(01-29-2021, 11:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 10:30 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Fake news.
How is it fake news? It's exactly what happened.
Robinhood and other brokerages didn't restrict trade on those select securities to "protect the short sellers". They essentially did it to protect themselves. Is it right? In my opinion no. Is it illegal? I'm not so sure.
(01-29-2021, 11:13 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 11:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]How is it fake news? It's exactly what happened.
When in doubt, instead of taking the time to research and learn, just say Fake News.
Perhaps you should look in the mirror as you say that.
(01-29-2021, 11:27 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 11:11 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]How is it fake news? It's exactly what happened.
Robinhood and other brokerages didn't restrict trade on those select securities to "protect the short sellers". They essentially did it to protect themselves. Is it right? In my opinion no. Is it illegal? I'm not so sure.
It seems pretty clear they did it to protect their largest clients, as noted by the fact that Robinhood put out sell orders that the owners did not ask for nor could they cancel. By forcing the sale they gave the stock back to the Short Sellers.
(01-29-2021, 11:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 11:27 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Robinhood and other brokerages didn't restrict trade on those select securities to "protect the short sellers". They essentially did it to protect themselves. Is it right? In my opinion no. Is it illegal? I'm not so sure.
It seems pretty clear they did it to protect their largest clients, as noted by the fact that Robinhood put out sell orders that the owners did not ask for nor could they cancel. By forcing the sale they gave the stock back to the Short Sellers.
And they restricted accounts from buying gme...but you could damn sure sell it.
Citadel owns something like 40% of robinhood. Citadel fronted Melvin capital 2.something billion dollars to bail them out very recently. The same Melvin capital that’s the target of the Reddit stock brigade right now. Yeah, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that they stopped traders from buying yesterday, and now only allowing them to buy five shares today.
(01-29-2021, 11:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 11:27 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Robinhood and other brokerages didn't restrict trade on those select securities to "protect the short sellers". They essentially did it to protect themselves. Is it right? In my opinion no. Is it illegal? I'm not so sure.
It seems pretty clear they did it to protect their largest clients, as noted by the fact that Robinhood put out sell orders that the owners did not ask for nor could they cancel. By forcing the sale they gave the stock back to the Short Sellers.
This is the first that I have heard of this. Do you have a source for that?
It is my understanding that the clearing house was requiring higher margin due to higher volume and volatility. Robinhood essentially had to raise cash. When they restricted trading they basically didn't allow buys only sells of certain stocks.
(01-29-2021, 12:20 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 11:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It seems pretty clear they did it to protect their largest clients, as noted by the fact that Robinhood put out sell orders that the owners did not ask for nor could they cancel. By forcing the sale they gave the stock back to the Short Sellers.
This is the first that I have heard of this. Do you have a source for that?
It is my understanding that the clearing house was requiring higher margin due to higher volume and volatility. Robinhood essentially had to raise cash. When they restricted trading they basically didn't allow buys only sells of certain stocks.
These owners weren't holding on margin and therefore not susceptible to a margin call.
(01-29-2021, 12:30 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 12:20 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]This is the first that I have heard of this. Do you have a source for that?
It is my understanding that the clearing house was requiring higher margin due to higher volume and volatility. Robinhood essentially had to raise cash. When they restricted trading they basically didn't allow buys only sells of certain stocks.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...Trump.html
From the article: - Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, 33, last night defended firm's decision to sell users' shares without permission
- 'We had to make a very difficult decision. It's been a challenging day,' Tenev told MSNBC
Hmm... that's the only news outlet that I've seen report something like that. The only thing that I have seen is that Robinhood did close positions on people with options which is not unusual. I have a hard time believing that Robinhood sold shares that were owned outright.
(01-29-2021, 12:53 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 12:30 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...Trump.html
From the article: - Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, 33, last night defended firm's decision to sell users' shares without permission
- 'We had to make a very difficult decision. It's been a challenging day,' Tenev told MSNBC
Hmm... that's the only news outlet that I've seen report something like that. The only thing that I have seen is that Robinhood did close positions on people with options which is not unusual. I have a hard time believing that Robinhood sold shares that were owned outright.
I mean, hell, if the CEO admitted to it what else do you need?
(01-29-2021, 11:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 11:27 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Robinhood and other brokerages didn't restrict trade on those select securities to "protect the short sellers". They essentially did it to protect themselves. Is it right? In my opinion no. Is it illegal? I'm not so sure.
It seems pretty clear they did it to protect their largest clients, as noted by the fact that Robinhood put out sell orders that the owners did not ask for nor could they cancel. By forcing the sale they gave the stock back to the Short Sellers.
Yep. They restricted retail buying and simultaneously used a ladder attack to drive the price down hoping retail investors would panic sell. But it didn't work.
(01-29-2021, 12:53 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 12:30 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...Trump.html
From the article: - Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, 33, last night defended firm's decision to sell users' shares without permission
- 'We had to make a very difficult decision. It's been a challenging day,' Tenev told MSNBC
Hmm... that's the only news outlet that I've seen report something like that. The only thing that I have seen is that Robinhood did close positions on people with options which is not unusual. I have a hard time believing that Robinhood sold shares that were owned outright.
If it’s a normal thing, why would the CEO have to make a “difficult decision” about it?
(01-29-2021, 01:01 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 12:53 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm... that's the only news outlet that I've seen report something like that. The only thing that I have seen is that Robinhood did close positions on people with options which is not unusual. I have a hard time believing that Robinhood sold shares that were owned outright.
I mean, hell, if the CEO admitted to it what else do you need?
From what I have seen, yes they did sell shares that were on margin. There is nothing illegal about that.
I'll be interested to see if the SEC finds that anything other than that took place.
(01-29-2021, 01:20 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2021, 12:53 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm... that's the only news outlet that I've seen report something like that. The only thing that I have seen is that Robinhood did close positions on people with options which is not unusual. I have a hard time believing that Robinhood sold shares that were owned outright.
If it’s a normal thing, why would the CEO have to make a “difficult decision” about it?
I am just speculating here, but I think it all had to do with timing. Normally a broker will issue a "call" which gives the account holder time to cover their margin. Doing so is more or less a "courtesy". In this case with unusually high volume they probably had to pull the trigger pretty quick.
Again, I'm not saying that it is right. All that I am saying is that it doesn't appear to me that they broke any laws. I'm also saying based on what I have seen and understand, they did what they did to protect themselves as well as their other clients.
Here comes the Biden Sell-off Bubble.
(01-29-2021, 02:19 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Here comes the Biden Sell-off Bubble.
Biden has as much to do with this as Trump does.
Investors taking profits and raising cash to short Gamestop.
(01-27-2021, 01:58 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2021, 01:37 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Congrats !!! I almost pulled the trigger on GME the other day but it was already up 200% so I bought ZNGA, which is doing nothing. I then bought AMC after CNBC was promoting it after they got a loan infusion.
Never realized that I should have also added Blackberry to my portfolio. What a whacked out year (from last March to this January). This is so distant from Main Street.
Bought blackberry too!
Now we know who deep [BLEEP] value is lol
The more news that comes out the more it looks like Robinhood is going down. They were slated to go public later this year, but I just don't see it happening.
For those angry about them putting limits on stock purchases, it's not illegal and it is in their Terms of Use when somebody opens an account with them. The underlying fact of the matter is the company pretty much owns "paper assets" and can't handle the volume or volatility of the trades going through them.
I find it kind of ironic that the goal of some on Reddit is to "sock it" to the hedge funds that shorted Gamestop, and they did cause some damage. However, the larger hedge funds have covered and come through just fine. The entity that they "socked it to" is the very vehicle that they used. Robinhood just can't handle it and I suspect that they will not be around very much longer.
Getting to the actual topic of this thread, I find it kind of disturbing that the President and his staff have been dodging this issue for the last couple of days. Rather than deal with the economy, the current administration is focusing their efforts on "green energy" and "equality". StroudCrowd1 might be partially right about the "Biden selloff". I can see many investors going to cash until this mess is settled.
![[Image: painted-into-a-corner.gif]](https://dupagedemocrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/painted-into-a-corner.gif)