> they don't seem to have focused on the important parts of being a brokerage.
That's because they don't. The entire application and order flow seem designed to limit the amount of information given to the actual user, in order to make them more confident in the decision. More confident users trade more stock.
I guess you could argue that "a brokerage makes more money the more stocks are traded, so they are doing the best of the brokerages", but would personally argue that a brokerage should have a responsibility to at least partially work in the best interest of their clients.
Out of curiousity I went through their option buying flow the other day (100% expecting to lose that money); it felt more like buying a lottery ticket than a financial investment.
I feel gross agreeing with Robinhood here, but it doesn't really sound like they were in a position to not take the action they did (this time).
They could add lots of disclaimers and dozens of I agree and I know what I am doing checkboxes but not allowing to buy certain stocks but only to sell them is like a partially blocked intersection with the only open road leading to a ravine. Not cool RH, not cool. It's really an insult to the legend of Robin Hood, he was robbing the rich and giving to the poor not the other way around.
Would you have preferred that if they were unable to take new buy orders, that they also prevented people who already owned from having the ability to sell it? While everyone else "sold ahead of them" and the users lost money "because Robinhood wouldn't let me sell"?
Robinhood may be able to control what happens on their own platform (typically heavily based on regulation), but that doesn't mean they can stop buy/sell activity on the whole market.
Their mobile experience awesome. I did this with other platforms and didn’t like it as much. Believe it or not, even in serious applications, user experience matters.
That's because they don't. The entire application and order flow seem designed to limit the amount of information given to the actual user, in order to make them more confident in the decision. More confident users trade more stock.
I guess you could argue that "a brokerage makes more money the more stocks are traded, so they are doing the best of the brokerages", but would personally argue that a brokerage should have a responsibility to at least partially work in the best interest of their clients.
Out of curiousity I went through their option buying flow the other day (100% expecting to lose that money); it felt more like buying a lottery ticket than a financial investment.
I feel gross agreeing with Robinhood here, but it doesn't really sound like they were in a position to not take the action they did (this time).