What you are saying amounts to "when long tail stuff happens," order flow agreements, credit lines and clearing agreements that break down."
This, very directly insulates them (Citadel, other contract originators, RH) from the actual risk they are supposedly being paid for. It's also ostensibly the reason why retail investors can't have access to the same vehicles as financial firms. Retail investors can't reliably back that long term risk. Here is yet another example of loss limits for insiders.
No one is saying that you are not right. You are. The contractual complex does melt down at this point. The rage is people who think this is not ok.
excuse me? what part of inflating GME to $400 is a deserved long term return?
this is effectively a pump and dump scheme, whether or not most of the participants think so. once the squeeze stops, no ones buying GME over $100 and everyone left holding shares better have bought two weeks ago or theyre gonna lose money.
Most of these people aren't holding any stocks. They're buying derivatives, so they technically have no stocks to dump. They will likely bet like crazy on the downward part too.
In other words, the situation is "too complicated," and the only solution is that the not-rich person should not do what they're doing with GME right now.
Got it.
1. https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/1/28/keeping-customers-...
Any good lie is based on some truth. That veneer of plausibility makes everyone else carry your water for free.
What issues does it create if your whole client base suddenly want to buy GME?
I guess if volumes overall go up a lot, you might need to post more capital? But since your revenue should be up too, that's a good thing right? And its only for a while, I don't think anyone thinks this will go on for months do they?
And surely it's easier for your clearing house to clear 1 name than 10,000 names?
For no-frills, long, equity positions, it feels like it should be the easiest thing in the world to do. I'm happy to be corrected, I'm aware back office logistics is a dark art so maybe I and other readers can learn something?
Edit: I'm honestly not trying to be snarky here. I just don't get why it would be that big of a problem. I'd be happy to be rescued from my ignorance.
> Our clearing firm gave us a call and said we're going to have to stop allowing new opening positions... there is a two-day settlement between if you buy the stock today, those brokerage firms that you bought that stock on have to fund that trade with the clearing central house called DTC for two whole days... our clearing firm simply cannot afford the cost to settle those trades. We cannot use customer funds to front that cost due to regulation.
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...
The exchange between A and B isn't direct, or instantaneous. The actual money transfer takes days, and there are parties in between that make it possible to pretend it's immediate - much like with insta-transfers of money between the banks. Apparently, these parties are on the hook for any money that is "in flight", so they need to have a substantial buffer.
Once you get this many people trading on a stock this volatile, apparently the buffer in the middle isn't sufficient to cover the risk, so the parties in the middle stop accepting these trades.
EDIT: 'imladyboy quotes the source from which I pieced most of the interpretation above. See also 'JumpCrisscross here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25951475.
>"If you wanna buy GME you gotta have the cash in your account to cover it".
That's great, but that isn't the only relationship in this agreement, RH has agreements with its brokers about capital requirements. It's fairly likely that the attitude of "You need to have cash on hand for everything" basically means "You're done". That's the entire point of these risk management strategies - you are covered for what might reasonably happen so that you're making efficient use of capital.