TOS agreements dont = blanket legality. Listening now, but things tend to be more complicated than that.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Robinhood Has Restricted Users From Buying GME, AMC, BB, NAKD, and NOK Stocks.
- Thread starter Lucky Aces
- Start date
TOS agreements dont = blanket legality. Listening now, but things tend to be more complicated than that.
nobody thinks that it wont fluctuate and settle back down to late 2020 levels
Retail investors are going to lose their ass on these trades and robin hood is likely trying to do too little too late. Also, they likely got a flood of regulatory inquiry letters yesterday and this morning.
It's funny to see people championing Dodd Frank and the CFPB and then getting mad the regulators that enforce those laws getting involved.
This isn't a peoples revolution. It's grifters who got in early taking money from people who got in late.
I've had a RH account for a few years and mainly bought and held stocks. This whole thing is infuriating. I'm closing most of my positions and I'm going to be moving my money to another trading account.
I bought AMC at 7 a few days ago speculating on COVID maybe being under control and them securing financing. Then I bought a share of GME since it seemed like short interest was way too high this week.
If basically I'm just forced to be a bag holder as a retail investor I'm going to park my money somewhere else. I'm really bitter about this.
I bought AMC at 7 a few days ago speculating on COVID maybe being under control and them securing financing. Then I bought a share of GME since it seemed like short interest was way too high this week.
If basically I'm just forced to be a bag holder as a retail investor I'm going to park my money somewhere else. I'm really bitter about this.
Manipulative trading clearly isn't illegal, though. Like, shorting as a concept is itself manipulative. Specific kinds of manipulation might be illegal, but that clearly doesn't solve the problem of the market being incredibly predator, and obtuse to the point of absurdity.
This whole incident is about how hedge funds were playing the market in ways that the average Joe would never even imagine, let alone allow, if it were up to them. And people noticed, and got pissed, and caused a ruckus (that will likely end up being to their own detriment).
The best we can hope for here is that a massive regulation hammer comes down on Wallstreet entities, but I won't hold my breath.
I fucking know their automatic. I'm being factitious and shitposting at how blantantly manipulated this whole thing is. Thats the purpose of the /s.
I got no money in this game. I'm just enjoying this ride for what it is.
Payment for order flow is just how robin hood makes money. Bernie madoff has jack shit to do with this. It's how smaller brokers due business. They send transactions through a larger trade desk and in exchange are paid for sending the trading activity.
It's a finder's fee for trade volume.
Apologies - my post wasn't clear. My intent wasn't to paint Warren nor Galvin as just beginning their fights against predatory behavior. They are both individuals whom I respect greatly.
What I was attempting to communicate is that in post about a hedge-fund backed mobile app (that falsely advertises itself as democratizing the market (with the audacity of calling themselves Robinhood)), said broker then acts entirely against the interest of its entire user base, your post came off as "we need to regulate to protect consumers against risky trading" when the mere act of moving the goalposts for consumers is what primarily enhanced the risk itself. I'm not saying it isn't a bubble, nor that it isn't financially risky. It is both of those things. But I would prefer we recognize the sheer, err, scumbaggery of what has occurred today rather than handwave it as "the individual will lose and we should protect them from bubbles".
EDIT: a word/grammar
Not sure how legit this is, but this is what's floating around WSB sub and discord:
OP
OP
But what about the people who don't use Robinhood? They never accepted to their terms and agreement.
Money managers they need for their IPO would lose big money if their short doesn't work
Serious question, what is market manipulation? What is the line that I cannot cross?
Edit: I'm looking for a data driven answer, not hypothetical.
So they're trying to scare the little guy and get their money back.
How is it not???
You short a stock, other trading entities find out, they stop buying it, it goes down.
That's the definition of manipulating something.
Like I said: specific types of market manipulation are allowed, and others are not. The rationale for what is illegal and what's not, seems pretty obviously tilted to allow a small group of people to control the market.
There's an amusing transparency to the hypocrisy of the position that retail traders possibly losing all of their money on these casino game-like gambles need to be protected from themselves... and therefore actions that will assuredly crush stock prices and induce panic selling for cascading effects are warranted.
Without knowing anything outside of what I'm reading around the web...That's exactly what it sounds like. And by limiting retail traders from having ANY purchasing power, it plays to their hand.
I'd argue that shorting a stock to over 100% of its value is not only unethical, but it should also be illegal.
Get your ducks in a row and prepare to sue robinhood. They're liable.
My friend got banned from a casino for 1 year for winning too much from counting cards
Selling a stock does not preclude others from buying a stock. Selling stocks makes prices go down, buying makes prices go up. Shorting a stock is just a sell transaction. There is nothing manipulative about selling something that you think is overvalued. Shorting is complicated and extremely risky behavior as there is limited upside (stock goes to zero) and unlimited risk. This is why it is usually restricted activity to accredited investors, the risk is high. Same as naked option writing.
Market Manipulation is a very specific definition and not a laymens term that just means "affecting" The act of 34 and FINRA rules and guidance are clear on inducing others to act.
Blatent corruption. Congress needs to go in on all these companies.
I guess it worked, showed that they had to change the game just to maintain market power
Just small-debated a friend who argues that RobinHood and similar-type apps are right to shut this down because the value of GME should be driven by metrics like profit and revenue, and this is simply "meme" market manipulation.
At least he thinks taking from the rich is good, but that it should be done "legit".
They tell us to use the tool, we use the tool, and when we see huge benefits, they say "no you're using it wrong" and then alter the usage terms of the tool.
At least he thinks taking from the rich is good, but that it should be done "legit".
They tell us to use the tool, we use the tool, and when we see huge benefits, they say "no you're using it wrong" and then alter the usage terms of the tool.
Well, I think congress will go all in on this. Dems been salivating for a chance to show how corrupt Wallstreet is.
