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

361–370 of 404 posts

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#361

Post by mrgordon »

kccqzy wrote: post #333
LeftHandPath wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Move to Schwab or TD Ameritrade (TDA has ThinkOrSwim which is great for day/swing trading; Schwab is acquiring TDA but you can continue to use the ToS platform after that goes through). And then never look back. At least give it a look: https://www.tdameritrade.com/tools-and-platforms/thinkorswim...

I had a trial (with paper trading) with ToS a while ago, before the Schwab acquisition. I didn't find their platform particularly compelling, so I went back to using StreetSmartEdge by Schwab. Can you explain why you find ToS better?

I like StreetSmartEdge better but I would say ThinkOrSwim is much better on mobile especially for options. Real time quotes go a long way and the options are displayed in a condensed fashion.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#362

Post by gregwebs »

RobinHood users should consider M1 Finance. It’s a better way to invest by allocating pies instead of making trades.

However there are no options and they don’t offer OTC or anything low liquidity.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#363

Post by carlivar »

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?

The ToS people's follow up venture, Tastyworks, is now better IMHO.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#364

Post by gruez »

lottin wrote: post #326
gruez wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That's generally the precondition for selling a bond. I don't see how that's relevant to my previous comment though.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#365

Post by daxaxelrod »

differentView wrote: post #353
daxaxelrod wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, same thing happened to me. https://imgur.com/a/8MDZHti I had to close my account for work. I left that company and wanted to open back up my robinhood account. Guess not

What do you mean you had to close your account for work?

Worked for a money center bank. They have strict regulations on what brokerages employees can use in an effort to stop insider trading.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#366

Post by toomanybeersies »

tptacek wrote: post #198
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…

The problem with the conspiracy theory about Citadel forcing Robinhood to halt GME is that plenty of providers for whom Citadel wasn't most of their revenue also halted GME. There are other reasons this conspiracy is silly, but that fact seems to kill it pretty dead. I don't like Robinhood and don't feel any need to apologize for it; I think they're predatory. But this isn't why. "Fraud of the century" is pretty funn…

Even here in Australia, the trading platforms I use all restricted trading on GME.

There's little chance that the Big Four banks in Australia were all part of a conspiracy to ripping off investors, at least in regards to GME (they're too busy ripping Aussies off via their superannuation).

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#367

Post by SilasX »

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…

>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 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.

I remember reading about this (can't find the original source) and I thought there was a subtle distinction here, where the regulation only requires you to fill at a price at or better than the best quoted price, which isn't the same as the best possible price. Which does allow a broker to make their money (directly or indirectly) from the difference.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#368

Post by toomanybeersies »

DelTaco wrote: post #347
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…

While index funds were arguably a much much more important step, there were few funds you could invest in for less than $3,000 up until several years ago. And those that were less than $3,000 initial investment were around $1,000. A lot of folks can't afford that all at once.

Given the expected gains (or losses), is it actually worth investing in equities if you have less than $3000 to invest? If you only have 3 grand to your name, you probably shouldn't be investing it.

Personally, I've never invested less than $2000 in a single lot. I also aim to have around $5000 cash in my accounts, more than that is a waste, and less puts me at risk of being unable to pay for things.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#369

Post by toomanybeersies »

stouset wrote: post #265
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…

“Democratizing” day trading is just putting undereducated and underinformed victims in front of professionals with orders of magnitude more access to research, information, and market access. I said it elsewhere but this would be like praising Harrah’s for removing the rake (the casino’s cut) from poker games and encouraging novices to put their money down on the table with Vegas professionals. People would be mortif…

> Day trading is not investing

You have no idea how many of my friends I've tried to explain this to. I try to explain that day trading is as much of an investment as betting on horse or dog races, but I think a lot of my mates also see those as legitimate expenses.

Re: Robinhood S-1 IPO

#370

Post by toomanybeersies »

adabyron wrote: post #104
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…

People complain about unfair advantages regular "retail" people have but Robinhood has made access to stocks & options a lot easier. They've made it easy to get the cheapest rates possible on portfolio backed loans. They're starting to try & give some type of IPO access, although I can't comment on the value of that. If they start to offer IRAs & other tax advantaged accounts, plus a way for non accredited investors…

There's a reason why retail investors have traditionally been locked out of things like options and investing in IPOs. More often than not it ends up with the less wealthy losing their life savings.

"The wrong hands" is the average retail investor. The philosophical debate is whether those people should be allowed to waste their life savings because they should know better, or if the government should make efforts to ensure that they can't.

Post reply on HN