No. If you had a limit buy, Robinhood would never exceed your limit. Period. That would be highly illegal.
This is more like you want to buy something at 100. Robinhood then goes to the market and looks at all the vendors. The vendors are selling at various prices. Robinhood has a relationship with one of the vendors so they went there and that vendor was willing to sell at 98. However, a vendor down the street (that Robinhood doesn't like) would have been willing to sell at 97.
None of that is illegal. What the SEC is arguing here is that Robinhood didn't tell the customers this when they advertised "commision-free" trades. In Robinhood's eyes, they didn't charge a commission, so this was accurate. But in the SEC eyes, the customer was paying a "hidden" commission because they would get a slightly worse price than if they went with a different broker.
Imagine you are Fidelity... All of a sudden, you have Robinhood advertising "commission-free" and you just lost a good chunk of business from retail traders. You then complain to the SEC because the advertising here is not entirely accurate - the customers might have even gotten a better price with Fidelity - even if you add in the commission.
FTA:
> The order finds that Robinhood provided inferior trade prices that in aggregate deprived customers of $34.1 million even after taking into account the savings from not paying a commission.
Robinhood goes down to vendor street and into the shop of its preferred vendor, who is also the preferred vendor of most other brokerages. The vendor says "The street price on this item is $100, but we can get them for $95. We can get it to your customer for $97 and give you $1, or $98 and give you $2". Robinhood takes the $2, other brokerages don't, and Robinhood (crucially) lies about it, at which point the SEC gets mad.
I always wondered how these companies made money. My first suspicion was, that they "fed" stupid retail clients thay had no place in trading to the big fishes.
I learned so much in this thread, making it one of my favorites. And showing again why HN is the great thing it is.
Also, even I wasn't really right, RH and others sure found a way to price and sell an existing service better than incumbents. And in good disruptive tradition seem to have ignored certain regulations.
The "certain regulation" here is simply that you can't advertise to your customers that you're getting them the best possible deal when you have deliberately chosen not to give them the best deal. As the SEC points out: their pricing isn't better than traditional brokerages. This isn't like Uber, where the lie is that the low prices are subsidized by investors and will be jacked up later on down the road; here, the lie is taken directly out of the hide of RH customers.
That's true only if the service Robinhood is providing is giving customers good deals. It seems quite plausible that instead it is actually providing entertainment in the form of "free" trading. If this is the case, the lack of explicit commission is a key feature.
My post has no bearing on a limit. If you see 103 on your ui and tell RH to limit to 103 then RH is still obligated to do the best it can. If the best execution you could reasonably get is 100 and you execute below your limit but above 100, that’s illegal.
The limit in a limit order is really an orthogonal concept.
This is more like you want to buy something at 100. Robinhood then goes to the market and looks at all the vendors. The vendors are selling at various prices. Robinhood has a relationship with one of the vendors so they went there and that vendor was willing to sell at 98. However, a vendor down the street (that Robinhood doesn't like) would have been willing to sell at 97.
None of that is illegal. What the SEC is arguing here is that Robinhood didn't tell the customers this when they advertised "commision-free" trades. In Robinhood's eyes, they didn't charge a commission, so this was accurate. But in the SEC eyes, the customer was paying a "hidden" commission because they would get a slightly worse price than if they went with a different broker.
Imagine you are Fidelity... All of a sudden, you have Robinhood advertising "commission-free" and you just lost a good chunk of business from retail traders. You then complain to the SEC because the advertising here is not entirely accurate - the customers might have even gotten a better price with Fidelity - even if you add in the commission.
FTA: > The order finds that Robinhood provided inferior trade prices that in aggregate deprived customers of $34.1 million even after taking into account the savings from not paying a commission.