This is backwards. If Robinhood is bad for retail investors, it's because they figured out how to not charge them anything per trade, which encourages retail investors to trade more often than...
Robinhood continues to make money off each trade in the cycle.
This is backwards. If Robinhood is bad for retail investors, it's because they figured out how to not charge them anything per trade, which encourages retail investors to trade more often than they should. (And now everyone matched them.)
To discourage frequent trading, it would be better to charge more.
True, but it's not RH's job to discourage retail trading, they want to encourage it. Rather, it's better for them for investors to trade more, thereby making RH more money.
True, but it's not RH's job to discourage retail trading, they want to encourage it. Rather, it's better for them for investors to trade more, thereby making RH more money.
I'm a little confused by this since the article seems to be about what's good for retail investors, not what Robinhood's "job" is. It seems to be saying that Robinhood should be doing things that...
I'm a little confused by this since the article seems to be about what's good for retail investors, not what Robinhood's "job" is. It seems to be saying that Robinhood should be doing things that are better for retail investors, whether it makes Robinhood more money or not?
It's saying that Robinhood is portraying itself as doing something 'good' for retail investors, when the reality is that Robinhood makes more money the more that investors trade. By and large,...
It's saying that Robinhood is portraying itself as doing something 'good' for retail investors, when the reality is that Robinhood makes more money the more that investors trade. By and large, retail investors would be better off just parking their money in index funds/mutual funds and not thinking about it for several years.
Robinhood's messaging isn't aligned with the way it makes money.
Robinhood's ad series "We're all investors" would like us to believe investing's the ticket to abundance. It isn't just selling a trading app, it's selling the ideology of personal responsibility.
Robinhood's ad series "We're all investors" would like us to believe investing's the ticket to abundance. It isn't just selling a trading app, it's selling the ideology of personal responsibility.
This is backwards. If Robinhood is bad for retail investors, it's because they figured out how to not charge them anything per trade, which encourages retail investors to trade more often than they should. (And now everyone matched them.)
To discourage frequent trading, it would be better to charge more.
True, but it's not RH's job to discourage retail trading, they want to encourage it. Rather, it's better for them for investors to trade more, thereby making RH more money.
I'm a little confused by this since the article seems to be about what's good for retail investors, not what Robinhood's "job" is. It seems to be saying that Robinhood should be doing things that are better for retail investors, whether it makes Robinhood more money or not?
It's saying that Robinhood is portraying itself as doing something 'good' for retail investors, when the reality is that Robinhood makes more money the more that investors trade. By and large, retail investors would be better off just parking their money in index funds/mutual funds and not thinking about it for several years.
Robinhood's messaging isn't aligned with the way it makes money.
Robinhood's ad series "We're all investors" would like us to believe investing's the ticket to abundance. It isn't just selling a trading app, it's selling the ideology of personal responsibility.