If you’re not local to the company and they are new to hiring in your area that’s not remote work here to stay, that’s fulfilling a need at a point in time.
Why would the base their HQ in a tax heavy state like California, specifically the Bay Area and build multibillion dollar office buildings? Access to UC Berkeley and Stanford has historically been the answer.
In a few years kids who grew up on zoom looking to go to the office and have the communal experience that escaped them. Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and the bank always owns the land on either side of said fence.
All the companies meeting their earnings are back (Msft, Tesla, Apple… curious to see what FB does, but I think Elon is going to want asses in seats so to speak). I can see the articles being written now.
You career will be decades long, and you're in an industry that pays pretty well. Short term ups and downs are much less important than the general trajectory. Some people take years off to have kids, other (me) took 5+ years just being an idiot.
Pandemic gambling steam was going to run out eventually, but with $6B cash cushion, gives them a lot of time to figure out a long term strategy or get acquired by a traditional brokerage looking for a youth channel.
They have to keep that $6B almost entirely in reserve as collateral to avoid another GME. Why would you say stuff like this on a public forum when you have no idea how that industry works?
That is an insane drop. What is going on? Are they being outcompeted or simply not making money? Is their business model (being an easy to use broker for little people) simply not good?
I started trading on RH in 2019. They make investing simple and approachable for someone who like me who knew the basics and just wanted to play around a bit with some spare cash.
But after a couple years when I want to start taking it more seriously, their platform has failed to grow and improve. In the three years I've used them, I can't think of a single new feature they added that I use. Meanwhile, there are plenty of things I'd like. For example, it's beyond ridiculous that price graphs don't have their axes labeled. When selling stock, it's always FIFO, so I can't choose which lots to sell to optimize tax liabilities.
The problem is that I have a hard time leaving because their margin rates (~3%) are so damn good compared to the major players (8% or higher).
IB has very conservative risk management wrt margin and there is no margin call. If the market moves against you, they will liquidate you rapidly. Something to keep in mind when considering your LTV. Their margin rates are good, but there’s a reason they’re good.
Good margin rates will be difficult to find in a rising interest rate environment. You can get lower rates from traditional brokers if you have a substantial net worth btw ($1MM+ AUM).
There aren’t offering anything new and even frontrun their customers. And with the GameStop fiasco, I think a lot of people realizes it was a bad business model. I don’t think they will be able to recover. It will drop even more if a recession ever hits.
They don't front-run orders. They still give best execution but they receive a small fee from market makers for sending orders their way.
If both market maker A and market maker B offer the same price but B is going to pay them slightly more than A for your order, then they can legally route your order to B.
Many brokers do this now.
Front running is different entirely. For example, if you were about to buy a load of stock, front running would be Robinhood buying in before you, waiting for your order to clear the price level, and then selling a few ticks higher.
>They don't front-run orders. They still give best execution but they receive a small fee from market makers for sending orders their way.
I really have most serious doubts about the idea that you can simultaneously get paid for order flow and deliver on your best execution obligations - the payment for order flow literally comes out of missed price improvement opportunities for the customer. FINRA seems to feel the same way and fired a warning shot over the bows last year: https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/21-23
Citadel believes that they are less likely to lose money when they fill orders from retail investors. They're just paying for access to rubes, basically a finders fee.
Went from being the golden child of /r/wallstreetbets (literally every portfolio screenshot was of robin hood) to being villainized due to suspicious circumstances regarding locking people out of trading Gamestop "for their own good." Now any screenshot of robin hood is ridiculed.
Yeah as soon as those orders weren't being filled and the ceo of robinhood was grilled by congress no one ever believed in them. On the discord there still people that use robinhood but most people use different brokers anyway like TD Ameritrade.
The entire market had a similar drop this week (especially today) and has been slow-burning for the last three months, so. Take it with a grain of salt.
They prob just intentionally overhired because they could afford to, to deprive competition of talent and to see who did well. That's what I'd do if I had cash to burn in a competitive industry
Lol no they did not. They are desperate because nothing is working and they are losing money and they don't know what they are doing. Source: I quit 3 weeks ago.
Funny, you could have phrased that "We were desperate because nothing was working and we were losing money and we didn't know what we were doing."
It looks like you have all the answers and "they" have no idea, but I don't see anything else than pure "us vs them" mentality and finger pointing on a company that you chose to join and accept money from.
Care to share what you would do if you were in charge ? At what level have you been able to implement some of the solution you have in mind ? What was the outcome ?
I did not ask for you to fix the business, I just asked for one constructive idea, rather than a blanket "they don't know, their business is doomed lol". So far I got nothing.
1. Either he has one (or more) good and constructive idea on how to fix the problems faced by his former employer. In which case, please share those ideas and justify them as this is way more interesting than an empty and pointless "lol they have no idea".
2. Or he has no idea how to fix it. Which is perfectly OK (I am in that situation !). But then making fun of the people in charge of trying to do what he can't - and won't - do is probably something he should refrain from doing altogether.
Leaving an employer because you don't see a future in a company is perfectly OK. Disagreeing with the vision / direction set by management is 100% normal as well. Publicly making fun of people who are in charge of steering a ship you have been a part of for only 6 month isn't. Especially when not associated with any actionable insight.
Well, one does not preclude the other. If they did overhire intentionally I expect they wouldn't admit that or act in a way that might make lots of people suspect it. But sure, all that could be straightforwardly true too
Not at all ridiculous. Growing companies do this all the time. And exactly as the other poster said your experience that the company is disorganized doesn't preclude this possibility in any way.
Name one company that did this. We aren't talking about hiring the 3 people with some specific skill, we are talking about hiring programmers. Name a company that hired all the programmers.
Ok great, I worked in downtown Palo Alto in the 3rd quarter of 2011 in an office literally sublet from Facebook. Every available office seemed to be being taken over by FB at the time, but they were also renting them back out as they outgrew them.
Where we were, it should have been ground-0 of some kind of engineer shortage right? We were a small startup and we had no trouble hiring, in fact I don't recall a single person we recruited going to Facebook instead, or even anyone mentioning it. Certainly they didn't hire anyone away from our company. I think you are grossly overestimating how much one company's hiring can effect the market. Since you were, I would guess, maybe 16 at the time you must have read this somewhere? I'm curious what your sources are.
Yeah I'm gonna empty out my assets and close my account.
I HATE companies that fire people on the first bad quarter. People are relying on this salary to live.
Literally have some basic fiscal responsibility and don't hire to the point where one bad quarter means you have to fire a tenth of your workforce. The fuck.
That's the startup tech company way though. You get in and make stupid amounts of money on the understanding it could vanish at any moment but your skills are valuable so you can get a job somewhere else quickly.
I feel much worse for the casual employees who can have their hours reduced to unlivable amounts silently with no press release.
The thing is, there isn't enough of an adverse consequence for companies to do this. For example, if companies got fined for large layoffs, or large number of employee cuts over a short amount of time (just to prevent loopholes of "slowly" laying off people), then this would be far less likely.
Layoffs have an impact on far more than just the company. They have an impact on the state, they have an impact on the side service oriented businesses created because of that company, and they have a direct impact on the lives of the workers and their dependents.
It shouldn't be "free" for a company to have a ripple effect of this magnitude. Regulations like this would force companies to grow in a sustainable fashion, since having a "break" like this would be extremely expensive to the execs and major shareholders of the company.
FWIW I have barely thought this out and this might sound ridiculous.
Well maybe your solution isn't good, but "It shouldn't be "free" for a company to have a ripple effect of this magnitude." is a valid point that i've not seen made explicitly.
I use a unique email for every service. This week I got two emails to my Robinhood address from Metamask (never heard of it) subject “verify your wallet” I wonder how they got Robinhood’s email list?
That's a phishing email and for sure not from Metamask. They normally get your email from some crypto-related service database leak, in my case at least.
I see, it must have been from that. Thanks very much for sharing that.
It’s very creepy and scary to see the breach notice side-by-side with these scumbags’ fresh phishing attempt. The people behind these sort of attacks need to be hunted down and brought to justice.
> This rapid headcount growth has led to some duplicate roles and job functions, and more layers and complexity than are optimal.
Why does this feel like a direct copy of Elon's recent email to Tesla? Does everyone use the same justification and exact wording when it comes to firing employees now?
Today, not too much. They have cleaner support for things like crypto or more unusual trade structures but the big thing that they offered that nobody else had was free trades. The whole industry has now shifted to that but it was a big deal when a trade was $0.00 rather than $4.95.
I don't think they make much money if there are no transactions, and the world chaos of late has made "hodl" the wisest choice for most. Probably will pick up later.
Starting to look like I missed the golden job market between this and Meta/Twitter hiring freezes.