Live data from Hacker News

It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

blog.robinhood.com

401–410 of 445 posts

Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't access this high speed trading. This is the toy of billionaires that can afford microwave link between New York and Chicago and have dedicated teams of FPGA developers to write high speed network stacks with trading logic embedded in them. This is what the parent comment was talking about.

I don't need to be able to access high speed trading to access the benefits!

I have friends who work for such firm, both are FPGA designers, the company has a microwave link because speed of light in fiber is only 2/3c. Hundreds of people are working there for the sole benefit of the private owners.

It's possible I was confused.. I thought you were complaining about the inequality between high speed traders and mere humans clicking on web pages..

Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

#402
post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being able to cover your obligations with current cash flow (the situation where they would be defaulting on their obligations for existing trades they submitted) is pretty much the definition of bankruptcy, isn’t it?

You could call it that, but these are obligations that appear to have been unilaterally decided by the DTC without prior notice. As far as I can tell, any brokerage using the DTC could potentially suffer the same fate if the stars aligned.

Robinhood agreed to those terms as part of being a broker and using DTCC - it’s part of the common broker insurance pool agreement required to use the clearing house, and required when trading on highly volatile stock to reduce the risk to counterparties if the stock falls mid-transaction/clearing. It is for exactly the situation where a counterparty (like RH) goes bankrupt and can’t pay, which they nearly did.

Knowing this in advance and preparing for it is exactly the business RH is in, and they should have been much better prepared for it.

If they were unable to meet this requirement it is a clear default on their obligations as a broker, and they would be bankrupt at this point.

It would be like if I was trading on margin, but had no idea what my margin collateral requirements were - one day prices drop on the stock I’ve been trading and my broker does a margin call, and I’m going ‘uh what do you mean?!?’ when they liquidate my holdings because I never paid attention to any of that paperwork they sent over. Is it my brokers fault then?

Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because something is specifically identified as possible doesn't mean that it isn't "out of the blue" when it happens. Again, the clearinghouse did exactly what they were supposed to do; step in and prevent RH from ending up in a position where it could default on its obligations. That's not the clearinghouse doing something "out of the blue" that is literally them doing their jobs. I find it absolutely baffli…

> Again, the clearinghouse did exactly what they were supposed to do; step in and prevent RH from ending up in a position where it could default on its obligations. That's not the clearinghouse doing something "out of the blue" that is literally them doing their jobs. I find it absolutely baffling that people are upset at the clearinghouse for doing their job, especially since I'm certain that had the crash been bigg…

> I just don't think it's fair to blame Robinhood for not having the cash on hand to meet the unforeseen increase in deposits required.

I'm asserting that given how volatility and RH's overall situation was going, it wasn't unforseen. RH let itself become a counterparty risk, and therefore the clearinghouse stepping in was far from unforseen.

And since they had to negotiate down their deposit by half, raise money, liquidate client positions, and still halt buying, it's pretty clear that they were in way, way, way too deep.

> It's not obvious to me that Robinhood over-leveraged itself though. If you are seeing some reporting on this that says otherwise, I would love to see it.

They had to negotiate down their deposit from $3B to $1.4B and still had to liquidate client positions to meet that deposit and avoid going into receivership. That's a classic consequence of being over-leveraged.

Since these were deposits, this means that RH literally didn’t have the cash on hand to settle all their customer’s trades in GME alone, and (I presume) counting on sells to happen within the settlement window. That’s the definition of over-leveraged.

> I'm just not sure how you can be so confident that the proportion of margin trading to non-margin trading was high enough that we can attribute most of the problem to the margin trading.

Great point. I'm assuming that it's much higher for RH because of both who they attracted, and because they make it very easy to get a margin account. I'd love to see real numbers though.

> That's exactly my point. If the margin trading was the primary source of problems, it seems like RH would have just limited margin trading instead of limiting all buys (whether on margin or not). Doesn't the fact that they didn't make this distinction suggest that the margin trading wasn't a disproportionate factor?

Once your clearinghouse is demanding a deposit greater than your liquid reserves, limiting margin trading is not enough anymore. Eliminating margin before that would have reduced the outlay in general (as I mentioned previously), and might have also done a lot to reduce market volatility and calm DTC. But they waited long enough that it did not matter.

Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

#404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd argue that the SEC policy of breaking "clearly erroneous" trades before settlement exacerbates that kind of flash crash: market-makers can't step in to prop up prices and then hedge their exposure, because their trades will be broken and their hedges won't. I'm a bit lost on your response. Are you advocating against SEC or stock exchange intervention? Remember that trading can be halted by stock exchanges also…

> "It's an explanation but doesn't explain why other stock brokers didn't impose the same limitations" Other brokers did impose trading restrictions on GME (and other stocks) around the same time as Robinhood. Webull, M1 Finance, Public, and E-Trade all halted buys of GME. Others, including Interactive Brokers, TD Ameritrade, Schwab, and Trading 212 implemented restrictions such as halting options trading and greatly…

Webull, M1, and Public all use Apex for clearing, and Apex declared a halt of buying GME; it wasn’t the brokerage’s call.

The decisions by IB, TD Ameritrade, and Schwab all seem pretty prudent to me. Reducing client leverage in that situation is the right move.

Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are at this maybe we should abolish high frequency trading as well along with the PFOF? The whole scheme looks like some malware program.

It looks like that because it's complex and technical and people don't understand it, but it also saved retail investors a bunch of money. I don't understand how a jet engine works, but I don't feel any urge to advocate for jet engine policy changes.

[deleted]

Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not an expert but this seems different from the short selling we're talking about. In short selling of a stock, the stock is borrowed and sold immediately for profit. There is no productive action the short seller engages in to recover the stock, they just rebuy it on the open market, or not at all if the company has gone bankrupt. If you are really stretching it, they can produce research that shows the stock s…

If I’m a farmer that has corn crops to sell, I receive immediate renumeration for production in the future (in the simplest contracts) if I don’t produce anything at all, I literally take the money and run, it what happens? What about if hail destroys my entire crop? What if it destroys half my crop but I claim it destroys all of it? There are definite moral differences between those cases but in operational terms it…

> I literally take the money and run, it what happens?

That can happen regardless, there are many scammers who did this with or without shorting. Shorting is not required to keep things in check, that's the job of law enforcement.

Taking a step back it's really quite simple. Shorting is literally a bet that provides no value other than that some people will profit at the misery of others. This is unethical and immoral. Furthermore, done at a large enough scale, it will cause harm to specific companies or firms. You bring up scammers that will take the money and run, yet don't discuss what happened with GME where the shorters piled on it like sharks to drive it down, it's literally a scam in the opposite direction. We shouldn't fix one wrong with another.

Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Shorters push stock down, so how does it benefit the agriculture industry?

You want insurance in case your crop fails, who do you think is taking the other side of that bet for you?

Two very different things. Insurance is to protect the consumer (if applied correctly), whereas shorters want and benefit off of the misery of others.

Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

#408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you paid $10k toward a $100k asset, most of that $10k actually goes toward interest because of how the loan is setup. Islam never denies that time and money are related, it just places moral restrictions on how money can be used in society without exploitation.

I have some bad news for you if you think profit sharing is going to replace free cash flow as a metric for company expansion. What happens if there's no profit? Have you been watching that Khadim Hussain Rizvi video where he tells the Pakistan Army to just repay the IMF loans' principal?

If there's no profit, the investors and the company owners have taken the risk and share it equally. What's the problem?

I'm not aware of Pakistan's Army deal with the IMF. If they took on an interest bearing loan, it's their problem they got themselves into.

Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

#409
https://dailycaller.com/2021/02/02/robinhood-hedge-funds-cit...

Robinhood Made Nearly $700 Million By Selling User Data To Hedge Funds

RobinHood is the Facebook of investing. There’s a reason it doesn’t charge you for trades. It sells information about your trades instead. It’s far more lucrative and explains why it’s willing to stop you from trading since you’re not really a customer-just a user/data point

Robinhood has long branded itself as an accessible platform that provides free financial services for its users. Its mission statement includes a pledge to “democratize finance for all.” But the company makes money by selling its order flow — information about user transactions — to third party clients who actually enact trades with access to user data.

Trades may be commission free for Robinhood users but they are actually sold to “market makers” that often used their position as the middle man to generate profit, according to the Financial Times. Most of these “market makers” are hedge funds or other institutional investors that financially benefit from more trade and market volatility.

It’s big customer, by the way—the one it cares about more than you—that’s Citadel, which pays for Robinhood’s order flow. It also happens to be the biggest investor in the hedge fund that just got bankrupted by the Game Stop short squeeze on RobinHood.

Robinhood was fined $65 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in December for “misleading statements and omissions” regarding its payment for order flow process. The SEC concluded that Robinhood “deprived” users of $34.1 million after providing their order flow to clients that prioritized higher revenue over providing the best price for customers.

Robinhood’s largest clients for order flow are all hedge funds and other institutional investors according to an SEC filing from 2020. More than half of the company’s market orders were purchased by Citadel Securities — an affiliate of the hedge fund Citadel LLC.

According to SEC filings from 2020, other institutional investors that purchased Robinhood’s order flow included hedge funds G1X Execution Services LLC and Two Sigma Securities LLC along with brokerage firms Wolverine Securities LLC and Virtu Americas LLC.

Robinhood’s terms of service notes that certain content “is furnished by third parties” and specifies that neither the company nor third party provides are liable for damages. The company’s user agreement also requires investors using the app to “authorize or allow third parties” to gain access to services including market data and account information.

Re: It’s Time for Real Time Settlement

#410
post #397
post #136

I have seen on Twitter that Robinhood was unable to use customer funds to satisfy clearing deposit requirements, but I couldn’t find an actual authoritative source on this. Is this correct? It seems to me that, to secure a $300 purchase buy a customer, Robinhood ought to be able to use that customer’s $300.

You're confusing two different things. One is the payment capability of the customer to pay RH when the purchase is settled (T+2). The other is the relationship and payment capability of RH to the clearing house (DTCC) for its orders that it has placed with other brokers. RH is required, as a broker, to provide its own collateral to the clearing house so that the clearing house can guarantee to other brokers that all…

> RH is not allowed by law to use their customers' money as collateral to DTCC. If RH goes broke, then DTCC does the following:

I still can’t find an authoritative citation for this, and it seems seems like poor design to me.

Suppose Robinhood has one customer. That customer opens a cash trading account, deposits $1bn into it, waits for the deposit to clear and waits an extra week for good measure, and then uses all $1bn to buy an absurdly volatile stock.

Now, between the execution of the trade and settlement, Robinhood is apparently holding $1bn (in a segregated account?), and Robinhood needs to post some largish fraction of $1bn with their clearer to offset the risk that Robinhood fails to pay the $1bn at settlement.

To me, this seems like un unreasonable requirement for Robinhood. If their actually go bust before settlement, they owe DTCC, etc $1bn, the customer has $1bn deposited (in the same segregated account), and the customer is owed some number of shares of the stock. All the money is there!

So why can’t Robinhood satisfy its clearing fund requirement by putting the appropriate fraction (or even all) of the customer’s $1bn into segregated account with its clearer? After all, the mere fact that Robinhood has a whale for a client does not mean they are any more likely to go bust, except for the fact that “bust” seems to include this odd case where Robinhood can’t independently secure its customer’s trade.

Post reply on HN