They were the first to suddenly block buying (but not selling!) GME when everyone in retail wanted to buy, and they refuse to explain why.
> Wasn't it the market makers who stopped them from trading GME?
Who knows? They refuse to explain anything.
> And doesn't Robinhood have the right to sell margin stocks bought on margin?
Yes. That part of the anger is misplaced. But it's not a significant part of the drama anyway.
The explanation they offered in their blog post:
"As a brokerage firm, we have many financial requirements, including SEC net capital obligations and clearinghouse deposits. Some of these requirements fluctuate based on volatility in the markets and can be substantial in the current environment. These requirements exist to protect investors and the markets and we take our responsibilities to comply with them seriously, including through the measures we have taken today."
That's not an explanation, that's just hot air.
What financial requirements? What capital obligations and clearinghouse deposits? Which requirements fluctuate based on volatility? How do these requirements protect the investors and the markets? And ultimately, how exactly any of this leads to them blocking buy orders on $GME?
It seems reasonable to fault Robinhood for shitty comms (though, as 'JumpCrisscross pointed out yesterday, the general rule is "aviate, navigate, then communicate"), but the endemic message board pathology is to use shitty comms to justify conspiracy theories, which are more fun to talk about than reality and take over these threads like algae.
My point is exactly the shitty comms of Robin Hood - they were the first to make this move, they gave no reasonable explanation. It doesn't matter what we know now. What matters is that RH's users didn't know then.
The top-level question here was, why people are angry at Robin Hood. My explanation is simple: they cut a lot of people off buying at the moment they wanted to buy, and provided no explanation. Any theory as to why they did that comes from taking explanations of other traders and the mechanics, not from anything RH said.
If you think what they published was sufficient explanation (and remember, the target audience is mostly regular folks with even less clue about stock market than I have), then why did RH's CEO get drilled by the news on the same questions I'm listing? Apparently the newscasters and their audiences also don't believe he answered anything.
Second: I'm not interested in the binary of whether or not people are mad at Robinhood. People should be mad at Robinhood for a variety of reasons, most notably that it is an online casino masquerading as an investment app.
I am very interested in the conspiracy theory that says Robinhood halted GME orders as part of an effort to protect hedge funds. That conspiracy was repeated by a number of legislators yesterday, seemingly encouraging ordinary people to follow on this terribly risky GME bubble. The conspiracy appears to be false.
If we don't disagree, we don't disagree.
I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory - the "mundane", mechanical explanation seems perfectly adequate. My only opinion on Robinhood is that the current backlash they face could've been avoided if they were communicating honestly and in details. The angry mob ultimately isn't after them.
Only if they issue a margin call. But what if they were the ones responsible for the conditions that lead to the margin call in the first place (blocking buys on a specific stock)?