Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

They are. That’s what collateral, broker risk management, and (if the broker fails) DTCC is for, to derisk counterparty failure risk.

Someone is paying up.




This is as I understood it. There is a lot of misinformation from folks who believe to understand the entire situation from all players' perspective. I am not able to comprehend the situation well enough. If anyone has seen a good non-biased write up on what has happened so far and what may happen, I would love to see it.


I feel that I learnt something from this twitter thread.

https://twitter.com/KralcTrebor/status/1354952686165225478


That’s a good thread.

Here’s the part that makes no sense to me: why can’t Robinhood use customer funds for their deposit? Imagine a degenerate case: all but one client make no trades at all. One client has $100k deposited and buys $100k worth of GME. Prior to settlement, GME drops by 50%. That client is (effectively) out the entire $100k, and they are owed $50k worth of GME. Robinhood needs to post somewhere between $50k and $100k of collateral to the clearinghouse.

This all seems entirely reasonable with one giant of exception: apparently Robinhood may not draw on the client’s deposit for this. Never mind that, at settlement, the client will be debited the entire $100k. Somehow Robinhood is expected to temporarily come up with an additional $50k-$100k for a two day period. This seems bizarre to me.


Sure the collateral holders pay up. But if they need to get liquidated to service the debt, watch out.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: