The REAL reason Robinhood stopped buys of $GME/$BB & why NO ONE BELIEVES THEM – BAD LYING ? CEO!


? This video was recorded with the following:
? Camera:
? Microphone:
? HDMI capture:
? Audio interface:

We are not financial services or investment professionals and this is not investment advice. Do your own Research
Our content is intended to be used and must be used for entertainment purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment based on your own personal circumstances. You should take independent financial advice from a professional in connection with, or independently research and verify, any information that you find in these videos and wish to rely upon, whether for the purpose of making an investment decision or otherwise.

No Investment Advice
Our Youtube channel is an opinion/podcast platform. We are not a broker/dealer, we are not an investment advisor, we have no access to non-public information about publicly traded companies, and this is not a place for the giving or receiving of financial advice, advice concerning investment decisions or tax or legal advice. We are not regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

The value of shares and investments and the income derived from them can go down as well as up;
Investors may not get back the amount they invested – losing one’s shirt is a real risk;
Past performance is not a guide to future performance.

Written by Louis Rossmann


  1. unsubbing from youtube, subbing to odysee. its nothing personal and i know it hurts creators to unsub but i'm trying to ween off youtube. thank you for being on odysee

  2. I am actually kind of disappointed to see someone as smart and objective as you promote Derek. Having watched the link and a few of his other videos, it's painfully obvious he has a very basic grasp of the subject (or exaggerates for entertainment value) and tries to paint himself as objective while wearing his bias on his sleeve. He seems to lead the evidence to his preconceived opinions. Considering how he presents his observations and how many people seem to believe his opinions a scientific fact, I find it rather irresponsible to promote such channels.

  3. I hope that all this sends the correct messages to politicians. No it is not the fault of investors for buying so much, it is also not the fault of Robinhood and others for being small companies with not enough capital. The problem is that everyone relies on an antiquated system that needs 2 days for clearing a transaction.

    This law that customer money can't be touched until the transaction was settled is a hotfix, nothing more. Because it was easier to implement than forcing the system to be fixed/updated. However implementing an efficient system would possibly put clearing houses out of business. Especially if the law would require something extremely state of the art like a blockchain. Even if that blockchain would be centralized and private, brokers would not need clearing houses anymore, just someone neutral who hosts the blockchain.

    The contracts would be written immediately, verified immediately and money transferred immediately. The broker offers the infrastructure, someone else hosts the network. Plus there would even be the option of making the blockchain semi-public. There are dual blockchains which specialize in having one blockchain doing the transfers and another one being openly accessible containing the information that everyone should be allowed to see.

    I didn't read up about these specifics yet, but if the system is sound and it can be guaranteed that blockchain 2 shows accurately data from blockchain 1, then so many analytics would be possible depending on how much information will be shown. Probably for privacy reasons not more than is visible already today (overall volume traded and the price). But even if not more, nobody could doubt anymore that the published numbers are fake or have strange conspiracy theories.

  4. Maybe I'm being overly charitable, but based on how the CEO of RH mentioned taking pre-emptive action it seems to me that he thought that admitting to a liquidity problem would be understood as being nearly broke, whereas he is trying to convey that they contained the situation before it came close to that. RH going belly up would a bigger disaster to their customers and even a whiff of that possibility would create an exodus of epic proportions that would probably dwarf the number of users that are now leaving because of the restrictions.

  5. Wallstreet….who on this planet doesn't know that place is fuckt.n one should stay the fuck away from that place,n if u go there then you r asking 4 it.from Australia

  6. Brokerage firms like RobinHood have to comply with SEC net capital requirements. And these requirements are monitored on a real-time basis.

    This past Thursday, The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) issued a collateral call.

    From Bloomberg:

    The trouble on Thursday began around 10 a.m., when after days of turbulence, the DTCC demanded significantly more collateral from member brokers, according to two people familiar with the matter.

    A spokesman for the DTCC wouldn’t specify how much it required from specific firms but said that by the end of the day industrywide collateral requirements jumped to $33.5 billion, up from $26 billion.

    “It’s the DTCC saying ‘This stuff is just too risky. We don’t trust that these guys have the cash to be able to withstand settling these things two days from now, because in two days, who knows what the price could be, it could be zero.’"

    Think about it from RobinHood’s perspective. As more and more of their clients pile into the riskiest of stocks, they are forced to come up with more and more capital. Sure, they draw down their lines of credit, but as the price of GME rises and the mania intensifies, it only attracts more clients to the name. This puts more pressure on RobinHood’s finances.

  7. In a sense he was not lying through his teeth. To be fair when they normally had to put up 3% of a trade and all of a sudden they have to put up %100 this changes the game. And to top it off this takes over 2 days to go through. Since the volatility was the issue and they have to use their own funds this makes sense. They have so much they hold onto. As an example.
    Let’s say the shares are $100 each. At noon. Customer A buys 10 shares. Customer B sells 3 shares. Customer C buys 20 shares. At 1Pm Customer D buys 10 shares and customer E sells 2 shares. The daily amount they would have to put up would be Customer A ((10 x $100) which is $1000 and have to put up $30 which is 3% then they would have to also put up for Customer C $60 which is 3% of his $2000 trade. Also they would have to put up $30 for Customer D trades of $1000. But since these have not cleared yet they cannot just minus the sells from this balance. But even if they could let’s move onto the 100% situation.
    Example 2. Same figures they would have to put up over $4000 instead of just $120. And that is only on 3 trades. The difference can be huge if you take into account how many trades there could be over the day. Since the amount of trades are so huge they would have to put up all this money and it all adds up.
    If you normally have to pay $120 then all of a sudden have to put up $4000 instead it is a big difference. Now multiply that by millions and you can see it climbs. Plus even if the same customer bought 10 then sold 10 then bought 10 then sold 10 then bought 10 then sold 10 shares. The net amount is 0 but since the trades do not clear until 48 hours later they have to put up the full amount for those trades even though the net is 0 but they have to have the amounts on hold for 2 days it is crazy how that adds up. It is not a simple matter of all buys minus all sells equals what they owe. Since those trades have not completed until the following 48 hours they would still have to put up collateral of 30 shares. Not to mention what happens the next day.

  8. I think that people on Reddit were mad that hedge funds constantly short companies and profit heavily off of people losing money. That is the main issue as to why this happened in the first place. Regardless of what Robinhood did or didn’t do. If it comes out that the hedge funds had ANYTHING to do with Robinhood limiting buying then obviously that would be a huge problem. I find it more concerning that Robinhood was selling off people’s shares without their consent. There are numerous reports of Robinhood closing people’s positions on GME without the people choosing to do so.

  9. ok… so i can buy google for 1890$ but not gme for 250$? 100% of 250 is 250 , whats the percent usually? 10%? IDK but 10% of 1890$ is 189$. almost the same exact price, what they did and the excuse they used behind it just doesnt add up.

  10. Hold up. Trading212 'only halted options'? Then how the heck does that work? Trading212 does not do options outside CFD, and I was blocked from buying any GME shares on their platform. I have received dividends from various stocks through T212, so it's outright shares I bought and held through them.

  11. You kind of mislead when you say "Robinhood had to abide by SEC regulations etc etc" but the actions of those brokers mainly hurt the little guy and helped the Hedgefunds lose WAY less than they would have had buying never been halted. Stop making excuses for the most corrupt institution on the planet. Every single one of these dirtbag halters need to at minimum close their companies and go to jail if jail time is permitted for their crimes. 30+ years of the stock market crushing main Street and as soon as Wall St gets hammered, they get helped IMMEDIATELY.

  12. Louis, the halt on buying this stock happened on a lot of platforms. It wasn't only Robinhood. Even TD Ameritrade halted it. Plus, the halt remained beyond the 2 days it takes to fully execute a trade (back end). It contained well beyond 3 days and on multiple brokers.