Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mbesto 1787 days ago
> it effectively asserts that Griffin somehow muscled Charles Schwab at the same time as Robinhood

I didn't assert that. Any brokerage that uses a provider for settlement was taking on additional untold risk (including Schwab). Schwab, in theory, has enough assets to cover something of that size of trading GME introduced but their clientbase isn't the same as RH, so the reputational risk was much lower. It was a precautionary move, not a "our company might go under and we're gonna piss off our key partners" type of move.

See my other note - you're wrong about the nature of restrictions and level of impact on Schwab vs RH (and other brokerages for that matter).

1 comments

I think you need to clean up your vocabulary. For instance Citadel doesn’t settle Robinhood trades. Further during this instance Robinhood cleared for themselves.

Providing payment for order flow neither means you are the settler or the clearer.

Effectively every entity that trades securities in the US has to be either a client of a member or a member of DTCC.