As promised last week, this week I’ll discuss the potential scandal behind the GameStop/Robinhood dilemma and where things stand as of now. First, let’s begin by looking at a quote from the Feb.18th congress hearing by Rep. Cindy Axne regarding Robinhood’s decision to restrict GameStop stock trading:
She called, “the arrangement a conflict of interest that disadvantages the users Robinhood says it exists to empower. The app’s users “aren't your customers, they’re your product”.
Starting off with some context, we left off last week discussing how an influx of stock shorting on GameStop resulted in its stock price increasing by hundreds of dollars in a matter of days. However, the part of the story we didn’t talk about was how stock trading apps like Robinhood were trying to prevent this from happening once they took notice. Specifically, Robinhood restricted the trading of Both GameStop and AMC stocks after they began to rise causing many users to complain and some to file lawsuits. While multiple news sources might argue that this was a reaction to high market volatility, in reality, there is much more going on behind the scenes.
Starting with the conflict of interest mentioned in the quote above, it all stems from the relationship between 3 businesses: Robinhood, Citadel, and Melvin Capital. Simply put, while not confirmed, it is widely believed that “Robinhood is owned by capital firm Citadel, which also owns Melvin Capital”. Considering that Robinhood halted trading of a stock that would hurt Melvin Capital if it continues to grow, it at least makes sense for this widespread rumor to hold some degree of truth. However, beyond just Gamestop short stocks, Citadel and Robinhood are also being pressured for participating in something called “payment for order flow.” This practice involves having “brokers receive payments from market makers (dealers) for routing trades to them”. In other words, apps like Robinhood can get some extra money for allowing companies like Citadel to complete the stock orders that Robinhood receives through their platform. While this practice is considered legal, it is widely unpopular and was brought under fire by senator Warren during the hearing on the 18th for how it could also represent a conflict of interest considering the supposed relationship between Robinhood and Citadel.
Ultimately, it is clear that the recent GameStop fiasco has created significant drama around what constitutes market manipulation. While hearings with the companies discussed above have already started, there doesn’t seem to be a clear answer to whether any legal action will bear fruit. Fortunately, multiple lawsuits have been filed against Robinhood by its users giving hope that public opinion will still serve as a check on any companies that try to pull the same move down line. Overall, I believe that this will likely end with only a slap on the wrist for Citadel and Robinhood, however, we can only pray that Congress takes the necessary action to prevent future events like this.
Comments