting the SIPC Regardless of which is the truth, I wouldn't trust my money with someone who does either. Might as well jump into a tried-and-true pyramid scheme like bitcoin!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vanguard is not a corporation. It is structured as a mutual company; it is owned by funds managed by the company, and is therefore owned by its customers. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanguard_Group
Vanguard has many pieces and parts, many of which are, indeed, corporations. It says so on the bottom of its website: "Vanguard funds not held in a brokerage account are held by The Vanguard Group, Inc., and are not protected by SIPC. Brokerage assets are held by Vanguard Brokerage Services, a division of Vanguard Marketing Corporation, member FINRA and SIPC." Regardless of its legal structure, I meant "megacorp" in…
Vanguard has a pretty good reputation regardless of it's company structure. I'm not so trusting of some other financial firms.
I have had such an account at Fidelity for years. However they only pay lower money market rates which are based on bonds less than 30 days.
Which leads to one of two scenarios: 1) They knew SIPC wouldn't cover it, but decided to lie about it anyway 2) They weren't competent enough to assess the risk that SIPC wouldn't cover it, but decided to launch anyway without contacting the SIPC Regardless of which is the truth, I wouldn't trust my money with someone who does either. Might as well jump into a tried-and-true pyramid scheme like bitcoin!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In applying Hanlon's Razor[0], I think the conversation went: A: Are our customers accounts insured? B: Yes, through SIPC, which is like FDIC for brokerages. A: Great! Let's create this product. No more questions were asked. [0] http://catb.org/jargon/html/H/Hanlons-Razor.html
I would hope that wasn't the case and that they actually consulted all this with specialized lawyers. You just don't launch a financial product of this nature, out of your ass like that. If that was the case then Robinhood customers have legitimate reasons to be concerned about the safety of their funds and securities. (For the record, I'm on of those Robinhood customers).
Unless they worked with the SIPC up-front to ensure that these funds would be covered, and that the SIPC actually, you know, has the means to cover them, then the only way account holders are going to find out if their are protected or not is in the aftermath of a crisis, after a long and drawn out lawsuit.
When I saw the headline, I thought about signing up but hadn't gotten around to reading the fine print.
Glad I didn't waste my time.