SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about revenue sources

Re:SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about... by cj on Thursday December 17, 2020 @10:07AM (#25456187)

Sometimes what's good for the 1 person isn't good for everyone.

For example, if a bank starts giving out 0% interest 100 year mortgages (with some fine print that gives them some obscure revenue source to make it possible for them to make such an appealing offer) the bank should still get in trouble in my opinion if the consumer isn't informed about how they're getting such an amazing deal, because you're removing the consumer's ability to make an informed decision.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about... by ehejsbbejsk on Thursday December 17, 2020 @10:23AM (#25456342)

I know what you want to say but that’s an awfully bad example. I would take out that loan 10 times over.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about... by jellicle on Thursday December 17, 2020 @11:58AM (#25457406)

I believe for this example to be correct, the bank would also be hiding in its documentation that you have to pay an annual $100,000 mortgage paperwork fee for this 0% loan.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about... by ac29 on Thursday December 17, 2020 @11:14AM (#25456908)

So would everyone else, and it would massively push up the price of housing. I think that was the point.

[ Parent | on HN ]