"20-Year-Old Robinhood Customer Commits Suicide After Seeing -$730,000 Balance"

[Parsad]

P.S. That Bill Brewster is a real deuche.

 

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!

[Guest cherzeca]

there are two ways of looking at this:  a trading/brokerage issue, and a suicide prevention issue.  I am here to tell you that everyone from say 13-21 years old can use a little of pre-counseling re suicide prevention.  you may not remember how fucked up you could get at that age because you survived that age, but everyone that age could use a hand around the shoulder before push comes to shove.  everyone focusing on trading/brokerage can keep your thumb up your ass as far as I am concerned, no tears

 

[Gregmal]

Yea........I think its for sure pushing new grounds to now hold brokerage firms responsible for people of legal age, speculating on things they may or may not be knowledgable about. The era of the "no fault" individual because of the "greedy" corporation is underway...but if we are already at the point where gamblers arent responsible for their actions...then we are indeed in deep doo doo.

 

This is irrespective of the tragedy involving the 20 year old.

[valueinvestor]

I have come to believe that you need to "premortem" teenagers, tell them in advance that NOTHING is not redeemable, that there is no no way out position or end point.  the kids will look you in the eye and wonder what is wrong with you, but just tell them this nonetheless and that you love them.

 

I couldn't have said it better, and my condolences. I don't think it can't be overemphasized, but little moments of reassurance, and letting people know you do deeply care about them here and there goes a long way. Most of all, being a person who is there for them, no matter what helps too. I remember being a teenager, and the lots of confusion that comes with and frankly, the 20-year-olds now are a lot more immature relative to the 20-year olds back in the '60s, '70, etc. Not that necessarily a bad thing, people are living longer, hence they are able to spread out milestones farther.

 

I know a few (one is too many in my books) who taken their lives because they thought they couldn't get out, and if their family just could've given them reassurance, it would've been the world. Particularly with international students at a post-secondary level, the pressure is intense and understandably so, where their parents invested everything they had to bet their kid will come through for them and the rest of the family.

 

It's hard not to think about it, and not look insane when telling people they should be careful with what they say and take the time to reassure them that as parents, friends, colleagues, etc... you'll be there for them through thick and thin.

 

I just can't imagine what was going through his head, when he made the decision.

[rb]

Yea........I think its for sure pushing new grounds to now hold brokerage firms responsible for people of legal age, speculating on things they may or may not be knowledgable about. The era of the "no fault" individual because of the "greedy" corporation is underway...but if we are already at the point where gamblers arent responsible for their actions...then we are indeed in deep doo doo.

 

This is irrespective of the tragedy involving the 20 year old.

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.

[Guest cherzeca]

you definitely will look like a dork and and jerk, telling your son or daughter (mostly sons in my experience) that nothing is so bad as to think life cant and shouldn't go on, but just say it with a smile and maybe something like, well it was something grandma told me so i'm just passing it on.  somewhere down the road it may help and if it does then hallefuckinglujah

[rb]

P.S. That Bill Brewster is a real deuche.

 

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.

[Read the Footnotes]

Yea........I think its for sure pushing new grounds to now hold brokerage firms responsible for people of legal age, speculating on things they may or may not be knowledgable about. The era of the "no fault" individual because of the "greedy" corporation is underway...but if we are already at the point where gamblers arent responsible for their actions...then we are indeed in deep doo doo.

 

This is irrespective of the tragedy involving the 20 year old.

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.

[Guest cherzeca]

"I just can't imagine what was going through his head, when he made the decision."

 

that is the point.  he thought there was no way out.  you cant comprehend that.  you dont have to.  just know that it happens with kids, and these kids, especially if it is your kids or a friend's kids, needs to hear that there is ALWAYS a way out.  may not be peaches and cream, but there is always a way out

[Read the Footnotes]

Cherzeca, thanks for posting material that is kind, thoughtful, and helpful on a personal basis for people reading the forum. These are trying times and the difficulties may not go away anytime soon. Hopefully your words will help people  or help them help others during these times.

[Jurgis]

Yea........I think its for sure pushing new grounds to now hold brokerage firms responsible for people of legal age, speculating on things they may or may not be knowledgable about. The era of the "no fault" individual because of the "greedy" corporation is underway...but if we are already at the point where gamblers arent responsible for their actions...then we are indeed in deep doo doo.

 

This is irrespective of the tragedy involving the 20 year old.

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?

 

Edit: when I started investing in 1990s, I was broke immigrant graduate student. I opened account at full service broker (Dean Witter) and they allowed me to trade options and buy crappy no-info BB stocks... I don't remember if they asked any questions... But I know some of my positions went to zero.

 

Well maybe times have changed, but IMO singling out Robinhood smacks of bias.

[rb]

Yea........I think its for sure pushing new grounds to now hold brokerage firms responsible for people of legal age, speculating on things they may or may not be knowledgable about. The era of the "no fault" individual because of the "greedy" corporation is underway...but if we are already at the point where gamblers arent responsible for their actions...then we are indeed in deep doo doo.

 

This is irrespective of the tragedy involving the 20 year old.

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?

[Jurgis]

Yea........I think its for sure pushing new grounds to now hold brokerage firms responsible for people of legal age, speculating on things they may or may not be knowledgable about. The era of the "no fault" individual because of the "greedy" corporation is underway...but if we are already at the point where gamblers arent responsible for their actions...then we are indeed in deep doo doo.

 

This is irrespective of the tragedy involving the 20 year old.

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?

 

Yeah, there might be some issues with Robinhood.

 

But also see my edit for my previous post.

[Guest cherzeca]

Cherzeca, thanks for posting material that is kind, thoughtful, and helpful on a personal basis for people reading the forum. These are trying times and the difficulties may not go away anytime soon. Hopefully your words will help people  or help them help others during these times.

 

thanks RTF, and one more thought, as while I could talk about this until the cows come home, I need to get off my high horse (to mix metaphors).  in my experience, its is the super smart kids that are most susceptible to this risk.  I am not a a child psychologist but I am a guy who has actively coached and counseled teens, and I know that the kids who are sensitive, who are smart enough to know that there are expectations on them, who are at most at risk.  again, there are kids that I dont know who have mental health issues, and they are a whole different issue.  but it is the "healthy" kids who are well adjusted...until they fall into a crisis...which of course is not a crisis, but they will not realize that at the time...who need guidance...and you wont know that they need guidance because like it or not they wont come to you for guidance...so you have to "preguide"...not helicopter parenting, but just one big hug and a short talk, however uncomfortable it might be at the time

[Read the Footnotes]

Cherzeca, thanks for posting material that is kind, thoughtful, and helpful on a personal basis for people reading the forum. These are trying times and the difficulties may not go away anytime soon. Hopefully your words will help people  or help them help others during these times.

 

thanks RTF, and one more thought, as while I could talk about this until the cows come home, I need to get off my high horse (to mix metaphors).  in my experience, its is the super smart kids that are most susceptible to this risk.  I am not a a child psychologist but I am a guy who has actively coached and counseled teens, and I know that the kids who are sensitive, who are smart enough to know that there are expectations on them, who are at most at risk.  again, there are kids that I dont know who have mental health issues, and they are a whole different issue.  but it is the "healthy" kids who are well adjusted...until they fall into a crisis...which of course is not a crisis, but they will not realize that at the time...who need guidance...and you wont know that they need guidance because like it or not they wont come to you for guidance...so you have to "preguide"...not helicopter parenting, but just one big hug and a short talk, however uncomfortable it might be at the time

I also think we shouldn't underestimate a potential social media component to this tragedy, to the Robinhood phenomenon and other child and young adult suicides.

[rb]

Yeah, there might be some issues with Robinhood.

 

But also see my edit for my previous post.

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.

[Read the Footnotes]

IMO singling out Robinhood smacks of bias.

You're right I'm biased. I dislike all men in green tights with green hats and bows and arrows.

 

I'm not fond of pied pipers either.

 

Should we take this outside to the Politics section and fight about it?

???

 

The truth is I'm also not fond of some of Robinhood's competitors and the recent free trading trend in general. I don't think it's free it's just that the frictions are non-obvious and the customers are unsophisticated. If you're not concerned and don't see material differences, maybe you just haven't really looked yet.

[Parsad]

P.S. That Bill Brewster is a real deuche.

 

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.

 

Can you guys all just grow up a bit?!  If I give you a warning, you shouldn't fire back with some explanation...just take it and say, "My bad!" 

 

How old are all of you guys...I'm guessing most are my age or somewhere within +/- 10 years.  If you wouldn't say it to someone while having dinner at their home, then don't...that's a good way to view where the line is.  And again, this isn't just for you, but for everyone!  Cheers!

[Spekulatius]

P.S. That Bill Brewster is a real deuche.

 

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.

[Parsad]

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.

 

Take it.

 

Liberty, that too is provocation.  Did you really need that come back?  Can people please think twice before posting something that is unnecessary and adds no value except to rile up and stir people!  Cheers!

[Gregmal]

If you want "free trading" and market access so you can invest your incremental $100 a week or whatever, this is what you get. Bares bones bs thats riddled with conflict and hidden costs/risks.

 

KYC is great and all, but when you have the option of opening an account without ever even talking to a real human being, I'm not sure what you can expect, especially since, they are able to do it; everyone lets you open up an account and trade within 24 hours no a days.

 

This is the system, and if all of them are doing it, I am sure its one of those special finance areas where its either a) allowed, 1b) not allowed but no one cares or 2b) profitable on a net of the slap on the wrist fine basis.

 

I mean for those arguing otherwise, what else does a ROP have to go off of? Is he/she expected to personally call every applicant and string them through a lie detector test?

 

If you legalize drugs, tragedies will happen. If you make trading available/attractive to everyone, the same things occurs. The solution IMO is educating people, rather than advertising. Financial industry advertising used to be incredibly regulated and super strict about what got through, although periodically thats ebbed and flowed. The most obscene Ive ever seen were not coincidentally during the late 90s, I think from Etrade. If it were up to me, they should treat all of them the way they treat hedge funds.

[rb]

If you want "free trading" and market access so you can invest your incremental $100 a week or whatever, this is what you get. Bares bones bs thats riddled with conflict and hidden costs/risks.

 

KYC is great and all, but when you have the option of opening an account without ever even talking to a real human being, I'm not sure what you can expect, especially since, they are able to do it; everyone lets you open up an account and trade within 24 hours no a days.

 

This is the system, and if all of them are doing it, I am sure its one of those special finance areas where its either a) allowed, 1b) not allowed but no one cares or 2b) profitable on a net of the slap on the wrist fine basis.

 

I mean for those arguing otherwise, what else does a ROP have to go off of? Is he/she expected to personally call every applicant and string them through a lie detector test?

 

If you legalize drugs, tragedies will happen. If you make trading available/attractive to everyone, the same things occurs. The solution IMO is educating people, rather than advertising. Financial industry advertising used to be incredibly regulated and super strict about what got through, although periodically thats ebbed and flowed. The most obscene Ive ever seen were not coincidentally during the late 90s, I think from Etrade. If it were up to me, they should treat all of them the way they treat hedge funds.

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.

[Jurgis]

IMO singling out Robinhood smacks of bias.

You're right I'm biased. I dislike all men in green tights with green hats and bows and arrows.

 

I'm not fond of pied pipers either.

 

Should we take this outside to the Politics section and fight about it?

???

 

The truth is I'm also not fond of some of Robinhood's competitors and the recent free trading trend in general. I don't think it's free it's just that the frictions are non-obvious and the customers are unsophisticated. If you're not concerned and don't see material differences, maybe you just haven't really looked yet.

 

Yes, I disagree with you. I think that cheap (no) commissions is great by providing access to investing to people who had less access before.

Yes, I know people in Lithuania who want to invest $100 and have to pay $10 commissions to do it. That's 10% gone in one side of a trade. If you don't think that's a ripoff and creating a divide between rich and poor, that's your choice.

 

And I think you are biased, since you are financial professional and this is threatening your and your brethren livelihood. So you'd rather see Robinhood fail.

 

Edit: BTW, I would disallow trading options @ Robinhood. Or make them restricted to whatever large accounts. And I would probably ban forex trading for most individual accounts. Forex is a way bigger scam than Robinhood ever was and it's available and been around forever. In Lithuania too.

[Read the Footnotes]

IMO singling out Robinhood smacks of bias.

You're right I'm biased. I dislike all men in green tights with green hats and bows and arrows.

 

I'm not fond of pied pipers either.

 

Should we take this outside to the Politics section and fight about it?

???

 

The truth is I'm also not fond of some of Robinhood's competitors and the recent free trading trend in general. I don't think it's free it's just that the frictions are non-obvious and the customers are unsophisticated. If you're not concerned and don't see material differences, maybe you just haven't really looked yet.

 

Yes, I disagree with you. I think that cheap (no) commissions is great by providing access to investing to people who had less access before.

Yes, I know people in Lithuania who want to invest $100 and have to pay $10 commissions to do it. That's 10% gone in one side of a trade. If you don't think that's a ripoff and creating a divide between rich and poor, that's your choice.

 

And I think you are biased, since you are financial professional and this is threatening your and your brethren livelihood. So you'd rather see Robinhood fail.

 

Edit: BTW, I would disallow trading options @ Robinhood. Or make them restricted to whatever large accounts. And I would probably ban forex trading for most individual accounts. Forex is a way bigger scam than Robinhood ever was and it's available and been around forever. In Lithuania too.

I'm starting to think there's a virus going around CoB&F that causes members to assume the worst about each other.

 

You're assuming a lot of things about me, all of which I believe to be false. None of which are necessary to make your points, which are valid. I have no problem with low trading costs. I have a problem as I stated before with trading costs that an uneducated investor (or maybe I should say gambler or speculator) would not be aware of.

 

I also have an issue with platforms that sell order flow and are then designed to stimulate overtrading and potentially even high engagement that might eventually be thought of as addictive behavior.

 

If a non-professional wants to dollar cost average in to a basket of stocks with low to know trading cost and hold over long periods of time that is wonderful, but that is not what I am talking about.

 

The things I have been railing against is young people who don't even know that bonds are senior to equity and that being bankrupt is bad for the equity, probably shouldn't be trading options on those equities and trading in and out on a daily basis.

 

The ease of trading on a phone is also a little disturbing. A barrier to buying and selling is not a bad thing if it encourages you to think before acting. If a small explicit fee similarly might encourage a bit more thought, then that too might be better than Robinhood.

 

If someone really is not gambling with these platforms, then why are they superior to other low cost alternatives that would focus on broader diversification for example. If someone really isn't a sophisticated investor, do you really believe Robinhood is a better alternative to Vanguard ETF's for example?

[rb]

P.S. That Bill Brewster is a real deuche.

 

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.