Hacker News Reader

Comment by j_walter | Hacker News Reader

Do they have that right? Could this been seen as market manipulation by locking out a significant amount of stock market customers? When all of a sudden you say...you can't buy X, but if you own it you can sell it...that will drive the price of X down.

View on HN

Since the collateral requirements were based on their net position, sells reduced their collateral requirements while buys increased it. This was a risk management decision and since they don’t profit directly from the price moving one way or another, it would be pretty hard to argue it wasn’t just risk management to protect the rest of their users from RH running out of cash and going into receivership.

The Webull CEO was saying that independent of this logic, there would never be a scenario where users be unable to close their accounts. For the user, it's much worse for RH to prevent me from accessing my money than to prevent me from opening new positions.

Risk management in that they don't want to be left holding the bag when the investors go bankrupt.

OK, but they didn't let any users purchase the stock. Ones that have settled funds and don't trade on margin. I get not letting a brand new account with unsettled funds trade on margin for huge positions...but if I've got $100K cash in my account there should be no reason to limit my purchasing.

It is interesting to note that buying was also limited for cash accounts where collateral should not have been an issue.

They can't use customer funds for collateral. If you give $100 to RH for a stock, RH gives $3 of their own money to the clearinghouse. Two days later you get your stock, the buyer gets your $100, and RH gets their $3 back. The $3 turned into the full $100 and RH can't use any of your $100 to pay it.

Yes they do and it's in the TOS of every single retail brokerage account you sign up for.

I won't disagree with this point (companies put forth garbage TOS on the regular), but I am curious to see how this stands up to renewed regulatory (FINRA, SEC) and Congressional scrutiny.

Several brokerages (Fidelity, Vanguard) did not limit trading of GME in any way during high volatility last week, despite DTCC/NSCC's risk model calling for 100% collateral on GME for a duration of time.

Fidelity and Vanguard run their own clearinghouses and don’t touch DTCC. Robinhood technically does as well, but they still do the vast majority of their clearing through DTCC. Pretty likely RH will invest in their clearing operations this year.

That doesn't solve their undercapitalization issue [1]. RH has a license to perform their own clearing [2], but they're still going to have capital requirements governed by NSCC collateral requirements (which is put forth by Dodd-Frank) [3]. If regulators require capitalization to support outlier volatility market conditions instead of allowing brokerages to stop trades due to undercapitalization (whether because of credit line availability, the amount of the market they've captured, etc), ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Would it be right and proper (for FINRA and/or Congress) to allow Robinhood to exist to push order flow to institutions only when seas are calm? That does not sound like a functional broker to me.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/robinhood-said-draw-credit-li... (Robinhood Is Said to Draw on Bank Credit Lines Amid Tumult)

[2] https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2018/10/9/introducing-cleari... (Introducing Clearing by Robinhood, October 2018)

[3] https://dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/policy-and-co... (NSCC Disclosure Framework, PDF)

Disclaimer: Thoughts and opinions are my own.

Edit window expired on the above comment. Robinhood is solving for capitalization with an equity raise [1] [2].

[1] https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2021/2/1/robinhood-raises-34... (Robinhood Raises $3.4 Billion to Fuel Record Customer Growth)

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25990453 (HN: Robinhood raises another $2.4B from shareholders)

>Several brokerages (Fidelity, Vanguard) did not limit trading of GME in any way during high volatility last week, despite DTCC/NSCC's risk model calling for 100% collateral on GME for a duration of time.

Maybe because those brokerages don't have a high concentration of wsb users, unlike robinhood or webbull?

Revisiting this subthread to confirm you're probably right, based on this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26013821

Robinhood could not have anticipated the clearinghouse requiring 100% collateral for a single named security due to the high FTD (failure to deliver) rate. Robinhood handled the situation poorly (PR and end user communications), but it's possible the clearinghouse would've tied any brokerage's hands with drastically increased collateral requirements when their model indicates a possible insolvency risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com