rb

I am not sure what you are trying to prove. The deaths are going down much more sharper than new cases. That shows CFR is going down. And Arizona deaths/million is 180. NY is 1598. That's gonna be interesting to watch if it's more or less deadly in Arizona. Arizona recently started to spike, so we'll need a few more weeks to see mortality.

Wow! that is some of the DUMBEST stuff I have heard in my life. And I've heard some whoppers. I know I'm gonna be sorry for it, but I must still ask, if he's so busy causing covid? Why is he planting bricks?

Aren't they planning a large political rally tomorrow? I think protesting police brutality and corruption and racism may be a cause worth taking risks for, but getting on stage to get some narcissistic supply may not rise to that level... Arizona and Florida are starting to look bad. But has anyone taken a look at Oklahoma? They printed 450 cases which is a 74% increase over the previous all time high. Which was... the day before.

Umm, I don't understand retard that well so maybe someone can help me out. What does Bill Gates have to do with it?

Can't read it, needs login. Mind posting the text? Right-click, select "open in private window"

I was wondering about this issue as well and being form Canada I realized that one issue never entered my mind that may complicate things for Americans. While these people are being say "unemployed". Do they still get health insurance covered by their company? Because I think that would be a big issue for Americans.

OT? I am afraid that our expectations in both of these cases are too high. In fact, I am afraid that our expectations of human behavior in general are too high. Whether applied to young people in their 20s, or people in general, or "highly rational" investment professionals frequenting certain investment forums, or even people at the highest levels of business or politics. Yeah, that makes me a misanthrope. :-\ That is why caveat emptor should be the only law for adults. This was an adult who made his own decisions (and misunderstandings) and chose to not ask anyone for help. Unrestricted gambling and drugs should be available for adults as well, both online and off. It isn't a brokerage's responsibility to baby sit its clients. Or at least, it shouldn't be. KJP I think you are a lawyer right? Your argument doesn't make that much sense to me. Yes there are casinos and there is gambling. But Robinhood is not a casino, it is a brokerage. Gambling on stocks (while legal in the UK) is not legal in the US. Should Robinhood choose to convert to a casino, sure they can go and lay out the craps tables. But while they are a brokerage shouldn't they have to obey the laws and regulations governing brokerages? RK, maybe caveat emptor should be the only law. But it isn't. Companies should respect the laws that are, not the laws that they wish they were. Wouldn't you agree? Now even should drugs were legal wouldn't you want the company that markets heroin to have a sign on the package that says this product is known to be harmful and overuse may cause death. Or do you want the heroin companies to run campaigns to "do as much heroin as you possibly can", sell discount heroin to teens cause that's the best time to "get them" etc?

Bill is a friend of mine. But thanks for making it clear who's the real one here. Bill Brewster is not a friend of mine, but I follow him on Twitter and also follow Tobias Carlisle podcast. He wanted to bring the whole tragedy out in the open to shine a light on what’s happening here. Others stated that it will end in tears, but this is worse than tears. Bill B seems. genuine too me and I am baffled why anyone thinks he is deuche. Look I've said all I had to say on Bill Brewster and won't go any further as I don't want to inflame the situation. I'm not that invested about some guy on twitter. I have said for a while here one several threads that what Robinhood is doing is down right criminal. It was only a matter of time before this happened and it is probably not going to be the only case. Also, while people taking their own lives is tragic (I'm not going to go into details but I don't take suicide lightly), there will be many other cases that just loose life savings because of Robinhood's business model. Those won't make the headlines but are devastating as well. What I see that is troubling is that on these platforms they're not just taking some margin and doing some more risky stuff. They go balls to the wall on risk. Option strategies on some really risky volatile underlying. This stuff is risk, on top of risk, on top of risk. Stuff that no amateur should be doing. And they're amateurs, cause the pros are not on free trading apps. Seeing all that is frightening enough. But it really looks like the company's business model is to encourage all that risk taking. They're out there fanning the flames with their marketing and their social media component seems to be designed to encourage this sort of behaviour. So i guess God help their clients.

As I've said before i fully agree on the education part. But to use your analogy, well drugs aren't legal yet and KYC is still a thing. This is more of an explanation along the lines of well they all want drugs so we give it to them. They're junkies so some of them will OD, what do you expect. Yeah, but right now drugs are still illegal and drug dealing is still a crime. - All in analogous terms.

Here's the difference between your experience with Dean Witter and Robinhood in regards to KYC. Yes KYC, is a bit of a joke in reality, especially when it comes to discount brokerages. But they still need that fig leaf of "We couldn't possibly have know he was lying". You meekly lied on your Dean Witter account application then you quietly went home. If you did a dance in the Dean Witter lobby about how dumb you are about financial markets I guarantee you that Dean Witter would have closed your account. In fact that is the very reason why you quietly went home. The difference between that and Robinhood is that Robinhood clients are effectively having a luau in the Robinhood boardroom about how dumb they are about financial markets and Robinhood executives are going like "I LOVE I!, GIMME MORE!". If it is also true that they designed their system to be able to short options without having margin, that'll be pretty damning.

This isn't all that personal responsibility bah blah, blah. Brokerages have a KYC duty. There is no new ground. Brokerages are not allowed to allow people to speculate on things they may not be knowledgeable about. Again, this has been around for a long time. To put it another way, I have client money. If I made some investments that the client can't understand the risk because of their knowledge and I loose money I have to personally eat the loss for the client. This is even if I explain the trade and the risks ahead of time. That's just what the rules are. A 20 year old kid in most cases is not knowledgeable enough to understand the risk in option strategies. The new era seems to be hey, ignore the rules if you think you can make some money, don't worry about it. This is particular in this case because companies like Robinhood seem not only to ignore whether a client is knowledgeable or not to take a certain kind of risk, but they seem to be actively encouraging risk taking in that group. That's why my view that this rises to criminal negligence. A (highly?) imperfect analogy would be tobacco companies marketing cigarettes to minors. I made a flippant joking post earlier about "moving fast and breaking things", but this is a real tragedy and I am starting to think that whenever Silicon Valley wants to disrupt something really important like our health or our wealth we should be VERY worried about our safety or the safety of those around us. I have been making fun of Robinhood for months and saying that this will all end in tears, but I have to say that I am surprised by the speed and severity with which we have our first nationally publicized tragedy. The best imaginable outcome is if this somehow helps to prevent even more trouble down the line, but I doubt those who should be most concerned will even notice this new story, hopefully others will be able to make a difference. I think this goes beyond simple KYC, which I think is shocking in this case. I think you could also argue that there is a basic consumer product safety argument that a lawyer might be able to make. Seeing how egregious this example is makes me think that there is more to be concerned with regarding Robinhood than even its most vehement detractors might have imagined. In a worst case scenario, we may be making comparisons with the irresponsible behavior at Theranos once more becomes known about what has actually been going on with Robinhood that we are unaware of. Why is it beyond KYC? And why you think KYC would have prevented this? Yes, brokerages ask you to tell them how much experience you have trading options when opening account/allowing to trade options. You can simply lie. I know people who have lied... So, presumably what all brokerages do is not enough to prevent what happened. What would you expect Robinhood to do that goes beyond what other brokerages do? And why would you single out Robinhood for this? I'm not RFT, but our views are aligned on this. First of all it's KYC (know your client) not AYC (ask your client). You ass isn't covered just because you asked and the client lied. Robinhood has a social media component to it from which it's clear that the clients lied on their KYC. It's on THEIR platform. Furthermore, at least in this particular case the story states that the margin option was turned off. How the hell do you short options without margin?

Bill is a friend of mine. But thanks for making it clear who's the real one here. So what if he's your friend? Does that preclude him from being a deuche? Does that make me one for saying so? The reason I had doubts about whether the story was real was his casual attitude about it. His twitter was like I'm loving this guy who promotes risky and irresponsible trades. Ok, Public Service Announcement, kids, the markets are bananas right now. Here's the story about my wife's cousin who killed himself because he lost a lot of money doing risky and irresponsible trades. So be careful out there and stay safe. OK, PSA over. Man, I'm loving this guy that does risky and irresponsible trades. But he's you'r friend. So.... Watch it rb...this is provocation and unnecessary! You've got one warning...now keep it chill. Cheers! So I say nothing about Liberty. I recall some stuff that was posted on the internet and my opinion about it. He doesn't like it because it's about his friend so HE calls ME a deuche. If that's a bannable offence I have committed you don't need the warning. I'll take my ban.

This isn't all that personal responsibility bah blah, blah. Brokerages have a KYC duty. There is no new ground. Brokerages are not allowed to allow people to speculate on things they may not be knowledgeable about. Again, this has been around for a long time. To put it another way, I have client money. If I made some investments that the client can't understand the risk because of their knowledge and I loose money I have to personally eat the loss for the client. This is even if I explain the trade and the risks ahead of time. That's just what the rules are. A 20 year old kid in most cases is not knowledgeable enough to understand the risk in option strategies. The new era seems to be hey, ignore the rules if you think you can make some money, don't worry about it. This is particular in this case because companies like Robinhood seem not only to ignore whether a client is knowledgeable or not to take a certain kind of risk, but they seem to be actively encouraging risk taking in that group. That's why my view that this rises to criminal negligence. A (highly?) imperfect analogy would be tobacco companies marketing cigarettes to minors.

Bill is a friend of mine. But thanks for making it clear who's the real one here. So what if he's your friend? Does that preclude him from being a deuche? Does that make me one for saying so? The reason I had doubts about whether the story was real was his casual attitude about it. His twitter was like I'm loving this guy who promotes risky and irresponsible trades. Ok, Public Service Announcement, kids, the markets are bananas right now. Here's the story about my wife's cousin who killed himself because he lost a lot of money doing risky and irresponsible trades. So be careful out there and stay safe. OK, PSA over. Man, I'm loving this guy that does risky and irresponsible trades. But he's you'r friend. So.... Dude, the kid didn't even lose the money, Robinhood interface showed -730k USD that he didn't owe (as far as we can tell), and he panicked and made a really bad decision, as humans sometimes do during panic. And if you think he has a casual attitude about it.. Man, thanks for providing more proof you're the real one here. A real gem you are. Thank you for your contribution to this thread about a 20 year old's suicide. I said he had a casual attitude about it. I read the thread when he posted it last weekend. At that point he didn't know whether the kid didn't loose money. From the thread: Pretty clear he thought the kid lost a lot of money with the help of Robinhood. Also the tweet after the thread that said DDTG all the way or something to that effect is now gone. I'm guessing because he's intelligent, looked at it again and thought what I thought. But hey, he's your friend so fuck myself.

Sorry man, staying at the Four Seasons is where I draw the line. Rooms are still starting at a grand a night. So I don't know if they're hurting that bad.

I couldn't find any flights to Bali :'(

I fully agree with you on financial education. But in this case, those classes probably won't cover option strategies.

Bill is a friend of mine. But thanks for making it clear who's the real one here. So what if he's your friend? Does that preclude him from being a deuche? Does that make me one for saying so? The reason I had doubts about whether the story was real was his casual attitude about it. His twitter was like I'm loving this guy who promotes risky and irresponsible trades. Ok, Public Service Announcement, kids, the markets are bananas right now. Here's the story about my wife's cousin who killed himself because he lost a lot of money doing risky and irresponsible trades. So be careful out there and stay safe. OK, PSA over. Man, I'm loving this guy that does risky and irresponsible trades. But he's you'r friend. So....

I was just thinking the same thing. That has happened more than once. This man (not kid) saw a number on an app and killed himself without finding out what was really going on. That isn't healthy thinking/state of mind by any measure. Well I know that neither rk nor Jurgis are lawyers so we may be whistling Dixie out of our ass here. But history has many documented cases where large market losses can induce individuals into an unhealthy state of mind. It's the reason why we can't open up a window in an office buildings or at least the ones I worked in because I was in finance. I'd venture further in my whistling that while you knew it was some sort of error, the kid didn't know because he knew he was doing something risky so the result at least seemed plausible. The thing is no matter what your personal views are brokerages are not supposed to allow this sort of behaviour. But places like Robinhood, eToro, and others not only allow it, they encourage it. So the criminal negligence is - in my view - that given how you are set up and your behaviour it is reasonable to expect that horrible things like this will happen.

So the kid did actually kill himself. I had some doubts about that. Now I'm not a lawyer, but I know that some of you are. So how does this not rise to the level of criminal negligence? P.S. That Bill Brewster is a real deuche.

There was an article somewhere today about someone got a 1.2 million dollar bill that was 180 pages long. It obviously depends on how sick you get. But as I recall the ICU was about 9,500 a day and they nickle and dime you for everything else.

Also posted in the politics section.

For those interested, here is a distilled list of best-evidence that has built up over the last few weeks versus prevention of transmission. https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa189/5820886 https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/using-face-masks-community-reducing-covid-19-transmission https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext From a humble perspective, a detached and rational approach tends to avoid running into sterile debates and tribal drift but i often feel like an idiot. It's fascinating that this virus, which is somewhat benign from an evolutionary standpoint, stirs so much reptilian instincts and one has to wonder about the host (and its institutions). Maybe i focus too much on governance issues. Here is another one : https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/9/20-2272_article Runs a bit against my hypothesis that truly asymptomatic (And those that never show symptoms) younger people aren’t likely superspreaders. Well, it seem they can be. Whether one is truly asymptomatic or get some mild symptoms later is not that important. Its been clear for a while that there is asymptomatic transmission, which happens while talking. To some extent masks help but not eliminate small tiny droplets floating in air and its difficult to wear masks continuously. That is why Japanese say "ventilation is key". That makes everyone life easier. And now we know it works. I think we should copy what works. That is not to say not to use masks or stop washing hands or stop safe distance. But no need for enforced lockdowns. About that mask thing... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/17/pelosi-masks-house-rule-jordan/ You can't even get the leadership of the country to put on a mask.

From my experience best of breed companies have high ROEs so that is a good place to start. The list will be polluted by highly levered companies, but you can sort those out fairly easily.

Probably somewhat trolling. I am afraid that liberals are going to ban anything they don't like as "hate speech" though. As I pointed above, banning flags of traitors and groups that committed atrocities are quite common and not brought to you be raving "libruls". Yes, but that's only because the union won. If the confederacy had won, we would be the "traitors." Indeed, if the Nazis would have won WWII, they would calling our side for the "atrocities" too. Ummmm... no, since you see the Union was going about its business. It was not it that started an insurrection. It was the Southern states. Keep trolling though.