Options
The regulator sets rules and guidelines of whatâs suitable. In this example RH set its own internal policies of who to allow options trading to, but even failed to adhere to these.
Itâs unethical to allow people who you know you shouldnât and whoâll likely get hurt in the process, so you can make a profit. Freedom yes, but when wide spread use is bad for society it should be restricted and controlled.
Right, security at the cost of freedom. I certainly havenât seen that excuse before. Itâs no wonder weâre devolving, people canât take responsibility for their actions anymore.
Selling order flow, not news about them but despicable and illegal here for a good reason:
"Robinhood had negotiated rates with these high-speed trading firms that were âsignificantlyâ higher than the deals other online brokerages had cut, leading to inferior pricing or âexecutionâ on its customersâ orders, according to the SEC complaint.
The group earned these higher fees at the expense of its customers who would have saved $34m combined if they had gone to a competitor between 2016 and 2019, the SEC said. The company neither admitted nor denied the charges."
I think the biggest damage here is that theyâve absolutely nuked their brand image and reputation over in the US. When centre left and hard right & far right politicians/rent-a-gobs are in agreement with each other then you know youâve really done something wrong. Does America have an equivalent of the âGerald Ratnerâ moment?
It looks like that, in the last few hours, theyâve also deleted their long pinned tweet thatâs been at the top of their profile for years:
If the Freetrade team arenât that busy at the moment, are stuck for things to do and need more excitement in their lives then maybe they should launch in the US asap whilst RobbingHoodâs customers are looking for a new platform.
Wow tedcruz and aoc agree! Maybe they both have shares in GME they canât sell
This is a double edged sword for free brokers - they donât want to discourage interest in stocks from new users, but stonks on the other hand are pretty dangerous and people liable to come up with all sorts of crazy accusations when their stonks go down:
The app colluded with hedge funds to make me lose money!
I lost money on the stock market and my app owes me for the losses!
I missed out on generational wealth because Robinhood wouldnât let me trade
Reddit told me this worthless stock would go up forever, but after I bought it went down and I was unable to sell as nobody wanted to buy, I want my money back
It is a market, and every trade has two sides usually one more informed than the other - if market makers donât want to provide trades, or the market is frozen by curcuit breakers, or they are crushed by demand from users, thereâs very little the brokers that depend on the market functioning can do about that. Itâs really an insidious position for brokers to find themselves in and short term trades are really not going to work out well for retail investors most of the time, or for their broker.
All that said Robinhoodâs approach seems really strange - they should just have taken a neutral position and said there might be problems trading. They probably wanted to avoid legal liability for the potentially massive losses their customers could make on either side of these trades when they canât get in or out (and will blame them for if the app is at all slow or trades fail). Maybe lots of people are margin trading using RH?
A dangerous type of user for Freetrade too IMO - I wouldnât be rushing to try to recruit people who would buy GME.