Parsad Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-27-year-old-truck-driver-just-became-robinhoods-first-big-headache-of-2022-11641856157?siteid=yhoof2 “I’m definitely going to continue to trade,” said Batista, who maintains a vestigial Robinhood account but now mostly trades on a competing app, Webull. “These aren’t meme stocks to me. I just watch the momentum. I’ll take 10 stocks and watch throughout the day.” Somehow I think this guy is going to lose money on his portfolio at Webull too! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 The bigger issue is that now anyone who held positions in meme stocks at that time when Robinhood restricted trading can now sue Robinhood as well because now there is a precedent. This is going to be quite a headache for Robinhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boilermaker75 Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 2 hours ago, Parsad said: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-27-year-old-truck-driver-just-became-robinhoods-first-big-headache-of-2022-11641856157?siteid=yhoof2 “I’m definitely going to continue to trade,” said Batista, who maintains a vestigial Robinhood account but now mostly trades on a competing app, Webull. “These aren’t meme stocks to me. I just watch the momentum. I’ll take 10 stocks and watch throughout the day.” Somehow I think this guy is going to lose money on his portfolio at Webull too! Cheers! Then he'll write a book on trading! Maybe start a trading blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 There should 100% be consequences if a firm doesn’t let people trade, at least in the way it went down at Robinhood. Glad this guy got something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castanza Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 3 minutes ago, Gregmal said: There should 100% be consequences if a firm doesn’t let people trade, at least in the way it went down at Robinhood. Glad this guy got something. Agree, the guys skill or opinions is irrelevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StubbleJumper Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 Fascinating. So, the implication is that because trading in a particular security was restricted for a brief period of time, the value of that security was permanently destroyed and therefore a compensatory payment required. We now have a new legal principle: value delayed is value denied. SJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillfronter83 Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 Now do IB when they restrict your trading when they think you are "affiliated" with the issuer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfp Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 4 minutes ago, hillfronter83 said: Now do IB when they restrict your trading when they think you are "affiliated" with the issuer. This one is so annoying at IB. It is totally inconsistent - for the same client they will let you trade in one account and not in another. Same SSN and account owner. They want you to prove you are unaffiliated like every two weeks or some nonsense like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 If part of your thesis is a squeeze then timing is absolutely part of that. So the firm basically saying, what they've already admitted to under oath, that they stopped trading to mitigate poorly framed risk protocols...yea, thats not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 Markets are "free" for some but not for others, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formthirteen Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 Here's an article about a "decade trader" who has "one of the greatest long-term track records in the history of investing": https://archive.is/iL2Cs#selection-4877.55-4895.145 Quote Over the past 15 years, Central’s annualized portfolio turnover rate has averaged 11%. That means it holds its typical stock for nearly a decade—roughly six times longer than the average active mutual or closed-end fund, according to Morningstar. Owning stocks for years, rather than months, minimizes the costs of trading, reduces the burden of researching new holdings and enables Central to burrow deeply into understanding a business. “We want to own growing companies during as much of their period of growth as we can,” says Mr. Kidd. That enables compounding to work its magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 7 hours ago, formthirteen said: Here's an article about a "decade trader" who has "one of the greatest long-term track records in the history of investing": https://archive.is/iL2Cs#selection-4877.55-4895.145 +++++ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 Well, if this weren’t is closed end fund, he probably would be in business any more: That’s not to say Mr. Kidd has never underperformed. Over the past 10 years, according to Morningstar, Central has lagged the S&P 500 by an average of three percentage points annually as giant tech companies have raced ahead. (So far in 2021, Central is outperforming again.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now