News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about... by hef19898 on Thursday December 17, 2020 @02:14PM (#25459141)
I always wondered how these companies made money. My first suspicion was, that they "fed" stupid retail clients thay had no place in trading to the big fishes.

I learned so much in this thread, making it one of my favorites. And showing again why HN is the great thing it is.

Also, even I wasn't really right, RH and others sure found a way to price and sell an existing service better than incumbents. And in good disruptive tradition seem to have ignored certain regulations.

Re:SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about... by tptacek on Thursday December 17, 2020 @02:42PM (#25459479)
The "certain regulation" here is simply that you can't advertise to your customers that you're getting them the best possible deal when you have deliberately chosen not to give them the best deal. As the SEC points out: their pricing isn't better than traditional brokerages. This isn't like Uber, where the lie is that the low prices are subsidized by investors and will be jacked up later on down the road; here, the lie is taken directly out of the hide of RH customers.
Re:SEC charges Robinhood $65M for misleading customers about... by sweeneyrod on Thursday December 17, 2020 @05:08PM (#25461156)
That's true only if the service Robinhood is providing is giving customers good deals. It seems quite plausible that instead it is actually providing entertainment in the form of "free" trading. If this is the case, the lack of explicit commission is a key feature.