stilky

Can't read the first one, but the second one focuses on foreclosure rates which seems more indicative of an economic shock rather than general low affordability.

That's essentially what a stock buyback does. The two options to return earnings to the owners are to issue a dividend, which is taxed at a higher rate or to buy back stock which drives up the value of outstanding shares thus returning value to the shareholders

Difference is the FDIC insurance, mainly. Being member FDIC means that you have to go through a ton of regulatory requirements to be sure that you're financially stable. A bank can offer whatever interest it wants on its account if it manages to stay in compliance. If Robinhood were to become member FDIC and offer 3% I imagine there'd be no qualms about it.

SIPC on the other hand is more relaxed because it covers less. It only covers when a member broker becomes insolvent and is unable to return a security to you that you own.

There are similar funds that invest in short term treasuries and often that you can write checks against, however they don't offer 3% and they're very transparent that you own these securities and are subject to the (very low) risk that comes with owning them.

Robinhood's marketing sounds a lot more like a standard FDIC insured bank account but they're saying it's SIPC insured instead, and the SIPC is confused about what securities they would actually be insuring

Yeah most online banks like this don't accept cash deposits via ATM. If you need a cash deposit it's done either via depositing at a traditional bank and transferring, or getting a money order and cashing that via mobile check deposit.

Same here, they also have very good service. 24/7 chat assistance and I haven't waited for more than 30 seconds to be connected to a customer service representative.

The reputation hit from being wrong is much bigger than the ad revenue from this one story. Bloomberg has been a very reputable and trusted source and wouldn't willingly throw that away