[HN Gopher] Robinhood is still severely limiting trading
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Robinhood is still severely limiting trading
        
       Author : drocer88
       Score  : 77 points
       Date   : 2021-01-29 20:13 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
        
       | subsubzero wrote:
       | Thought experiment:
       | 
       | Lets say everyone(or just the people who are in GME) decided to
       | liquidate their holding on RH now, ie. they are fed up with that
       | exchange for various reasons. From what I understand they would
       | not be able to pay out funds to sellers? If so this would create
       | a 1920's style run on their exchange that could spill over into
       | other exchanges? I am genuinely curious as it would behoove RH to
       | let people keep buying vs. sell only.
        
         | tedunangst wrote:
         | You wouldn't be able to transfer the money out until it
         | settles.
        
         | proverbialbunny wrote:
         | Stock has a 2 day settlement period, so Robinhood could pay
         | out, but it would have a 2 day delay before an ACH transfer
         | would start when liquidating their account.
        
       | vsareto wrote:
       | Can anyone here verify that this was possible while markets were
       | open? Buy call option, exercise, get more shares than RH's trade
       | limit:
       | 
       | https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l82y7u/how_...
        
         | valuearb wrote:
         | Fastest way to put Robinhood into liquidation so you can get a
         | fraction of your account value back years later.
        
           | [deleted]
        
       | bowmessage wrote:
       | Getting flashbacks to Mt. Gox's behavior in early 2014...
        
       | e-clinton wrote:
       | If they legitimately are experiencing a liquidity crisis, then
       | limit purchases on securities other than the ones retail
       | investors are buying in their war with the hedge funds. Go limit
       | Apple, Microsoft or Tesla.
        
       | kinghajj wrote:
       | Other brokerages still have restrictions as well. I haven't been
       | able to write a covered call against my AMC shares. Hopefully
       | they let us "normal" traders start writing options next week, and
       | the premiums remain relatively high.
        
       | valuearb wrote:
       | Yea, I wonder if Robinhood can survive into next week. Clearly
       | their DTCC collateral requirements are skyrocketing and tapping
       | out their credit lines wasn't enough.
       | 
       | 50-50 chance that Robinhood files bankruptcy and WallStreetBets
       | traders get stuck waiting months or years for their positions to
       | settle.
       | 
       | That would be the ultimate irony after the tantrums they threw
       | yesterday while Robinhood was drowning.
        
         | jmalicki wrote:
         | Is there any evidence that RH's collateral requirements
         | specifically are increasing?
         | 
         | The DTCC typically has a restricted list of specific securities
         | with higher than usual collateral requirements, usually because
         | of volatility - it seems that in RH's case, their use base
         | mostly wants to trade stocks on this restricted list, causing
         | severe issues for RH.
        
         | vmsp wrote:
         | Wouldn't that, basically, guarantee the short squeeze, though?
         | If people can't access their broker, they can't sell.
         | 
         | Or can Robinhood start liquidating their customer's positions
         | without authorization?
        
           | piva00 wrote:
           | I think it all depends on how they will assign ownership to
           | the assets. Stocks are, at sometimes, a surprisingly tricky
           | case to determine ownership [0].
           | 
           | [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-14/ban
           | ks-...
        
         | thebean11 wrote:
         | I can't see this happening, why wouldn't investors just give
         | them a bridge loan? They'd be insane to let their (massive)
         | investment go to zero, when the alternative is an ultra-short
         | term loan with basically no risk (the funds are just stuck at
         | the clearinghouse as I understand it).
        
           | jmalicki wrote:
           | They did get new investment (the story isn't clear if it's a
           | bridge loan or equity)
           | 
           | https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/29/robinhood-
           | raises-1b-after-...
        
           | valuearb wrote:
           | Maybe their investors can't come up with multiple billions in
           | the next few days?
           | 
           | And what if GME goes to $1,000 Monday, or $10? And Robinhood
           | still gets liquidated? Where is there no risk?
        
           | 015a wrote:
           | In the past three days, they've taken a $2.5B emergency
           | credit line from JP Morgan and $1B in emergency funding from
           | their investors. This all happened before these trade
           | restrictions.
           | 
           | At the scale we're talking about here, it gets to a point
           | very quickly where nothing can save them except government
           | intervention. Robinhood may not be at that point yet (and I
           | very much doubt the government would step in to help them),
           | but its also the case that their eligibility for huge loans
           | like they need is hurt because the measures they need to take
           | to remain solvent (locking down trades) is also hurting their
           | future revenue (users are concerned and may pull out). That's
           | why liquidity events are so scary; everything just stops, and
           | when you stop a market it sometimes can't ever get going
           | again.
        
           | tedunangst wrote:
           | The risk is that the million or whatever new users who just
           | funded their account with an ACH transfer from their checking
           | account don't actually have those funds in their bank.
        
       | ww520 wrote:
       | Despite the restricted trades GME is doing well today. It will be
       | a bloodbath for the shorts next week.
        
         | SpicyLemonZest wrote:
         | Why would next week in particular be a bloodbath for the
         | shorts? I think you're falling victim to a sliding timeline
         | here - when I asked people up until late Wednesday, they
         | consistently said that today was the bloodbath day.
        
         | paulpauper wrote:
         | yup, so much for that media narrative blaming WSB and Robinhood
         | for manipulating the market. Everyone expecting GME to tank but
         | it refuse to. Shorts will keep being forced to cover at higher
         | and higher prices.
        
       | c0nducktr wrote:
       | That restricted list has some odd ones in it. Starbucks and GM
       | are both limited to 1 share per day. I really wonder what's going
       | on behind the scenes.
        
         | kenhwang wrote:
         | Starbucks has high volume/volatiliy from its earnings call
         | earlier this week. GM just dropped major news (only EVs by
         | 2035) also causing some stock buzz.
        
       | nodesocket wrote:
       | They had AMD and Starbucks on the limit of one share ownership?
       | Huh, these companies aren't even part of the Reddit frenzy.
        
         | kenhwang wrote:
         | AMD and SBUX just had earnings calls this week. They'll
         | naturally have high volume and volatility.
        
           | nodesocket wrote:
           | I have been investing in the market for over 15 years. Since
           | when do earnings announcements cause a brokerage to limit
           | buying?
        
       | 015a wrote:
       | They're legitimately experiencing a liquidity crisis right now,
       | and their CEO went on the news and lied about it to the public.
       | I'm out of other explanations; GM moved 0.7% today, and it has
       | trading restrictions? Are they afraid that people will mistype
       | GME?
        
         | meowkit wrote:
         | Did he lie about it or was just not clear? RH and the other
         | brokerages have said it was capital requirements imposed by the
         | clearing houses, which makes sense given Fidelity and Vanguard
         | were not having this issue. My question is why did the clearing
         | houses make this decision? Whats the risk management logic
         | here?
        
           | lordnacho wrote:
           | Well I don't want to say positive things about financial risk
           | models, but it does make sense that they flash higher risk
           | when the price has moved so much.
           | 
           | Basically, if I'm lending you money to buy something and that
           | thing is suddenly moving a whole lot more than it used to,
           | it's prudent to ask for more collateral to cover your
           | potential losses.
        
           | viscanti wrote:
           | Apple trades an order of magnitude more per day than any of
           | the stocks that were halted. So why are there no liquidity
           | issues there but there are with the stocks that keep being
           | halted?
        
             | tedunangst wrote:
             | GME moved about 2/3 as much as AAPL today.
        
             | evanpw wrote:
             | On Tuesday, GME traded more volume than any other stock,
             | and that's on a day when the total market volume was much
             | higher than usual (Wednesday is now the all-time record for
             | share volume).
        
             | [deleted]
        
             | karmicthreat wrote:
             | Because your collateral requirement can vary based on the
             | stock volatility.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | 015a wrote:
           | My guess is that Robinhood's deposits with the DTCC are
           | running dry, so they're charging more to settle any
           | transactions to manage their own risk. Robinhood then locks
           | down a bunch of popular stocks in addition to the volatile
           | ones.
           | 
           | In a way, its a tragedy of the commons. It would be both sad
           | and ironic if the only casualty of this black swan event were
           | robinhood. But, they likely still have avenues open to them
           | toward recovery.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | karmicthreat wrote:
           | Because if RH were to collapse the clearing house would be
           | left holding the bag. And clearing houses don't have that
           | kind of money. So DTCC (the main clearing house) going under
           | would stop pretty much all trading in the US.
           | 
           | So the clearing house requires 100% collateral for some
           | stocks now instead of up to 5%. RH can't afford that and GME
           | has been eating up 50% of RH daily trades.
        
             | HenryKissinger wrote:
             | > So DTCC (the main clearing house) going under would stop
             | pretty much all trading in the US.
             | 
             | What would be the impact of that on the global financial
             | markets? On the real economy?
             | 
             | I think we're going to see some difficult regulations on
             | retail investors in the not too far future.
        
               | karmicthreat wrote:
               | Realistically? Nobody is going to let DTCC go under,
               | ever. But they don't want to be the one begging for a
               | government bailout either.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | tedunangst wrote:
         | My friend's uncle said he got a tip that what happened is
         | citadel buys servers from intel who called robinhood on the
         | rico line and told them to kill amd.
        
         | noncoml wrote:
         | Yeah, looks like they are stuck between a rock and a hard
         | place.
         | 
         | On one hand if they don't admit their liquidity problems,
         | people will blame them for playing the HFs game.
         | 
         | If they do admit, well.. it's pretty much game over for them.
         | 
         | I wouldn't say their CEO lied yesterday. More like he talked a
         | lot without really saying anything.
        
           | 015a wrote:
           | On CNBC yesterday, Vlad's exact words were "No, to be clear,
           | there is no liquidity problem" [1].
           | 
           | I'm willing to accept that it wasn't a total lie yesterday,
           | and the situation has developed. I think we're past the point
           | to where that statement would still be truthful today.
           | 
           | [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/29/robinhood-ceo-vlad-tenev-
           | tap...
        
         | LatteLazy wrote:
         | Forgive my ignorance: what's a liquidity crisis? They use
         | client money for client equity orders so they don't need to
         | front anything right?
        
           | 015a wrote:
           | I have a comment from earlier today on another post that I
           | think is accurate enough:
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25958644
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-01-29 23:02 UTC)