[Palmik]

They switched to reduce-only mode for GME, effectively going against the retail tide. The fact that other brokers did it is not an excuse. They should have known their user base better.

And it's not like they did not have other options -- they could have posted more collateral, and given that they raised billions soon after, it was within the real of possibility for them.

[leereeves]

> they could have posted more collateral, and given that they raised billions soon after, it was within the real [realm?] of possibility for them

Money they raised later couldn't have been used as collateral until they actually raised it, even if the investors would still invest under those conditions.

[kareemsabri]

While I understand you can't post money you don't have, that doesn't absolve them of responsibility in their user's minds (nor should it).

[namdnay]

I don’t get your second paragraph. They had to raise collateral right now. Once they raised the billions they could and did

[gruez]

>They should have known their user base better.

Hindsight is 20/20. Prior to that event happening, was there credible evidence that an S&P 500 company was going to get pumped 10x in price by a bunch of investors coordinating on social media?

[codyb]

I'm not sure "understanding your user base better" makes billions of dollars appear in your bank accounts instantly, but I'm not a market maker so who knows

[Fomite]

Arguably, knowing your user base is by and large fairly unsophisticated investors who still want to be able to bet big on meme stocks suggests you should probably be building a substantial dragon horde-scale reserve for surges like this.