Re:Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agree...
by gruez on Saturday January 30, 2021 @01:44PM
(#25971678)
Not really, because the amount of deposit you need to put up is proportional to the volatility, among other factors. Therefore it makes sense to shut down trading for the stocks that incur a disproportionately high amount of deposit requirements for them. I guess it's possible for them to say "fuck it" and let everything trade until they run out of money, but I don't think they have an obligation to do that.
Re:Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agree...
by ssorallen on Saturday January 30, 2021 @01:50PM
(#25971760)
The collateral required by Robinhood’s clearing house to trade these stocks was raised to 100%, and it takes 2 days for trades to clear. Required collateral for other equities was not raised so there was no reason any other equities needed to be limited.
Re:Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agree...
by MattGaiser on Saturday January 30, 2021 @01:45PM
(#25971715)
Those particular stocks had their deposit requirements increase, not all stocks.
Re:Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agree...
by freeone3000 on Saturday January 30, 2021 @01:55PM
(#25971818)
You'll notice on Friday, a list of stocks with high volatility had restricted trading - including non-meme stocks, like AMD. It's a reaction to higher holding percentages.
Re:Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agree...
by LegitShady on Saturday January 30, 2021 @02:07PM
(#25971934)
The liquidity claim on tv was never supported and was later retracted. David Portnoy also called it out directly as well. Liquidity was not the reason for Robin hoods actions.
That's not true, they only blocked trades on those specific stocks. If it was really a liquidity issue then they could have rate limited all trades equally regardless of the stock in question.