Robinhood Financial: Difference between revisions
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{InfoboxCompany | {{InfoboxCompany | ||
|Name=Robinhood Financial, LLC|Type=Subsidiary|Founded=2013|Industry=Financial Services|Official Website=http://robinhood.com/|Logo=Robinhood (company) logo.svg}} | |Name=Robinhood Financial, LLC|Type=Subsidiary|Founded=2013|Industry=Financial Services|Official Website=http://robinhood.com/|Logo=Robinhood (company) logo.svg}} | ||
*Democratizing: Removing fees and simplifying investing for | '''[[wikipedia:Robinhood_Markets|Robinhood Financial, LLC]],''' is a wholly-owned subsidiary of [[wikipedia:Robinhood_Markets|Robinhood Markets, Inc]]. The US app based brokerage company offers commission free stock and ETF trading ( exchange-traded funds ). Founded in 2013 by two former Stanford University room mates, the app was launched in 2015. Their mission is to democratize finance for all. | ||
==Consumer impact summary== | |||
===Mission statement=== | |||
*Democratizing: Removing fees and simplifying investing for individual investors.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=DCF Team |first=The |title=Mission Statement, Vision, & Core Values of Robinhood Markets, Inc. (HOOD) |url=https://dcfmodeling.com/blogs/vision/hood-mission-vision |website=dcfmodeling.com}}</ref> | |||
*Accessibility: Offering fractional shares, a mobile-first platform, and educational resources.<ref name=":0" /> | *Accessibility: Offering fractional shares, a mobile-first platform, and educational resources.<ref name=":0" /> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 15: | ||
*Inclusivity: Targeted young and less wealthy investors that historically were excluded from traditional brokerage services.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Boorstin |first=Julia |date=May 25, 2021 |title=Robinhood’s disruptive force: The good, the bad and the controversy |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/25/robinhoods-disruptive-trade-the-good-the-bad-and-the-controversy.html |website=CNBC.com}}</ref> | *Inclusivity: Targeted young and less wealthy investors that historically were excluded from traditional brokerage services.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Boorstin |first=Julia |date=May 25, 2021 |title=Robinhood’s disruptive force: The good, the bad and the controversy |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/25/robinhoods-disruptive-trade-the-good-the-bad-and-the-controversy.html |website=CNBC.com}}</ref> | ||
== | ===Business model=== | ||
Operates on a commission free trading model for individual investors. Generating revenue through: | |||
*Payment for order flow (PFOF): Selling customer trades to high frequency trading firms earning rebates for each trade. This accounts for a significant percentage of its revenue.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Goldfine |first=Jael |date=January 28, 2021 |title=Robinhood’s business model and backlash, explained |url=https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/robinhoods-business-model-and-backlash-explained/ |website=businessofbusiness.com}}</ref> | |||
*Robinhood Gold: Subscription service offering margin trading and advanced feature for five dollars a month.<ref name=":5" /> | |||
*Interest on cash and securities lending: Earning from idle cash in user accounts and lending shares to short sellers.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cabral |first=Sarah |last2=LaCombe |first2=Amy |date=December 1, 2021 |title=Robinhood, Reddit, and GameStop: What Happened and What Should Happen Next? |url=https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/robinhood-reddit-and-gamestop-what-happened-and-what-should-happen-next/ |website=scu.edu}}</ref> | |||
Critics argue that PFOF creates a conflict of interest, as they may prioritize routing orders to the highest paying firms rather than ensuring the best execution for customers. | |||
===Negative impacts | ===Negative impacts=== | ||
====Misleading Practices and Lack of Transparency==== | ====Misleading Practices and Lack of Transparency==== | ||
*Fined $65 million by the SEC in 2020 for failing to disclose how | *Fined $65 million by the SEC in 2020 for failing to disclose how PFOF led to inferior trade execution prices, costing customers $34.1 million in aggregate. The platform claimed trades were "commission-free" but hid the true costs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fitzgerald |first=Maggie |date=December 17, 2020 |title=SEC charges Robinhood with misleading customers about how it makes money |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/17/sec-charges-robinhood-with-misleading-customers-about-how-it-makes-money.html |website=CNBC.com}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=December 17, 2020 |title=SEC Charges Robinhood Financial With Misleading Customers About Revenue Sources and Failing to Satisfy Duty of Best Execution |url=https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020-321 |website=SEC.gov}}</ref> | ||
*Massachusetts regulators fined Robinhood $7.5 million in 2024 for using deceptive gamification tactics (e.g., digital confetti, scratch-off stock rewards) that encouraged risky trading without adequate investor protections.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Hill |first=Paul |date=February 12, 2024 |title=Game Over: Robinhood Pays $7.5 Million to Resolve “Gamification” Securities Violations |url=https://www.velaw.com/insights/game-over-robinhood-pays-7-5-million-to-resolve-gamification-securities-violations/ |website=velaw.com}}</ref> | *Massachusetts regulators fined Robinhood $7.5 million in 2024 for using deceptive gamification tactics (e.g., digital confetti, scratch-off stock rewards) that encouraged risky trading without adequate investor protections.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Hill |first=Paul |date=February 12, 2024 |title=Game Over: Robinhood Pays $7.5 Million to Resolve “Gamification” Securities Violations |url=https://www.velaw.com/insights/game-over-robinhood-pays-7-5-million-to-resolve-gamification-securities-violations/ |website=velaw.com}}</ref> | ||
| Line 27: | Line 37: | ||
=====Restricting Consumer Choice===== | =====Restricting Consumer Choice===== | ||
*During the 2021 | *During the 2021 they abruptly halted trading in meme stocks, citing clearinghouse deposit requirements. This left individual investors unable to capitalize on market movements while institutional traders faced fewer restrictions. Critics argued this violated consumer rights by favoring systemic stability over fair access.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Orcutt |first=Johnathan |date=February 25, 2021 |title=The Legal Impact: Robinhood |url=https://law.unh.edu/blog/2021/02/legal-impact-robinhood |website=unh.edu}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Cabral |first=Sarah |last2=LaCombe |first2=Amy |date=December 1, 2021 |title=Robinhood, Reddit, and GameStop: What Happened and What Should Happen Next? |url=https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/robinhood-reddit-and-gamestop-what-happened-and-what-should-happen-next/ |website=scu.edu}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Goodman |first=Lawrence |last2=Lofchie |first2=Steven |last3=Lumsdaine |first3=Robin |date=February 23, 2021 |title=Robinhood and GameStop: Essential Issues and Next Steps for Regulators and Investors |url=https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/02/23/robinhood-and-gamestop-essential-issues-and-next-steps-for-regulators-and-investors/ |website=harvard.edu}}</ref> | ||
=====Exploitation of Inexperienced Investors===== | =====Exploitation of Inexperienced Investors===== | ||
| Line 42: | Line 52: | ||
Users are forced into mandatory arbitration, limiting their ability to seek legal redress.<ref name=":3" /> | Users are forced into mandatory arbitration, limiting their ability to seek legal redress.<ref name=":3" /> | ||
== | ==Incidents== | ||
=== Death of a trader === | |||
In 2020 a user committed suicide after misinterpreted a negative balance due to poor UI design, leading to backlash over risk disclosures. | |||
=== GameStop short squeeze === | |||
''main article: [[GameStop Short Squeeze]]'' | |||
In 2021, decisions to restrict trading fueled accusations of market manipulation and hypocrisy due to it's 'for the people' branding. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||