This works in certain industries (e.g. Uber), but not in others, especially heavily regulated ones.

Didn't Uber's self-driving car hit and kill a jaywalker?

In Uber's defense, killing someone is pretty much always an "beg forgiveness" rather than "ask permission" situation

no, killing someone is what happens when you absolutely should have asked for permission. you don't get forgiveness for that.

Didn't seem to stop them for long:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/tech/uber-self-driving-tests/...

To be fair, they're proposing significantly improved safety procedures. To also be fair, there are not many people (as opposed to corporations) who would be out on good behavior 6 months after being convicted of vehicular manslaughter.

I think he/she was talking about them avoiding taxi legislation, not the self driving branch.

Or the president of SIPC is not speaking authoritatively for the organization and doesn't realize the RH lawyers have already been talking with SIPC about this.

Of course, maybe that didn't happen, but between the idea that RH would build and announce a new product without running past the proper regulatory authorities, and the idea that the president of SIPC might just be wrong ... well, the latter seems more plausible to me.

"It's plausible" is not the answer anyone wants to hear to the question "Is my money safe?"

You really think the president and CEO of the SIPC is a... freaking clown?? Sorry if that tone is harsh, but that statement appears completely ludicrous on its face to me. Can you provide a little context on why you would trust startup lawyers over the chief executive of a major government organization?

Nobody said a "freaking clown" or anywhere near that. The higher up you are at a company or organization, the less visibility you have into the day to day operations. What OP is saying is simply that the CEO of SIPC may not be informed in the discussions that already happened with Robinhood.

Simply put, Robinhood has far more at risk than the SIPC by launching without SIPC insurance. The banking industry is heavily regulated and Robinhood has been in the brokerage game for enough now to know that a major product launch like this in a tightly regulated area requires massive amounts of paperwork and approval. A mistake like this could collapse not only this new product but also their brokerage. It's far more likely that they have done their due diligence before announcing and launching a product that has that big of a risk.

It's more likely than the CEO of this organization making an uninformed public statement. Doing so is indeed the behavior of a clown. But I guess we'll see.

Edit: We don't even have to wait! SMH...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2018/12/14/robin...