[HN Gopher] Robinhood S-1 IPO ___________________________________________________________________ Robinhood S-1 IPO Author : marc__1 Score : 181 points Date : 2021-07-01 17:18 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sec.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sec.gov) | tofuahdude wrote: | Risk factors are lovely: | | We have been subject to regulatory investigations, actions and | settlements and we expect to continue to be subject to such | proceedings in the future, which could cause us to incur | substantial costs or require us to change our business practices | in a manner materially adverse to our business. | | We are involved in numerous litigation matters that are expensive | and time-consuming, and, if resolved adversely, could harm our | reputation, business, financial condition or results of | operations. | | Our platform has been, and may in the future be, subject to | interruption and instability due to operational and technological | failures, whether internal or external. | Lionga wrote: | The illegal shit they do is just a "cost of doing business" for | them. It is just hard to calculate how much of a kickback the | FINRA and SEC would like to have. | sithlord wrote: | I am 100% sure most companies can and do have those exact same | risk factors, they don't really mean that much. | | Any company that operates in a highly regulated area | (finance/health/gambling/etc) are going to have regulatory on | their risk factors. | | Any Company whose business is run on an app or a website is | going to have the tech failure one. | elliekelly wrote: | Most companies that go public haven't recently violated | securities laws and most don't readily admit that they'll | probably do it again. (But at least they're truthful in their | disclosure! As required.) They also have the boilerplate | "this is a highly regulated industry" language as a separate | risk: | | > Our business is subject to extensive, complex and changing | laws and regulations, and related regulatory proceedings and | investigations. Changes in these laws and regulations, or our | failure to comply with these laws and regulations, could harm | our business. | | This risk also stood out to me because it's something I | usually associate with SPACs: | | > As a result of our recent settlement with the SEC, we are | currently considered an "ineligible issuer," which limits our | ability to use certain free writing prospectuses in | securities offerings and will delay our ability to qualify as | a "well-known seasoned issuer" in the future. | | SPACs are an ineligible issuer because they've been a blank | check company, shell company, or penny stock issuer in the | last three years. While I don't have many nice things to say | about SPACs the ineligible issuer language is pretty benign | boilerplate in that situation. | | RH, on the other hand, is an ineligible issuer because they | were C&D'd by the SEC for violating the anti-fraud provisions | of the federal securities laws in the last three years. | Companies typically seek to avoid committing securities fraud | in the run up to their IPO. So while the risk factor itself | (not a WKSI) isn't necessarily unusual the _reason_ for the | risk is and it speaks directly to management's (at best) | inability to appropriately manage the regulatory risk or (at | worst) lack of trustworthiness. | cmiles74 wrote: | I'm skeptical that this claim is true. Even a cursory look at | news articles related to Robin Hood shows that these concerns | are way more than boilerplate legalese. | mym1990 wrote: | I think it is one thing to have regulatory risks(of course | those are always present), but another to have a recent | history of investigation and to be wrapping up the largest | fine in history. | | Obviously some or even many people will take these risks as a | possible promise of greater returns and for the sake of Rh, I | hope they get better and better at navigating the regulatory | waters. It would be interesting to see the financials if and | when another prolonged downturn happens. | tofuahdude wrote: | "involved in numerous litigation matters" and "have been | subject to regulatory investigations ... expect to continue | to be subject to such proceedings" coming in on the heels of | record-setting fines moves these risk factors from the usual | corporate boilerplate to quite acute issues. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | The share count and price are redacted, though likely to be | somewhere in the $30 billion range. Regardless, that helps put | the $70 million fine from _yesterday_ [1] in context. | | It was the largest fine in FINRA history, but will it have been | worth it? The $65 million fine in December suggests they weren't | sufficiently deterred to change. | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27690543 | hardtke wrote: | $81B in assets under management vs. Fidelity with $10T? At some | point, your revenue is capped at a fraction of a percent of | assets under management. | kgwgk wrote: | If you have high enough turnover in your account sky is the | limit. | s1artibartfast wrote: | >The $65 million fine in December suggests they weren't | sufficiently deterred to change | | People keep saying this, but the FINRA fine was for actions | that took place _before_ the 2020 SEC fine, and the SEC fine | was for actions in 2015-18. | | It's not like they have a time machine. | lame-robot-hoax wrote: | " A substantial portion of the recent growth in our net revenues | earned from cryptocurrency transactions is attributable to | transactions in Dogecoin. If demand for transactions in Dogecoin | declines and is not replaced by new demand for other | cryptocurrencies available for trading on our platform, our | business, financial condition and results of operations could be | adversely affected. | | For the three months ended March 31, 2021, 17% of our total | revenue was derived from transaction-based revenues earned from | cryptocurrency transactions, compared to 4% for the three months | year ended December 31, 2020. While we currently support a | portfolio of seven cryptocurrencies for trading, for the three | months ended March 31, 2021, 34% of our cryptocurrency | transaction-based revenue was attributable to transactions in | Dogecoin, as compared to 4% for the three months ended December | 31, 2020. As such, in addition to the factors impacting the | broader cryptoeconomy described elsewhere in this section, RHC's | business may be adversely affected, and growth in our net revenue | earned from cryptocurrency transactions may slow or decline, if | the markets for Dogecoin deteriorate or if the price of Dogecoin | declines, including as a result of factors such as negative | perceptions of Dogecoin or the increased availability of Dogecoin | on other cryptocurrency trading platforms." | an_opabinia wrote: | If you make the easiest to use Ponzi consuming tool, it doesn't | matter. There will always be more ponzis. | IntrepidWorm wrote: | True, but that doesn't mean we should give the best ponzi | scheme a free pass. It's still a ponzi scheme. | tofuahdude wrote: | Anecdotal: | | My two under-18 cousins both described using their parent's | credentials to buy Dogecoin on Robinhood. Great stuff driving | Robinhood revenue right here. | reidjs wrote: | Think of these meme stocks as baseball cards or pokemon for | gen-z and everything starts to make sense. | bee_rider wrote: | Imagining an IPO for a company that enabled baseball card | and pokemon transactions has not helped me make sense of | this situation. | agumonkey wrote: | 10$ a good amount of defi is trying to sell a few finance | tricks to teens through web-scale lingo | [deleted] | Apocryphon wrote: | Is NFT support coming soon to Robinhood? | slg wrote: | This is true at the level of basic buying and selling. | However that isn't all that is happening with Robinhood. | One of Robinhood's "innovations" was making it easier for | novices to engage in more complicated trading including | buying on margin, short selling, etc. This allows people to | lose more money than they initially invested. A kid in the | 90s wouldn't be buying Pokemon cards on credit with the | potential to literally bankrupt themselves or their | parents. | mym1990 wrote: | Robinhood has also gamified the trading experience. Once | a day I get a push notification with something like "here | are the day's biggest movers, hop on the train before | it's too late!" and its essentially playing to that | addictive quality that short term trading can have. | LeapingPanda wrote: | Exactly. A push notification like that is preying on the | fear of missing out (FOMO), which is completely at odds | with proper assessment and risk management. | [deleted] | caymanjim wrote: | What's most ridiculous about this level of crypto trading | volume on Robinhood is that you don't even own the crypto you | trade there. You can't use your own wallet, you can't transfer | it to your own wallet. Robinhood holds it; you're just gambling | on their holdings. | elliekelly wrote: | It really irks me because "owning" it in that way flies in | the face of cryptocurrency's supposed raison d'etre: | anonymous decentralized currency. Dogecoin held at RH is none | of those things. | DSingularity wrote: | What remains of cryptocurrency ethos? It's all about the | value today. | mym1990 wrote: | You could argue that it isn't even about the value, but | simply the price. | iso1631 wrote: | That's not ridiculous, that's the primary purpose of crypto | j79 wrote: | It also speaks volumes about "crypto" these days. The vast | majority of folks I know treat crypto as an investment | opportunity (albeit, a highly speculative one). They're not | concerned about blockchain technology or decentralized | finance. | | Robinhood is the perfect platform for them - There's no need | to "swap" tokens or sign up with exchanges. For the most | part, RH just "works". | cwkoss wrote: | I find it interesting that Elon Musk has tweeted about Dogecoin | several times in the past day, and his tweets no longer seem to | be causing price spikes. | | A lot of Cryptocurrency twitter is mad at him for his actions | and statements on Bitcoin, I wonder if that has broken his | ability to manipulate price with tweets. | | If that's the case, probably a bad thing for Robinhood. But | maybe people will come back around to him with time. | ttul wrote: | Dogecoin, created as a joke, is now in an S-1 as a material | item. | agumonkey wrote: | after trump tenure this is the 2nd most absurdist fact about | humanity the last 20 years to me | acid__ wrote: | I would've guessed it had appeared before, but nope never on | it's own before | | https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=dogecoin&dateRange=all&. | .. | hsaliak wrote: | Robbin' Da Hood. The GameStop fiasco was unforgivable. | hpkuarg wrote: | It would be poetic if the Robinhood IPO marks the local top of | this bull market :-) | paulpauper wrote: | Highly unlikely. | devops000 wrote: | Coinbase IPO did it for Bitcoin. | newfonewhodis wrote: | Looks like the founders already sold $220M worth of stock: | | > 2019 Tender Offer | | > In August 2019, we entered into a letter agreement with certain | holders of our capital stock, pursuant to which we agreed to | waive certain transfer restrictions in connection with, and | assist in the administration of, a tender offer that such holders | proposed to commence. From August 2019 through September 2019, | these holders commenced a tender offer to purchase shares of our | capital stock from certain of our employee stockholders, | including our Co-Founder and CEO, Vladimir Tenev, and Co-Founder | and Chief Creative Officer and then-co-CEO Baiju Bhatt. An | aggregate of 5.4 million shares of our capital stock were | tendered pursuant to the tender offer for an aggregate purchase | price of $67.6 million, or $12.4827 per share. | | > 2018 Secondary Sales | | > On April 3, 2018, our Co-Founder and CEO, Vladimir Tenev, our | Co-Founder and Chief Creative Officer and then-co-CEO, Baiju | Bhatt, our then-Chief Operating Officer, Nathan Rodland, and one | other employee, each individually entered into common stock | purchase agreements with certain other holders of our capital | stock, including entities affiliated with DST Global, pursuant to | which they sold shares of our common stock to the purchasing | stockholders at a purchase price of $10.145 per share. In total, | Mr. Bhatt sold 5,421,389 shares of common stock for an aggregate | purchase price of $55.0 million; Mr. Rodland sold 295,712 shares | of common stock for an aggregate purchase price of $3.0 million; | and Mr. Tenev sold 5,421,389 shares of common stock for an | aggregate purchase price of $55.0 million. As part of these | sales, each of Mr. Bhatt and Mr. Tenev sold 739,280 shares of our | common stock to entities affiliated with DST Global. | | What a joke. Founders got rich beyond imagination dumping all the | risk on employees. | nemothekid wrote: | They went from 170MM in revenue in 2019 to 720MM in revenue in | 2020. Wow will that be a temporary spike or sustained? | mrkramer wrote: | Temporary; meme stocks and meme cryptocoins can not last | forever. | paxys wrote: | Sure but something else will come and replace them. Selling | shovels is always a smart business move. | bern4444 wrote: | Alright, wsb has been waiting for this. Time to short (or buy | puts) on Robinhood through Robinhood. | | Though Robinhood advanced 0 commission trading (though I think it | was inevitable), it's a terrible platform. | mulcahey wrote: | I remember seeing their first public demo at LA Hacks in 2014. | Seemed like a couple of kids right out of college. They had the | iPhone's screen hooked up to the projector and one of their | friends kept sending them silly text messages the whole time that | they had to dismiss. This was before the Do Not Disturb feature | came out. | | I remember wondering how it took so long for someone to make a | half decent stock trading app for the iPhone -- all the other | apps at the time sucked (and they largely still do). I was on | ETrade before but signed up for the Robinhood waitlist | immediately -- haven't left since being allowed in early 2015. | sakekasi wrote: | I was at that LA Hacks as well! The first one right? That was | the highlight of the hackathon! I remember everyone really | tripping over themselves to try to sign up | paulpauper wrote: | good fonts, contrasting colors, and large buttons. UI is so | important. never underestimate it | agumonkey wrote: | won't name them but other big exchanges phone apps are pretty | nifty.. you can operate lot with a thumb it was a bit surreal | | no advanced trading / charting / analytics but still quite | surprising | systemvoltage wrote: | I think the opposite - UI of Robinhood is awful. For example, | to see a list of orders you've placed, you gotta interact | with a fake chat box and it takes at least 15 seconds to see | the last order. | | Call me old school. TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab has the | best UI IMO. | nscalf wrote: | Robinhood is the example I use for showing that good design can | be a company making differentiator. In many ways Robinhood is | much worse as a trading platform, but the usability and | simplicity of getting started is orders of magnitude above all | other competition. | collias wrote: | Absolutely. Their front-end is phenomenal, even if their | back-end is subpar. | | It's to the point where I use Robinhood to look at market | info, then open my actual brokerage app to execute the trade. | Robinhood is lightyears ahead of traditional brokerages in | terms of UX. | tw600040 wrote: | Can you elaborate on why you think robin hood is better than | etrade? | BoysenberryPi wrote: | Robinhood's value is all UI and UX. Every other finance app | is in the past. Vanguard, Etrade, even ThinkOrSwim; none of | them even come close to how easy Robinhood is to use. I also | left Robinhood after the GME thing but man their app is so | streamlined compared to everyone else. | mgfist wrote: | I use RH sometimes to look at prices and then go back to | Etrade to make actual trades. | mulcahey wrote: | I'm not the most sophisticated trader but I appreciate their | UX and simplicity, which I think is true of most of their | user base | rezistik wrote: | I think the question is whether RH is sticky, they have | good traction in growth, and I think it will be sticky. If | enough people are doing fractional shares trading it's | really hard to transfer out fractional shares to different | brokers. Might actually not be possible. | pedroma wrote: | I did an ACATS from RH. They just sell the fractional | shares at market price and send the cash. | rezistik wrote: | Right so you have to purchase your fractional shares on | your next platform, which I guess would only amount to | the fractions so maybe not a huge deal if you have 100.5 | of a stock you're only losing the .5, but it could add up | if you have a really diverse portfolio. | tmp_anon_22 wrote: | iOS development sucks. It had a huge amount of churn this | decade due to the transition into Swift. Documentation wasn't | just out of date, it was in a different dimension. Every SO | answer was a mix of incompatible versions and - what answers | existed were best guesses from people who also had no concrete | documentation to go off of. | | Your best bet was to cozy up to Apple teams or preferred Apple | partners like Facebook and Uber, and see if the inside scoop | could save you a few months of maddening frustration. | | You can see this evidenced in engineering blog posts from | companies like Uber and Twitter, they had to hire soooo many | people to build out their mobile app. | caymanjim wrote: | I know better, and I still use Robinhood. I also use Fidelity, | but their mobile and web apps suck beyond description, and used | to use Scottrade, who also suck. Robinhood doesn't just look | better (although that's important); it's easier to use and | faster; bank transfers are WAY easier; you don't have to jump | through hoops to enable options trading (which means a lot of | people who shouldn't trade options now do, but it's still | better for those who want to); you can trade on deposits | instantly instead of waiting a week for the deposit to clear; | margin is easy to use. There are plenty of foot-guns in | everything I said, but there's also plenty of convenience and | utility for people who are trading carefully. | supernintendo wrote: | I feel like the only person who actually likes the Fidelity | app. Sure, it's not visually attractive like Robinhood but | the amount of information you get is far greater. Also the | iOS app works on both my iPhone and iPad whereas Robinhood | only renders the phone view on iPad. The app even has proper | support for the Magic Keyboard so cursor interactions work | the way they should on iPadOS. Fidelity definitely has a | "boomer UX" quality about it but once you get used to it, | it's really not that bad. | Apocryphon wrote: | Have you tried TD Ameritrade's Think or Swim? | fnordfnordfnord wrote: | ToS is pretty good. Takes some getting used to though and | is sometimes confusing. | adabyron wrote: | Think or Swim is awesome if you're technical or putting a | lot of time & geeking out into this world. | | Robinhood is awesome if you're new or want something much | simpler. | | If I was daring, I might compare it to Linux/MS vs Apple on | here but I don't dare because people would take that the | wrong way. | fnordfnordfnord wrote: | Their app and UI are great, really great; but I closed most of | my trades after the Gamestop fiasco and I'm not coming back. I | kept the debit card and keep a few bucks in there, still use | the app for quick quotes sometimes but that's about it. | jppope wrote: | same | yawaworht1978 wrote: | Ok let's see. Average funds per user in custody is 4500$. Organic | or referred new customers 80percent is an incredibly misleading | number. I know that in this industry lead generation, rev share | or signup deals are very lucrative/expensive, only crypto | exchanges and online casinos pay out more. If they are holding | 4500 on average and and we assume 2 percent commission fees, then | that will be 90 use life time value on average, let's not even | calculate the acquisition costs, might well be that 80percent | come from referrals. That will be 1.6 annual revenue before | marketing cost, salaries, referrals, rent etc. Maybe they sell | some customer data but what would a good stock price estimate be | here? How many shares will be issued? | bmmayer1 wrote: | $1 billion in top line revenue in 2020. Wow. | arthurcolle wrote: | Stocks only go up | fullshark wrote: | ~70% was transactions and ~20% was interest. For comparison | about 60% of Etrade's revenue is interest and 30% is fees + | commissions. | | Either Robinhood has found a smarter business model re: selling | order flow or they are making a killing on crypto fees. The | commission business model is dead for good I think. | | https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/net-interest-revenue-will-fo... | fnordfnordfnord wrote: | >or they are making a killing on crypto fees. | | They don't charge commissions to trade crypto. Not sure where | they're skimming the money but the terrible order fills you | get there gives me an idea. | ralph84 wrote: | There are no regulations on execution quality for crypto. | RH treats crypto as forex and quotes their customers a huge | markup on the bid/ask spread (think airport forex booth | type spreads). RH customers can only trade with RH and | their crappy spreads. RH won't match customer crypto orders | against each other. | raziel2701 wrote: | In the S-1 they write: "For the three months ended March | 31, 2021, 17% of our total revenue was derived from | transaction-based revenues earned from cryptocurrency | transactions, compared to 4% for the three months year | ended December 31, 2020." | | So they do charge something on crypto transactions? | edoceo wrote: | Front-running? | gruez wrote: | No need. It's just like those "commission free" currency | exchange places you see at airports and tourist areas. | There might not be a commission, but the spread is | several percent, and they make all their profit off that. | fnordfnordfnord wrote: | A rose by any other name... | paulpauper wrote: | So much for that media narrative of rh being hurt by bad press | about gamestop. Rh is still hugely popular | nerfhammer wrote: | My guess is all the media attention actually got them more | signups | conception wrote: | Well, said bad press was in 2021 so any effects have yet to | be seen. | verdverm wrote: | Will it be the PR or that people were actively trading | while lockdown was on? Anecdotally, I know several people | who were active on RH until they went back to work | ac29 wrote: | Certainly puts that $70M SEC fine in perspective - that's not a | trivial amount. | swarnie_ wrote: | I imagine a large portion of the internet newly flushed with | GME/AMC/WISH cash are lining up to short this in to the ground. | | I'll personably be buying everything i can get my hands on three | months after launch | FinanceAnon wrote: | Would be hilarious if they ended up on the other end of a short | squeeze. | slo_news wrote: | "For the three months ended March 31, 2021, 17% of our total | revenue was derived from transaction-based revenues earned from | cryptocurrency transactions, compared to 4% for the three months | year ended December 31, 2020." | | That's some pretty crazy growth! Granted, that was a unique time | in crypto. But I'm sure history will repeat. Will be interesting | to see how RH's crypto strategy develops based on this. Crypto | essentially brings the payment for order flow in-house and makes | RH the market maker for doge, BTC, etc. So maybe RH will just | start to look more like Coinbase! | granzymes wrote: | Headline financials: FY Ended December 31, in | millions except percentage and assets per user | | 2019 | 2020 | YoY | ---------------|--------|--------|------- revenue | | $278 | $959 | 245% op ex | $384 | $945 | | 146% net income | $(107) | $7 | (107)% | assets held | 14,136 | 62,979 | 346% monthly users | | 4.3 | 11.7 | 172% assets per user| 3,287 | 5,382 | | 64% | raziel2701 wrote: | Also the cash - liabilities calculus not looking good. | | $8.8B in cash - $7.7B in liabilties = - $1.1 billion | | I'll pass. | bern4444 wrote: | Exactly, imagine if they're margin is margin called. They | don't have enough assets to handle abnormal (but not | unlikely) swings. So they're forced to disallow types of | trading. | | I'm surprised capital requirements aren't in place | mrkramer wrote: | Yup....Their business depends on dogecoin I mean good luck | with that. | alliao wrote: | it is slightly worrying that society allows something so big | that's so... fragile? it's like a disaster waiting to happen | and bound to cause massive amounts of damage... | rburhum wrote: | I understand that many give Robinhood crap because it is not | "sophisticated enough" or because of the Gamestop fiasco. | Although many startups like to claim that they are "democratizing | [x]", I honestly believe they did it. I have many friends that | never traded before, and after they got their Robinhood account | they feel comfortable enough to do it often. Even myself, who | used to only trade a couple of times a year, started with $300 in | my Robinhood account a few years back. Now I have at least ~60k | that I rotate around in my Robinhood account on a daily/weekly | basis. Yes there are other services that I now use or other apps | that seems better, but for all intents and purposes, Robinhood | did "democratize" trading for me. | elliekelly wrote: | > Even myself, who used to only trade a couple of times a year, | started with $300 in my Robinhood account a few years back. Now | I have at least ~60k that I rotate around in my Robinhood | account on a daily/weekly basis. | | I don't think trading more stocks and trading them more | frequently is a "better" or even "democratized" outcome. For | the vast majority of people trading more shares more often is | an objectively terrible investment strategy. | waych wrote: | While "day trading is an objectively terrible investment | strategy" for most, having more people in the market and | market participants being more fluid in their investments | than not, is strictly _more efficient_ than a market with | less participants who act more illiquid in their positions. | wolverine876 wrote: | Imagine a market of 1,000 people. If we add 5,000 who | significantly under- or overvalue, or make other errors, | the good being traded, is that more efficient? | | In terms of economic efficiency, if that's what we mean, I | would guess not: It causes the misallocation of capital to | worse investments. Was the Gamestop market economically | efficient? | waych wrote: | You are making the assumption that the first 1000 people | somehow had a better way to value the assets being | trading than the next group that joins the trade. This is | a fallacy as the market sets the prices on its own. | | No by efficiency I mean the spread and incorporation of | more information relating to the underlying asset, making | it more closely match their fair value, and the resulting | tightening of the spread and reduced volatility overall. | See Efficient Market Hypothesis. | | It is also worth noting that it is this same hypothesis | that backs the "index funds are better than stock | picking" argument. | elliekelly wrote: | Are the new traders introducing more information to the | market? Or are they introducing noise? | adabyron wrote: | People complain about unfair advantages regular "retail" people | have but Robinhood has made access to stocks & options a lot | easier. They've made it easy to get the cheapest rates possible | on portfolio backed loans. They're starting to try & give some | type of IPO access, although I can't comment on the value of | that. If they start to offer IRAs & other tax advantaged | accounts, plus a way for non accredited investors to invest | early in Start-Ups they would have hit a grand slam in my | opinion. | | Obviously while I see the above as a lot of great things, in | the wrong hands people can do a ton of damage to themselves | with margin, options or trading risky stocks. Robinhood, at the | demands of critics, has been improving their information in | their UI to help people better understand the risks. And yes, | their bash the button to get early crypto access shall never be | forgotten & always be a tarnish. | | The Robinhood app is far better than anyone else out there for | your average investor. ThinkorSwim is the only thing even close | & it's far to complicated for most. Otherwise Robinhood is | faster, cheaper, better info & overall better user experience. | The other companies have all been incredibly behind times, as | financial companies are known for. | | Side Rant: Robinhood wasn't the only one to run into GameStop | issues. There are some people who believe the whole GME debacle | was very close to having huge negative implications on the | entire market that were going to hurt everyone, whether in the | trade or not. | m00x wrote: | Retail investors could still invest using regular tools. Most | banks have portals where you can buy/sell, but most of them | safeguard against margin bets and they have much less sketchy | practices. | | Robinhood made it fancy and hid the complexities of investing | so they could turn investing into a gambling platform. | rsync wrote: | "I have many friends that never traded before, and after they | got their Robinhood account they feel comfortable enough to do | it often." | | This reminds me of the lamentations I sometimes hear about the | "unbanked" or the "underbanked". | | I always think: "lucky them ..." | human wrote: | Robinhood "democratized" gambling on the stock market. | mhh__ wrote: | Coming from a country where gambling is like a plague (Most | UK high streets are identical, gambling shops are | everywhere), is that any worse than gambling elsewhere? Your | chances of lucking into some money seem better there than on | sports. | beambot wrote: | Your use of the word "trade" versus "invest" perfect | encapsulates the nuance of Robinhood. | | What _exactly_ is Robinhood 's product? It's certainly not the | newly-minted traders -- their orders are "free". If you follow | the money, it looks like it's mostly Pay For Order Flow (PFOF). | I wonder why giant market-making hedge funds would pay for that | order flow... Another tech faustian bargain. | gruez wrote: | > I wonder why giant market-making hedge funds would pay for | that order flow... Another tech faustian bargain. | | It really isn't. They're making money off the spread (eg. | $105.01 bid vs $105.02 ask), which exists regardless of PFOF | (regulation NMS mandates that the price be better or equal to | NBBO). The reason why they want retail flow is that it's | mostly "uninformed" and they're less likely to get run over. | | matt levine explains this in detail: https://www.bloomberg.co | m/opinion/articles/2021-01-29/reddit... | | >I like to tell a fairly textbook version of that story. | Market makers stand ready to buy or sell stock from or to | customers; they try to buy for a bit less than they sell at, | and pocket the spread. If you go out into the market and say | "hey I'll buy anyone's stock for $10," and a really smart | hedge fund comes to you and sells you stock for $10, that's | probably bad. You've probably made a mistake. The hedge fund | is selling you the stock for $10 because it knows it's worth | $8. This is called "adverse selection." | | >More subtly, if a really big mutual fund comes to you and | sells you stock for $10, that also may be bad. The mutual | fund is probably selling lots of stock, because it's so big; | it sells you a little, then sells a little more, then a | little more, until it pushes the price down to $8. The mutual | fund isn't necessarily smart, but by virtue of being big and | doing big trades, it moves the price; if you are on the other | side of its trades, you get run over. This is also a kind of | adverse selection: You buy at $10 and are stuck selling at | $8. Part of the spread that market makers earn in public | markets--the difference between their buying and selling | prices--compensates them for adverse selection, the risk of | being run over by a counterparty who knows something they | don't. | | >Market makers, the textbook theory goes, would much rather | trade with retail orders. Retail investors generally don't | know much, so if you buy stock from them you're probably not | making a mistake. And retail orders are generally small and | uncorrelated: One investor buys a little, another comes along | a moment later and sells a little, it's all pretty random, | and you're not facing an avalanche of steady sell orders that | push the price down. Trading with retail is so nice that | market makers--wholesalers--will both give retail orders a | tighter spread (pay more to buy their stock, charge less to | sell stock to them) and pay their broker for the privilege of | doing it. | kolbe wrote: | Former CBOE market maker here. You and the person you're | responding to both have valid arguments. The problem is you | are choosing only to present the ones that make this | situation look good, and he's only insinuating the bad | ones. | | The fact is that this "spread" you speak of is a much more | theoretical concept than Matt Levine understands. There is | ample liquidity between the bid-ask in 99.9% of markets, | and by selling order flow to someone who will internalize | it at the worst legal price possible, they are | intentionally failing to fill an order at the best possible | price. | | RobinHood also features various dark patterns that are | designed to remove money from the pockets of their users | and put it into their own pockets. Off the top of my head, | I can list the following: | | (a) Very difficult access to bis-ask spread information | across multiple options. This keeps users ignorant of the | fact that some options may be better priced than others, | and gives market makers more opportunity to make more than | a fair market spread on the transaction. | | (b) Forced close-outs for reasons that no other legitimate | brokerages use. Even worse than being ill-infomed about | what to trade is to have all of your agency removed. It's | situations like these where the gap between a fair market | edge and the edge that market makers take becomes | offensive. | | (c) Disallowing option exercise before expiration. There | are many situations where an option owner should exercise | his option prior to expiry. Not only does RobinHood keep | its users ignorant of this fact, they actually don't even | allow their users to do it. In some circumstances, this can | give market makers a massive arbitrage opportunity. | | While you are right that one thing that makes RH flow more | valuable is the smaller average account money size, this is | actually far less of an issue than just the average account | financial IQ size. Citadel loves trading with pensions just | as much as RH users (i.e. similar financial IQ, but far | different sizes). It's just that the type of trading that | happens with each is a little different. | | Add in the aforementioned reasons for keeping them not only | ignorant, but handcuffed, then the more market makers will | pay RH for access. | gruez wrote: | >and by selling order flow to someone who will | internalize it at the worst legal price possible, they | are intentionally failing to fill an order at the best | possible price. | | AFAIK they have duty of best execution, so they're | _supposed_ get the best price irrespective of PFOF. | Obviously this conflicts with their own incentives, but | that 's what the laws are for. | | >RobinHood also features various dark patterns that are | designed to remove money from the pockets of their users | and put it into their own pockets. Off the top of my | head, I can list the following: | | I'm not a user so I didn't know any of these. Thanks for | bringing these up. _Informed_ complaints like these are | far better than the "they're front running you!" | complaints that people seem to repeat endlessly. | kolbe wrote: | > AFAIK they have duty of best execution, so they're | supposed get the best price irrespective of PFOF. | Obviously this conflicts with their own incentives, but | that's what the laws are for. | | There is a duty of best execution. I honestly don't even | know if its a crime or a licensing requirement or what. | Reg NMS seemed to have obviated it, and judging by the | failures to execute properly on the parts of major banks | (e.g. my family had a major bank execute a bond trade for | them that another bond trader friend of mine said was 10% | below a competitive market price. That is, they paid 90, | when you could have paid 100 in the competitive market), | my impression is this law is totally unenforced. | | Also, it looks like no one will be able to see my | criticisms because YC wants to protect their investment | going into the IPO by crushing this comment thread | beambot wrote: | What you are describing is market makers, not Robinhood. | Quoting directly from the S-1: | | > Our PFOF and Transaction Rebate arrangements with market | makers are a matter of practice and business understanding | and not documented under binding contracts. For the three | months ended March 31, 2021, 59% of our total revenues came | from four market makers. | | So 59% of Robinhood's revenue comes from selling PFOF to | market makers. I promise you that there isn't some magic | altruism on the part of market makers buying the PFOF and | then routing 40-60% of trades off-exchange. If it was | simple matter of profiting off bid-ask spread: Force those | orders through the exchanges instead of through dark pools. | | This is precisely why there's an entire section dedicated | to PFOF regulatory risk in their S-1. It's increasingly a | rigged game and rightfully deserves deep Congressional | intervention. | gruez wrote: | > What you are describing is market makers, not | Robinhood. Quoting directly from the S-1: | | Did i claim that robinhood is a market maker and/or | participates in market making? I simply explained how | market makers are making money in a non-nefarious way and | why they might pay robinhood for order flow. | | > I promise you that there isn't some magic altruism on | the part of market makers | | As explained in my prior comment there's no altruism | involved. Retail orders are valuable because they're | uninformed/non-toxic | | >and then routing 40-60% of trades off-exchange. If it | was simple matter of profiting off bid-ask spread: Force | those orders through the exchanges instead of through | dark pools. | | Why bring in dark pools and "off-exchange"? The whole | point of buying orderflow is to execute it yourself | rather than letting anyone execute them. | arcturus17 wrote: | I really don't understand this "democratizing" thing. | | In Spain, banks have allowed to trade on all kinds of assets | for ages. Some with low fees. If you wanted to buy a certain | asset you could do so in like three clicks. | | In the US I know as a fact that some banks like Charles Schwab | have also made retail investing accessible for ages... | | Robin Hood has "democratized" trading in the sense of | aggressively expanding it through marketing, maybe a cool UX (I | wouldn't know), but otherwise I don't see how it has innovated | significantly in the area of retail investing. | | Like a sibling commenter is saying it has also popularized day- | trading more than anything. The math about day-trading is | unequivocal and it may very well be that popularizing this is a | net loss for society, or at the very least (yet another?) | mechanism for transferring wealth from the middle class to | sophisticated elites (I mean, this wouldn't be a loss if you | believe it's stricly a zero-sum effect, and that wealth is just | as well in either set of hands) | | To be clear, I may have moral qualms with RH and the | popularization of day-trading, but I do believe in free market | economics and I think it should exist - I can only hope that in | time regular folk become educated about investing and that my | transfer theory doesn't come to fruition. | | I'm all open for counterpoints on both my claims that it hasn't | done all that much for democratizing retail investing and that | day-trading for the masses may be a bad proposition. | dilyevsky wrote: | CS had like $9 fee per trade before they felt the heat from | RH. Which btw was fine by me since it was small potatoes if | you just casually invest and hold for a year or longer. What | they really democratized is incessant day-trading, otm calls | on dogshit stocks etc. basically a casino pretending to be a | brokerage | jetru wrote: | It's like, you could upload videos to YouTube all you wanted | all the time, but TikTok made it more accessible. | cyral wrote: | > In the US I know as a fact that some banks like Charles | Schwab have also made retail investing accessible for ages... | | I was helping a friend open an IRA with Schwab the other day. | After you sign up, it just plops you into their dashboard | with no instructions at all. Search function was useless, | actually took tons of clicks for me to figure out how to fund | the IRA and invest it in an index fund (for example, the list | of target date funds isn't found anywhere on their menus, I | had to google and use their secondary fund site to find the | symbol). | | Basically they sure didn't make it easy or accessible for new | users, where as with Robinhood it is immediately obvious how | it works (I know Robinhood doesn't have IRAs but the patterns | for regular investing with other brokers are similar levels | of clunkiness) | JoelSanchez wrote: | Just curious, what banks are those? Renta 4 is mainly focused | on funds, and traditional banks like, say, BBVA, don't have | any stock trading features in their apps / websites, as far | as I know? | | I'm using Degiro for stocks. | paxys wrote: | Yeah, whatever you say about Robinhood, the fact that they came | in from nothing and massively disrupted a trillion+ dollar | industry is undeniable. Mainstream brokers used to charge $10+ | for a single trade, and the fees today are all down to 0. They | are also starting to build half-decent apps. | lquist wrote: | Democratizing investing is akin to democratizing gun ownership. | Yes, more people have access to the technology/service/etc. but | is it really desirable? | cwkoss wrote: | If they removed all of the dark patterns from their UI, I think | they could be a real social good. | [deleted] | matt_s wrote: | I have read anecdotes that their ToS is geared towards them | owning the securities because they pool purchases. Their | business model is the brokers are the ones that actually pay | them and potentially hold the securities. | | Also, from their recent "Systemic Supervisory Failures" [0]: | | > Between 2018 and late 2020, Robinhood experienced a series of | outages and critical systems failures. The most serious outage | occurred on March 2 and 3, 2020, when Robinhood's website and | mobile applications shut down, preventing Robinhood's customers | from accessing their accounts during a time of historic market | volatility. | | In the event of a large market downturn could you actually | transfer that 60k elsewhere or for that matter, even access the | platform to exit positions? | | Payment for order flow means you are likely in line behind | which ever Wall St firm is paying for that order flow. Yes that | is illegal for them to do (called front running I believe) but | the fines they pay are usually tiny compared to the revenue. | | [0] https://www.finra.org/media- | center/newsreleases/2021/finra-o... | atombender wrote: | Robinhood is a broker-dealer, and is subject to the same | regulations as everyone else. _All_ the major brokerages hold | securities under their name ( "in street name") on behalf of | the customer. You still retain legal ownership, even for | fractional shares. As far as I know, Robinhood has its own | clearing house subsidiary, Robinhood Securities, that handles | the share bookkeeping, including the fractional share | inventory you're talking about. | ditonal wrote: | Index funds democratized investing. Robinhood "democratized" | the worst part of investing and exposed unsophisticated | investors to the instruments they are most likely to | underperform on. Individual stock picking is probably worse | than indexes but fine, however the incentive to day trade or | trade complex derivatives is almost certainly going to hurt | people far more often than a Vanguard account. It's not a | coincidence Robinhood has been directly linked to teen suicide | and Vlad gave the proverbial lip service. | | In any case, it really doesn't matter. It's awful at order | execution, so you get worst prices on things. This was proven | but SEC just gave slap on wrist. | | Its an extremely immature platform and has outages at the worst | times. | | It's app is simple but missing key info compared to | competitors. | | Finally, the GameStop fiasco was unforgivable and only a naive | fool would accept the explanation given. Citadel is the | MAJORITY of Robinhood revenue and was opposite that trade. The | stock market has existed for over a century with online trading | for decades, including many volatile stocks, and apologists | can't name a single other example of one way trade | restrictions. It didn't happen during the Volkswagen short | squeeze. | | Despite that, apologists act like the clearing house | explanation is stone cold fact. Source? Not a single | investigation other than the word of Robinhood CEO, who | contradicted himself multiple times explaining it. It was the | fraud of the century and only people with little understanding | of finance bought the explanation. | WYepQ4dNnG wrote: | > Index funds democratized investing. Robinhood | "democratized" the worst part of investing and exposed | unsophisticated investors | | On the spot! Robinhood has made it so easy to trade that I | have seen many people trading from their mobile while having | a coffee or commuting! I would really like to see all these | "traders" in 5/10 years ... if it is true that 80% of day | traders loose money .. I bet tons of improvised traders will | learn a very expensive lesson. | | I don't do trading, I simply don't have time to fully look | into companies balance sheets etc. I buy index/mutual funds , | I might have missed the meme stocks but I am happy with my | steady growing investments, compounding effect works great! | ses1984 wrote: | Everyone feels like a genius in a bull market. A pile of | bread mold could make money in the stock market now. It | won't last forever though. | jackson1442 wrote: | I definitely fell into this trap, but fortunately came out | ahead. After switching to Vanguard I feel more comfortable | in my investments since I don't feel the time-pressure to | check performance etc. RH feels too much like a social | network where it's trying to push you to buy and sell every | single day while more traditional brokerages follow a "set | it and forget it" path. | nightski wrote: | I trade at the risk of lower overall returns for the chance | of very high returns. | | Index funds are for my retirement account, it's fun to have | a brokerage account and trade with it as a hobby. It's been | very profitable so far but I don't expect that to continue. | | I'd imagine day trading has a much higher return than | buying lottery tickets or gambling at a casino for example. | teawrecks wrote: | IMO if there ever existed an "American Dream" it was: the | ability for an individual to work hard, assume a high amount | of risk, get lucky, and reap the rewards. There was a time | when that was possible in the US, but it hasn't been that way | for a long time. | | It seems that in the 1900s the American Dream shifted to | mean: get a job, buy a house, have kids, don't take risks, | trust in the system and the system will support you. | | Now in 2021, it's more like: get a job to ensure you don't go | bankrupt from stupid high healthcare expenses, your employer | will keep all the profits and shift all the risks onto you, | and if you're moderately lucky and live in the right place, | you won't be homeless. | | I don't know how I feel about publicly traded stocks or the | stock market, but I can't help but feel like "index funds | democratized investing" is like saying "the 9 to 5 job | democratized the American Dream". | yreg wrote: | >It was the fraud of the century and only people with little | understanding of finance bought the explanation | | A CFO of a multimilion dollar company gave me the same | explanation independently before Robinhood gave any | statement. | 8note wrote: | What do you mean when you say "democratized investing" ? | | That people can get benefits from the stock markets? Or that | investment/economic decisions van be made democratically? | | Index funds rely on the the folks making the index to | determine which stocks get bought -- who's on the s&P 500 is | not a democratic process | [deleted] | [deleted] | starguide77 wrote: | When you say "It's awful at order execution, so you get worst | prices on things." What does "worst price" represent? How do | you get a "Worst price" than anywhere else? | gruez wrote: | >Source? Not a single investigation other than the word of | Robinhood CEO | | I'd welcome an investigation, but based on the rest of your | comment ("apologists", "only a naive fool would accept the | explanation given") my guess is that your mind is already | made up. | meowface wrote: | Not to mention "it was the fraud of the century". | tptacek wrote: | The problem with the conspiracy theory about Citadel forcing | Robinhood to halt GME is that plenty of providers for whom | Citadel wasn't most of their revenue also halted GME. There | are other reasons this conspiracy is silly, but that fact | seems to kill it pretty dead. | | I don't like Robinhood and don't feel any need to apologize | for it; I think they're predatory. But this isn't why. | | "Fraud of the century" is pretty funny, though. Kudos. | adabyron wrote: | M1, E-Trade, Trading 212, Interactive Brokers, TD | Ameritrade/Schwab and WeBull halted options as well.[1] There | are a few more I'm missing. | | I wasn't happy about it but I don't blame them. As much as | people were talking about over 100% of GME shorted, I can't | imagine how much margin on top of margin people were trading | while there options had yet to be settled. If anything the | issue should be how long it takes a trade to settle. | | [1]https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/robinhood- | we... | Judgmentality wrote: | > I wasn't happy about it but I don't blame them. | | What they did was illegal, so why not blame them? Robinhood | is being investigated for it. Why not blame everyone that's | guilty? | | https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx5p8z/feds-seized- | robinhood... | yreg wrote: | If I went for this positive spin, I'd talk about democratising | investing, not democratising trading. | | Democratising trading is not inherently good, similar to | democratising gambling. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | If people want to gamble (or do drugs), why should we be | nannies and stop them? | | I get the desire to stop commercial banks from gambling YOUR | savings. But why shouldn't you be able to gamble your own | savings if you want to? | [deleted] | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Huge societal costs that we all bear? | Consultant32452 wrote: | A few randos going bankrupt is a minor societal cost at | worst. The big societal costs are when the big boys get | bailed out, usually by deflating all of our currency. | mym1990 wrote: | It depends on how much you care for the person doing the | gambling or drugs and at which stage its at. Being a nanny | to everyone doing something 'bad' would be a 24/7 affair. | | On a large scale, eventually lots of people will be hurt. | Everyone thought they were having lots of fun in 2007, and | then people started jumping out of buildings. Those people | had family and friends. Many of the young people in the | market right now have never seen or gone through that, and | if they keep preaching 'stocks only go up' while trading on | 40x margin, they will eventually find out that stonks | sometimes go down. | yreg wrote: | I'm not saying we should be stopping them. But I also don't | consider democratising and enabling gambling or taking | drugs heroic. | | Similarly, I'm all for drinking alcohol yet wouldn't cheer | for an innovation that would make people drink more. | | ---- | | That being said, I think that RH (and many other platforms) | do in fact democratise investing (and that's great). | wanderingmind wrote: | Do you consider legalising drugs as good for the society? | Do you think drugs won't be advertised like how | cigarettes and alcohol is being advertised. This is the | price to live in a free society. You allow people to make | their mistakes and live by its consequences. | tonfa wrote: | > Do you think drugs won't be advertised like how | cigarettes and alcohol is being advertised | | Many countries ban advertizing for cigarettes. So while | it's not banned the cost on society and public health is | large enough that it's worth restricting advertizing. | | I realize that likely seems totally weird for US folks, | but that's really not weird at all in Europe. Same as | regulating advertizing targeting kids, etc. | NegativeLatency wrote: | There's a difference between stopping them and stopping | exploitative companies who want to profit off of them. | mdoms wrote: | > I understand that many give Robinhood crap because it is not | "sophisticated enough" | | I don't recall ever seeing anyone criticise RH for this. It's | RH's entire model to be unsophisticated and "democratise" | trading. | | > because of the Gamestop fiasco | | Anyone who doesn't criticise RH for this has rocks in their | heads. Anyone who believes RH's official explanation lacks | basic critical thinking skills. | [deleted] | [deleted] | gberger wrote: | The Chief Legal Officer, Daniel Gallagher, made $30M this year. | It breaks down into $257k cash, $4.2M bonus and $25.5M in stocks | and options. This is a far larger amount than any other | executive. | | In 2011-2015, Daniel Gallagher was 1 of 5 Commissioners of the | SEC (Securities and Exchange _Commission_), the highest role of | the SEC, appointed by the US President. | | He was hired by Robinhood in May 2020, and his previous job was | at WilmerHale, a firm specializing in defending other firms | against the SEC. | | This guy must be worth his weight in gold in avoiding regulatory | fines for Robinhood. | oliv__ wrote: | Talk about a revolving door... | swarnie_ wrote: | > In 2011-2015, Daniel Gallagher was 1 of 5 Commissioners of | the SEC | | > his previous job was at WilmerHale, a firm specializing in | defending other firms against the SEC. | | How is that situation even remotely legal? | s1artibartfast wrote: | Why wouldn't it be as long they follow the law in both jobs? | It is like defense attorney becoming a prosecutor or an IRS | employee becoming a tax advisor. | | The best person to give advice on a subject are those who | have experience on both sides. | bern4444 wrote: | Its not a good idea to allow heads of massive institutions | to just hop around right after their tenure is over. | | For one, it creates a negative incentive for the regulatory | roles. Now people will seek to be head of the SEC just so | they can score a specific job after. Incentives are | misaligned. | | Lots of private sector companies (especially law firms) | include non-compete clauses for similar reasons. They want | to prevent their former employees from leveraging their | insider information against them. | | An IRS employee becoming a tax advisor is one thing. The | head (and more broadly executive level personnel) of the | IRS becoming the head of accounting of a major firm is | another. | s1artibartfast wrote: | >For one, it creates a negative incentive for the | regulatory roles. Now people will seek to be head of the | SEC just so they can score a specific job after. | Incentives are misaligned. | | I just don't see the misalignment in incentives. Everyone | is thinking about their compensation next job, and it is | only a problem if being bad at your current job somehow | makes you more attractive to your next employer. | | Unlike the private sector, there shouldn't be any insider | information to protect. The SEC should be transparent | about the law. | raziel2701 wrote: | So the Big Short was spot on when it showed the SEC lady using | that position to leverage her way into a job in the sector | she's supposed to regulate. It makes sense an SEC regulator | knows all the ins and outs and would be the best person capable | of finding and exploiting loopholes. | kolbe wrote: | It also makes sense as a quid pro quo. But we can only | speculate either way. | DSingularity wrote: | How do you value the stock options of a company that hasn't had | its IPO? | jjice wrote: | Maybe off of current worth estimated after sale of shares to | earlier investors? I'm not completely sure though. | wfleming wrote: | Probably using the same fair market value that pre-IPO | startups calculate to assess your tax liability when you | exercise options. | mdoms wrote: | Same way you do after an IPO. Based on the sale price of the | stock. | bhahn wrote: | You generally use 409a valuations, which increase in | regularity and accuracy as the company matures (ie. gets | bigger and closer to an actual IPO). | bern4444 wrote: | Lots of ways to value a company. Once you have the value of | the entire company, the price per share just depends on the | number of shares. Options are then calculated based on a | formula using the price per share as one input. | | You can value a company by comparing it to its peers (this is | like company Y which has similar users, growth potential etc) | | You can value a company by only caring about its assets and | liabilities. | | Private shares of a company can exist and be traded, another | market based valuation just with fewer data points that are | private and not publicly shared. | | And plenty more ways. Finance is really all about answering | this question, how much is something worth and then creating | mechanisms to trade that value in different ways. | edoceo wrote: | Hmm. Vice says the CEO (Vlad) had his phone seized - not for this | thing but for the meme stock mess. Seems like a very big deal. | | https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx5p8z/feds-seized-robinhood... | ZoomerCretin wrote: | I was called a conspiracy theorist only yesterday for claiming | there was anything wrong with the restrictions. I'm glad to | know numerous federal agencies share my views. | tester756 wrote: | I always wonder how many hours goes into creating & reviewing | this big ass document | | also how careful you have to be to get this right | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | buy buy buy. Bullish! Opinion: | | * RH will drag the industry to T+0 settlement, thus breaking wall | street shenanigans with 100%+ short selling. Inevitable to see | the merging of on-chain settlement with traditional stonks. | | * RH has the largest amount of Dogecoin AUM globally (8.7B $USD | equiv) | | * RH has a lot of bitcoin, ether and other coins AUM. | | * RH will eventually be the biggest broker in the US (world)? | | * RH encourages dollar cost averaging and investing over time. | | * RH has lots of first time investors (18-24), who over time will | grow to be big investors | fnord77 wrote: | the WSB crowd despises RH now | pavlov wrote: | _> " lots of first time investors (18-24), who over time will | grow to be big investors"_ | | Or will be burned by the next prolonged downturn and exit the | market permanently. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Absolutely. Sofi is the smart play there vs RH. Getting HNW | folks onboard with student loan and HCOL property mortgages, | and then cross selling them deposit accounts and investing | access. "Young Money" Fidelity or Schwab. | | (not investing advice) | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Getting young people to get into debt is a very different | thing than getting them to build assets. RH gives (small) | margin loans from trading, not (large) student loans for | marginally useful university courses. | jimbob45 wrote: | "There is a famous story, we don't know if it's true, about | how in the late summer of 1929, a shoe-shine boy gave Joe | Kennedy stock tips, and Kennedy, being a wise old investor, | thought, "If shoe shine boys are giving stock tips, then it's | time to get out of the market." | | Seems like I'm getting a lot of advice about the market from | people with less knowledge about the market than shoe shine | boys. My mom and my sister are invested in Dogecoin and | neither can explain what a cryptocurrency is or even what the | doge meme was to begin with. Seems like the next prolonged | downturn is right around the corner. | danpattn wrote: | A few months ago I was at a car dealership filing out | paperwork on a new car. The sales guy asked me what I did | for work. I told him I was in finance. He immediately | perked up and asked "Are you into crypto? We all trade it | here." | | Turns out the whole dealership, or at least most of the | employees, traded crypto as a hobby. I asked a few | questions, mainly about Proof of Work, and the salesman had | no idea what that was. He was completely ignorant of how | crypto worked. | | The most common feature of assets bubbles is that they draw | in people who would normally never engage in risky | financial speculation. People early to the party get rich | and that draws in everyone else. Its hard to stay out of | the market when your neighbor has short-term gains larger | than your salary. | | In the tulip bubble, everyone was a botanist. In the tech | bubble, everyone was an equity trader. In the housing | bubble, everyone was flipping houses or getting their real | estate license. Now everyone is a crypto trader. Regardless | of how useful crypto will be in the future, there is only | one way this party ends. Pumping trillions of dollars into | the economy can delay the pain, but the pain seems | inevitable at this point. | hef19898 wrote: | Well, it was a shoe shine boy on wall street. So, | especially back tue day, he should have been quite well | informed! | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Yes, this apocryphal story sucks. Why wouldn't a shoe | shine boy (or an uber driver -- for contemporary | equivalence) not have insight from the many conversations | he would have with informed people during their day? | | The casual throw away statement about business made | during transit from a passenger might be important info. | | This story is just elitism, and exactly the argument Wall | Street used against RH. "unsophisticated traders". Sorry | Mr Banker, the market is made up of people. Claiming | unsophistication is a projection of their own | insecurities. | mym1990 wrote: | Because 2 reasons: 1. Insight is great, but I would hope | that there is underlying understanding of the field based | on actual study and experience(assuming the shoe shiner | is not in finance). 2. The shoe shiner or Uber driver | likely has no idea who they are talking to, past the | initial impression. I would be open to a conversation | about finance with an Uber driver, but I would probably | not rush home to put money on it. | hef19898 wrote: | There are two aspects to the story. One, the shoe shine | boy probably heard a lot of stuff. Two, he definitely had | no business in trading stock. And two is the important | one, once "dumb money" shows up in droves it is maybe | time to get out. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | If that shoe shine boy (or uber driver) was alive in the | mid to late 2010s, they would probably do trading | business with RH. And that is why I am bullish on RH. | sfblah wrote: | Yeah. Hard to make predictions, but this sort of breathless | enthusiasm seems worrisome. | mym1990 wrote: | Optimism > Enthusiasm > Exhilaration > Euphoria | | Hard to know exactly where we are right now, but certainly | feels closer to the latter. | drewburg wrote: | Does this remind anyone else of the high APR (20-30%) credit | cards offered to college students? I remember a table set up | outside the main dining hall where they pitched getting | started building that credit history ASAP. Now it's about | building that portfolio ASAP and offering it to the most | risk-tolerant age demographic. Subtly updated buying whatever | you want on credit and worrying about whether you could | afford it later, to buying into whatever risky position you | want and worrying about covering it later. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | No? Because high APR cards are a trap to leech money from | the young -- eg debt. Investing in growth assets like | stonks is building assets. Very very different things! | pavlov wrote: | If you'd bought a portfolio of the 2000 class of stonks, | most of those equities would now be worthless or acquired | for pennies along the way. | | There were very few Amazons in the mix, and very many | Palms. Even a reliable blue-chip like Cisco is still | underwater compared to its March 2000 price. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | These people have no other option but to buy stonks and | crypto. Their dollars lose value every year, and even a | market downturn will look attractive vs fiat inflation. Bull | market for the next 100 years! | abriosi wrote: | That's what happens when you spend a decade printing _a lot_ of | money | | Value becomes diluted | paulpauper wrote: | this logic makes no sense. did you get this from peters | schiff.com or something? Tech stocks surged in the 90s despite | the fed raising rates and the treasury runing a budget surplus. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Why can't low interest rates be good for tech stocks, but | also all the innovation in the 90s be good for tech stocks? | | It appears like you're saying that only one of these can | possibly be good for tech stocks. | | Why not both? | | How do you know tech stocks couldn't have done much better in | the 90s under different monetary conditions (ZIRP and a | Federal Deficit of 35% of GDP)? | [deleted] | paulpauper wrote: | speculative bubbles are independent of monetary and fiscal | policy. if someone thinks they can make 100% returns on | their investment,what difference does 0 vs 2% interest rate | makes? Look at the housing market in the 2000s , which | surged despite interest rates being high. | gruez wrote: | >speculative bubbles are independent of monetary and | fiscal policy | | If the fed pumps a few trillion dollars into the market | and causes everything to go up in price, and bystanders | look at that and decide to buy in, then that seems like | that the fed's action caused the speculative bubble. | lottin wrote: | Actually the Fed doesn't pump dollars into the market. | The fed buys bonds in the open market with newly created | deposits. This alters the _composition_ of balance sheets | of financial institutions but not the size. | gruez wrote: | >Actually the Fed doesn't pump dollars into the market | | Except when they did. Random google search: | | >The central bank began purchasing ETFs such as the | iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) | and the Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond ETF | (VCIT) in early May last year. | | However, even if all they do is buy bonds, money is | fungible so those purchases will still spill over to | other markets as investors chase for yields. If you pump | a few trillion dollars into the bond market it's | unrealistic to assume that it'll stay contained to just | the bond market. | lottin wrote: | If you are a bond holder, and the Fed buys $1000 worth of | bonds from you for $1000, how is this causing everything | to go up in price? Notice that your purchasing power is | exactly the same before and after the purchase. | gruez wrote: | >If you are a bond holder, and the Fed buys $1000 worth | of bonds from you for $1000 | | Then what, do you just keep that $1000 in cash while | inflation slowly eats away at it? No, you'll invest it in | something else (eg. stocks), so now the market for that | has an extra $1000 injected into it. | whateveracct wrote: | Monetary policy makes people viscerally upset for some reason | [deleted] | dang wrote: | We detached this subthread from | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27702432 and marked it off | topic. | | Please don't take HN threads on generic tangents. | | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... | | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... | abriosi wrote: | I understand your detachment | | For me there is a clear connection from flooding the system | with cash and/or negative interest rates with hyper- | financialization | | "Dogecoin, created as a joke, is now in an S-1 as a material | item" -> I consider this an hyper-financialization episode | | The objective of the comment was to provide an simple | explanation to a funny comment | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27702432 | | I also consider monetary policy one of the principal factors | for so many services created around money and cashflows | | Its gotten to the point that there are whole business models | mounted around money and cashflow which bring negative value | to the world | | Although I understand the detachment I don't agree, because | now the comment looks completely offtopic and tagent. I wish | we could delete comments in these situations | Alkhwarizmi wrote: | Please seek some actual legitimate information | CPLNTN wrote: | Dude here thinking that inflation is just a product of the | amount of money in an economy | jiocrag wrote: | It's not _just_ a product of money supply, but money supply | is certainly a factor, and we won't really know how big of a | factor until we see if inflation persists past Covid related | supply chain constriction. | [deleted] | mdoms wrote: | The value of what? The US Dollar? Are you claiming some kind of | runaway inflation? Because I don't know of any economists who | agree with that. | abriosi wrote: | deleted | [deleted] | [deleted] | jiocrag wrote: | What were the economists saying in 2007? 1999? 1987? | CapriciousCptl wrote: | Per-user revenue was $109 for 2020. My goodness payment for order | flow and cryptocurrency rebates are lucrative. | ok2938 wrote: | Funny that you are being played most, when you think you are in | control. | tofuahdude wrote: | Robinhood's "values": | | Safety First, Participation Is Power, Radical Customer Focus, and | First-Principals Thinking | | There's a real dissonance in the combination of Safety First and | Participation Is Power points. | | Where do we draw the line between providing the ability to | participate and safety? | | Many of the tools Robinhood has "democratized" for the masses are | in fact quite financially dangerous to unsophisticated users. | They've game-ified complex financial instruments; that doesn't | exactly speak to safety. | seanarnold wrote: | Wow, I should become a Chief Legal Officer.. | timdorr wrote: | I wonder if they will list themselves on their IPO access | offering: https://robinhood.com/us/en/support/articles/ipo- | access/ | | It's going to be interesting to buy Robinhood with Robinhood... | martin_ wrote: | Looks like it: | | "RHF, one of our broker-dealer subsidiaries, is a member of the | selling group for this offering. We expect the underwriters to | reserve approximately 20 to 35% of the shares of our Class A | common stock offered by this prospectus for RHF, acting as a | selling group member, to allocate for sale to Robinhood | customers through our IPO Access feature on our platform. Any | such sales will be made at the same initial public offering | price, and at the same time, as any other purchases in this | offering, including purchases by institutions and other large | investors, and in accordance with customary broker-dealer | practices and procedures." | qeternity wrote: | It's interesting that they could be earning fees off their own | underwriting. That would probably be an industry first. | _fat_santa wrote: | Intercontinental Exchange is a publicly traded company. And | they own and operate NYSE. | carstenhag wrote: | Interesting, is that allowed in the US? In Germany, you can't | buy Lang&Schwarz shares via the Lang&Schwarz trading platform | (akin to an exchange) - doesn't matter what broker you are | using. You always have to use Xetra or some other exchange. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-01 23:00 UTC)