• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Investment Thread - For all your money needs

Liquid Karma said:
There is no way Robinhood survives this as a viable trading platform.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

Maybe someone can help me with this since I don't use Robinhood, but what's the advantage to it over just opening a brokerage account with someone like Fidelity?
 
Frosty said:
Totally agree.

Maybe someone can help me with this since I don't use Robinhood, but what's the advantage to it over just opening a brokerage account with someone like Fidelity?
Click to expand...

easy mobile interface, no fee trading, you can also "buy" crypto but not really because it doesn't transfer to wallets
 
If looking for an easy to use platform, I’ve really enjoyed my experience on SoFi.
 
buckets said:
I think AMC is planning to
Click to expand...

Good luck finding institutional buyers for a secondary offering at these valuations. traders would get hammered if they do a secondary at below market prices. Only way they could raise some cash but I can't see anyone subscribing to shares of a business that is seriously failing.
 
So Robinhood is restricting GME stock purchases to 1 share per user? Lol , like what the fuck are they doing?

They're also capping the amount in 49 other stocks, including the largest Silver ETF.
 
So I mean Robinhood was taking the money from the customer's deposits, and then must not have been buying the actual shares? So now all these customers think they have all this value, but Robinhood doesn't have the ability to pay off (because they don't own the shares that went up?). That's the only way any of this makes sense.
 
Basically it's just Full Tilt Poker all over again.
 
Or is it more likely it just takes a day or two for trades to clear and money to move and there's too much volume for them to handle?
 
stugotz said:
So I mean Robinhood was taking the money from the customer's deposits, and then must not have been buying the actual shares? So now all these customers think they have all this value, but Robinhood doesn't have the ability to pay off (because they don't own the shares that went up?). That's the only way any of this makes sense.
Click to expand...

That’s not the issue. Of course the trades were placed... Otherwise the stock wouldn’t have run as much as it did.

It has to do with clearing house deposit requirements. Robinhood and these other sketchy platforms aren’t built for these kinds of volumes. The clearing house can’t (or won’t) put up all of the collateral required when there is this much volatility.

Which is one of dozens of reasons why you are better off with a more reputable brokerage firm.
 
DeacsATS said:
That’s not the issue. Of course the trades were placed... Otherwise the stock wouldn’t have run as much as it did.

It has to do with clearing house deposit requirements. Robinhood and these other sketchy platforms aren’t built for these kinds of volumes. The clearing house can’t (or won’t) put up all of the collateral required when there is this much volatility.

Which is one of dozens of reasons why you are better off with a more reputable brokerage firm.
Click to expand...

I think Robinhood would have been able to handle it if it was post-IPO

now, they might not even have a good IPO at all.
 
One of many Twitter explanations on this, but I thought helpful...

 
DeacsATS said:
That’s not the issue. Of course the trades were placed... Otherwise the stock wouldn’t have run as much as it did.

It has to do with clearing house deposit requirements. Robinhood and these other sketchy platforms aren’t built for these kinds of volumes. The clearing house can’t (or won’t) put up all of the collateral required when there is this much volatility.

Which is one of dozens of reasons why you are better off with a more reputable brokerage firm.
Click to expand...

Clearing houses started requiring 100% collateral on the meme stonks. I doubt even the large brokerages can afford to front that at the volume we were seeing.
 
DeacsATS said:
One of many Twitter explanations on this, but I thought helpful...

Click to expand...

Informative but also exposes that RH probably benefitted by a jacked up buy rate on lending out member shares of GME while simultaneously making it harder to buy.

Also, I don't think the claim that brokerages halted their larger clients from purchasing GME is true. There was still a lot of short covering on Thursday when retail investors were locked out of half the system.

Maybe retail investors should not have access to margin accounts or have it limited more?
 
seems like there will be a limit to the amount of shorts available relative to float %

and to be clear --- it's the hedge funds that were greedy and took on positions too risky to cover
 
buckets said:
seems like there will be a limit to the amount of shorts available relative to float %

and to be clear --- it's the hedge funds that were greedy and took on positions too risky to cover
Click to expand...

I agree, but I'm cynical enough to think that the blame will be spread around to protect Wall St.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
perhaps not, but you also haven't even tried

you've said "short sellers do a lot of research" and "companies decided to become public and knew what they were getting into"

I'm just trying to understand the theoretical defense of naked shorts and how they, theoretically, improve the material conditions of the public at-large -- I'm having a hard time connecting the dots between the paper money gains of a successful naked short and the material gains in reality

especially in a world where over 100% of the float can be shorted -- that, at least, deserves some regulation, no?
Click to expand...

how is it different than buying call options on a stock? isn't that essentially a naked long position?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top