Robinhood ordered to pay $70m penalty to US regulator

It's the largest penalty the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has ever ordered.

Read the whole story

 

[dmsilev]

Compliance with these rules is not optional and cannot be sacrificed for the sake of innovation or a willingness to ‘break things’ and fix them later

But, but, what about the disruption? The innovative business models shedding the unnecessary burdens of the past? The synergies? Will nobody think of the lost synergies?

 

[ranthog]

Compliance with these rules is not optional and cannot be sacrificed for the sake of innovation or a willingness to ‘break things’ and fix them later

But, but, what about the disruption? The innovative business models shedding the unnecessary burdens of the past? The synergies? Will nobody think of the lost synergies?

Synergies are so last year. This year you need the nucleus of innovation to cross with dedication of spirit to succeed.

 

[Dassassin]

Finra cited the death by suicide of a young Robinhood customer last year, who mistakenly believed he had incurred $730,165 in losses on a margin trade. In fact, his account had a balance of $16,000. In a note found after his death, he indicated he did not believe that he had “turned on” margin trading on his account.

Reddit likes to talk about Robinhood limiting buy orders of GME to 1 share when it couldn't meet regulatory collateral requirements -- something I expect to see discussed in this thread. It's my opinion Robinhood Financial was simply complying with the law at that time, not trying to manipulate the stock market.

But misrepresenting account balances by nearly a million dollars due to unsettled trading activity? That's pretty egregious.

 

[DecFairlight]

Who would have thought that a company who made that what is functionally legalized slow motion gambling available to everyone with a cell phone might have some ethical issues.

 

[ranthog]

Finra cited the death by suicide of a young Robinhood customer last year, who mistakenly believed he had incurred $730,165 in losses on a margin trade. In fact, his account had a balance of $16,000. In a note found after his death, he indicated he did not believe that he had “turned on” margin trading on his account.

I am in no way defending Robin Hood (frankly I think the world would be a better place if they were forcibly shut down) but I don't think this one can really be laid at their feet. If a person's reaction to an error like this is to commit suicide rather than do something like contacting the company to try to clear up what what could easily have been a mistake or a simple misunderstanding of the information presented, I think there must be other, more serious problems in their life that deserve most of the blame.

The question I would raise is: "so what?"

It is pretty common with harm that there are multiple contributing factors. The fact that Robinhood doesn't hold 100% of the fault here doesn't mean this wasn't in part harm they contributed to.

 

[PrionDX]

Who gets the restitution and how will it be delivered?

 

[Tallawk]

Something move fast break shit something

Edit: disruption

 

[Asraiil]

Finra cited the death by suicide of a young Robinhood customer last year, who mistakenly believed he had incurred $730,165 in losses on a margin trade. In fact, his account had a balance of $16,000. In a note found after his death, he indicated he did not believe that he had “turned on” margin trading on his account.

I am in no way defending Robin Hood (frankly I think the world would be a better place if they were forcibly shut down) but I don't think this one can really be laid at their feet. If a person's reaction to an error like this is to commit suicide rather than do something like contacting the company to try to clear up what what could easily have been a mistake or a simple misunderstanding of the information presented, I think there must be other, more serious problems in their life that deserve most of the blame.

According to the news article I read about this situation (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alex-kearn ... eath-suit/), the young man sent Robinhood emails to try and get the situation cleared up and only received automated replies (In the article the reporter states that Robinhood had no customer service line at the time). It wasn't until after those systems failed him that he killed himself because he thought he had no other recourse.

 

[vonneguts]

Finra cited the death by suicide of a young Robinhood customer last year, who mistakenly believed he had incurred $730,165 in losses on a margin trade. In fact, his account had a balance of $16,000. In a note found after his death, he indicated he did not believe that he had “turned on” margin trading on his account.

I am in no way defending Robin Hood (frankly I think the world would be a better place if they were forcibly shut down) but I don't think this one can really be laid at their feet. If a person's reaction to an error like this is to commit suicide rather than do something like contacting the company to try to clear up what what could easily have been a mistake or a simple misunderstanding of the information presented, I think there must be other, more serious problems in their life that deserve most of the blame.

Couple things:

1. They are not being fined for his suicide. They are being fined for giving their customers false or misleading information--Alex Kearns is merely cited as an example of a customer who was given such egregiously misleading information on a product that he probably shouldn't have had access to in the first place that it caused him extreme emotional distress.
2. At the time of his suicide, RH did not have a publicly available Customer Support phone number, and his emails to support were met with canned responses immediately before and after his death.

So before you make assumptions and leap to defend Robinhood, as you claim not to want to do, I'd recommend you have at least a modicum of understanding of the facts involved with the story you're commenting on.

 

[Tallawk]

Finra cited the death by suicide of a young Robinhood customer last year, who mistakenly believed he had incurred $730,165 in losses on a margin trade. In fact, his account had a balance of $16,000. In a note found after his death, he indicated he did not believe that he had “turned on” margin trading on his account.

I am in no way defending Robin Hood (frankly I think the world would be a better place if they were forcibly shut down) but I don't think this one can really be laid at their feet. If a person's reaction to an error like this is to commit suicide rather than do something like contacting the company to try to clear up what what could easily have been a mistake or a simple misunderstanding of the information presented, I think there must be other, more serious problems in their life that deserve most of the blame.

Funny I take an opposing view: I'm quite willing to tolerate their right to a legal business. But as far as the suicide, well, they can figure that out in court. And if it's painful for them, then maybe the dark patterns that led them there will be found to be unprofitable.

 

[ranthog]

Finra cited the death by suicide of a young Robinhood customer last year, who mistakenly believed he had incurred $730,165 in losses on a margin trade. In fact, his account had a balance of $16,000. In a note found after his death, he indicated he did not believe that he had “turned on” margin trading on his account.

I am in no way defending Robin Hood (frankly I think the world would be a better place if they were forcibly shut down) but I don't think this one can really be laid at their feet. If a person's reaction to an error like this is to commit suicide rather than do something like contacting the company to try to clear up what what could easily have been a mistake or a simple misunderstanding of the information presented, I think there must be other, more serious problems in their life that deserve most of the blame.

The question I would raise is: "so what?"

It is pretty common with harm that there are multiple contributing factors. The fact that Robinhood doesn't hold 100% of the fault here doesn't mean this wasn't in part harm they contributed to.

No, but blaming a company for what is obviously a gross overreaction on the part of the customer to one of the company's mistakes is disingenuous at best (and I hate using that word).

It would be like if my car dealership said this month's payment is $40,000 instead of $400.00 and I killed myself over it. Yeah my dealership should do a better job of verifying the bills they send out, but that doesn't mean it's right to blame them for my reaction.

The thing is that it is impossible that my monthly payment is $40,000. That is clearly an error. And the payments on a car loan are generally fixed, which makes spotting errors easy.

If I'm trading on margin by accident having a huge deficit like that is possible.

I would assume the guy thought that he actually owed this much money and that he was financially ruined. I assume he probably wouldn't have committed suicide if he thought this was something that was in error and that he should have had a positive balance.

 

[andrewb610]

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra) announced on Wednesday that it was fining Robinhood $57m and ordering it to pay $12.6m plus interest in restitution to its customers

Those figures should be reversed. As a matter of policy, that is; I'm sure the reporting is accurate.

 

[Cincinnatus]

Compliance with these rules is not optional and cannot be sacrificed for the sake of innovation or a willingness to ‘break things’ and fix them later

But, but, what about the disruption? The innovative business models shedding the unnecessary burdens of the past? The synergies? Will nobody think of the lost synergies?

Synergies are so last year. This year you need the nucleus of innovation to cross with dedication of spirit to succeed.

Don’t forget “the will of the warrior!”

 

[Asraiil]

Finra cited the death by suicide of a young Robinhood customer last year, who mistakenly believed he had incurred $730,165 in losses on a margin trade. In fact, his account had a balance of $16,000. In a note found after his death, he indicated he did not believe that he had “turned on” margin trading on his account.

I am in no way defending Robin Hood (frankly I think the world would be a better place if they were forcibly shut down) but I don't think this one can really be laid at their feet. If a person's reaction to an error like this is to commit suicide rather than do something like contacting the company to try to clear up what what could easily have been a mistake or a simple misunderstanding of the information presented, I think there must be other, more serious problems in their life that deserve most of the blame.

The question I would raise is: "so what?"

It is pretty common with harm that there are multiple contributing factors. The fact that Robinhood doesn't hold 100% of the fault here doesn't mean this wasn't in part harm they contributed to.

No, but blaming a company for what is obviously a gross overreaction on the part of the customer to one of the company's mistakes is disingenuous at best (and I hate using that word).

It would be like if my car dealership said this month's payment is $40,000 instead of $400.00 and I killed myself over it. Yeah my dealership should do a better job of verifying the bills they send out, but that doesn't mean it's right to blame them for my reaction.

There's a huge difference between finding out that your car payment is 40k, and therefore you might lose your car, and finding out you just lost 750K and you might have screwed yourself out of a future, or you might've screwed your parents out of their retirement, or any other number of nightmare scenarios that play out in people's heads when they get a bill like that.

 

[Roguish]

Who would have thought that a company who made that what is functionally legalized slow motion gambling available to everyone with a cell phone might have some ethical issues.

But it isn't gambling.

Admittedly gambling introduces addiction problems all of its own.

What we have here, and Robinhood isn't alone but certainly is one of the ones leading the charge, is the democratization of access to a playing field dominated by professional elites.

Gambling implies that although the house wins in the long run, anyone who pulls the lever has some chance of winning.

This isn't gambling. It's telling people that yes, you can have a spot in a pro football or pro hockey lineup just like you wanted when you were a kid, and you can play with the stars...

... oh and we're not covering your health insurance by the way, but who cares? Professional athletes get rich!

On the other side of the equation you have the MAGAT "apes" thinking that somehow they're going to take out the world's financial system through strategic bets on Gamestop via Robinhood, and they seem equally unlikeable while simultaneously more ignorant (or simply dishonest).

This is an absurd take. I'm sorry, but the answer to some people profiting from a corrupt system is not 'let everyone profit from it'. The answer is to reform the system.

 

[andrewb610]

Who would have thought that a company who made that what is functionally legalized slow motion gambling available to everyone with a cell phone might have some ethical issues.

But it isn't gambling.

Admittedly gambling introduces addiction problems all of its own.

What we have here, and Robinhood isn't alone but certainly is one of the ones leading the charge, is the democratization of access to a playing field dominated by professional elites.

Gambling implies that although the house wins in the long run, anyone who pulls the lever has some chance of winning.

This isn't gambling. It's telling people that yes, you can have a spot in a pro football or pro hockey lineup just like you wanted when you were a kid, and you can play with the stars...

... oh and we're not covering your health insurance by the way, but who cares? Professional athletes get rich!

On the other side of the equation you have the MAGAT "apes" thinking that somehow they're going to take out the world's financial system through strategic bets on Gamestop via Robinhood, and they seem equally unlikeable while simultaneously more ignorant (or simply dishonest).

This is an absurd take. I'm sorry, but the answer to some people profiting from a corrupt system is not 'let everyone profit from it'. The answer is to reform the system.

Are you saying the stock market is rigged or that RH is rigged?

 

[rayleonard]

Since corporations are people now, I think it only fair that we institute the "corporate death penalty." When a corporation has committed this much incompetence and harm at this scale they should be "executed." The company and all ownership is transferred to the government, and completely liquidated to pay restitution. The shareholders and executives get nothing.

 

[Bloater51]

Finra cited the death by suicide of a young Robinhood customer last year, who mistakenly believed he had incurred $730,165 in losses on a margin trade. In fact, his account had a balance of $16,000. In a note found after his death, he indicated he did not believe that he had “turned on” margin trading on his account.

I am in no way defending Robin Hood (frankly I think the world would be a better place if they were forcibly shut down) but I don't think this one can really be laid at their feet. If a person's reaction to an error like this is to commit suicide rather than do something like contacting the company to try to clear up what what could easily have been a mistake or a simple misunderstanding of the information presented, I think there must be other, more serious problems in their life that deserve most of the blame.

The question I would raise is: "so what?"

It is pretty common with harm that there are multiple contributing factors. The fact that Robinhood doesn't hold 100% of the fault here doesn't mean this wasn't in part harm they contributed to.

No, but blaming a company for what is obviously a gross overreaction on the part of the customer to one of the company's mistakes is disingenuous at best (and I hate using that word).

It would be like if my car dealership said this month's payment is $40,000 instead of $400.00 and I killed myself over it. Yeah my dealership should do a better job of verifying the bills they send out, but that doesn't mean it's right to blame them for my reaction.

There's a huge difference between finding out that your car payment is 40k, and therefore you might lose your car, and finding out you just lost 750K and you might have screwed yourself out of a future, or you might've screwed your parents out of their retirement, or any other number of nightmare scenarios that play out in people's heads when they get a bill like that.

Or conversely if you get a phone bill for twelve quadrillion euros and the helpline suggests paying in installments you can be confident that it is a mistake. Ironically the more people are warned about the possibility of large losses the more credible something like this appears and the greater the responsibility of the company to offer full and accurate information.

 

[RiptideLA]

Who would have thought that a company who made that what is functionally legalized slow motion gambling available to everyone with a cell phone might have some ethical issues.

But it isn't gambling.

Admittedly gambling introduces addiction problems all of its own.

What we have here, and Robinhood isn't alone but certainly is one of the ones leading the charge, is the democratization of access to a playing field dominated by professional elites.

Gambling implies that although the house wins in the long run, anyone who pulls the lever has some chance of winning.

This isn't gambling. It's telling people that yes, you can have a spot in a pro football or pro hockey lineup just like you wanted when you were a kid, and you can play with the stars...

... oh and we're not covering your health insurance by the way, but who cares? Professional athletes get rich!

On the other side of the equation you have the MAGAT "apes" thinking that somehow they're going to take out the world's financial system through strategic bets on Gamestop via Robinhood, and they seem equally unlikeable while simultaneously more ignorant (or simply dishonest).

Have you used the Robinhood app? It's totally gamifying the experience, it's sort of like a slot machine. They are using UX tricks to make using the app addictive.

 

[andrewb610]

Since corporations are people now, I think it only fair that we institute the "corporate death penalty." When a corporation has committed this much incompetence and harm at this scale they should be "executed." The company and all ownership is transferred to the government, and completely liquidated to pay restitution. The shareholders and executives get nothing.

I've mentioned on these threads a few times that the equivalent of jail for crimes committed by corporations should be Federal receivership.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

.

 

[cmacd]

Finra cited the death by suicide of a young Robinhood customer last year, who mistakenly believed he had incurred $730,165 in losses on a margin trade. In fact, his account had a balance of $16,000. In a note found after his death, he indicated he did not believe that he had “turned on” margin trading on his account.

I am in no way defending Robin Hood (frankly I think the world would be a better place if they were forcibly shut down) but I don't think this one can really be laid at their feet. If a person's reaction to an error like this is to commit suicide rather than do something like contacting the company to try to clear up what what could easily have been a mistake or a simple misunderstanding of the information presented, I think there must be other, more serious problems in their life that deserve most of the blame.

The question I would raise is: "so what?"

It is pretty common with harm that there are multiple contributing factors. The fact that Robinhood doesn't hold 100% of the fault here doesn't mean this wasn't in part harm they contributed to.

No, but blaming a company for what is obviously a gross overreaction on the part of the customer to one of the company's mistakes is disingenuous at best (and I hate using that word).

It would be like if my car dealership said this month's payment is $40,000 instead of $400.00 and I killed myself over it. Yeah my dealership should do a better job of verifying the bills they send out, but that doesn't mean it's right to blame them for my reaction.

There's a huge difference between finding out that your car payment is 40k, and therefore you might lose your car, and finding out you just lost 750K and you might have screwed yourself out of a future, or you might've screwed your parents out of their retirement, or any other number of nightmare scenarios that play out in people's heads when they get a bill like that.

Also, a car purchase is generally a fairly straightforward transaction...the odds of somehow making a mistake that will cause you a $40K payment are almost zero. Worst I've had was a notice that I hadn't provided insurance info to the lienholder, and was facing repossession. Which was scary! But as you note, it was at worst "lose my car" scary, not "lose my entire 20's worth of income" scary.

Robinhood is happy to walk you through the questionnaire IIRC, ensuring you give the "right" answers to enable Level 3 options and a margin account. Ensuring you have available to you plenty of relatively complex financial instruments, some of which come with absurd amounts of risk, even if you have almost no knowledge at all. Which is how you wind up with somebody entering a multi-legged options strategy that will result in a temporary deficit of like a million dollars without realizing what he did or how it works.

Heck, go to r/robinhood sometime and see the number of posts of people asking how the option strategies they've already purchased work. Or posting option strategies that have literally a 100% chance of loss (no actual positive outcome scenario) and trying to figure out where they went wrong. Maybe some are trolling, but the way RH works makes it all to real a possibility that they aren't.

Not that Webull or other retail brokerage platforms are all that much better. But in my limited experience RH dials it up to 11.

 

[RiptideLA]

Since corporations are people now, I think it only fair that we institute the "corporate death penalty." When a corporation has committed this much incompetence and harm at this scale they should be "executed." The company and all ownership is transferred to the government, and completely liquidated to pay restitution. The shareholders and executives get nothing.

Technically, this ability already exists, although for actual operating companies it is rarely applied.

Every company is granted that status by a state that licenses it to operate, subject to the laws of that state (and federal law). This is one of the functions that the offices of the secretary of state perform. That license to operate can - theoretically - be taken away.

I seem to remember, although I can't find anything online, years ago there was a group in California that was trying to destroy Chevron (the oil giant) in this way. Obviously they were not successful.

 

[Gnothe]

They certainly seem to deserve it, for this and other morally ambiguous practices, but I don't think this is why they actually got fined so much as failing to reign in the wallstreetbets guys in a timely manner.

 

[stealthy_tree]

I think this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I kind of like Robinhood, or at least the idea behind it.

Yeah, people shouldn't be gambling with money they have no hope in hell of paying back and it's obviously important that the information provided be both accurate and understandable, but well... It sounds like that's the type of behavior that's getting nipped in the bud here.

And the core idea behind the company: getting more people interested in the stock market by making it free to play... I don't know... It seems good to me.

 

[andrewb610]

I think this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I kind of like Robinhood, or at least the idea behind it.

Yeah, people shouldn't be gambling with money they have no hope in hell of paying back and it's obviously important that the information provided be both accurate and understandable, but well... It sounds like that's the type of behavior that's getting nipped in the bud here.

And the core idea behind the company: getting more people interested in the stock market by making it free to play... I don't know... It seems good to me.

I agree, but the devil is in the details on this.

 

[Grimer11]

I had a very shocking experience trading options on Robinhood about a year ago. I had dabbled in the stock market over the years buying and selling shares here and there and one of my buddies suggested trying out options trading. So like just about anyone would do I went and
educated myself on the whole subject and decided to give it a whirl. I started with the simplest option trade to kind of get my feet wet; I bought a call option for $100 total price and I knew the risk was that if the option expired out of the money I lost my full $100.

Fast forward a couple weeks to the day before expiry (yes it was a short expiry and I know it was a gamble, save your lectures) and my Robinhood app gave me horrifying warnings about how my option was going to expire and I could be looking at a $5,000 bill based on the amount of shares I had put to 'purchase'.

Through all my previous research I was fully confident that I knew the call option I was buying, if it was out of the money, I would only ever lose my initial $100 investment. But these messages from Robinhood had me CONVINCED I was about to lose over $5,000 the very next day because of the cryptic, confusing verbiage they used in their warnings for the following day. My heart was racing and I literally started panicking thinking of how I was going to come up with that much money and how could this have happened. Luckily I called my buddy and he assured me 'no, no I promise you aren't going to lose 5k' but holy cow it was one of the most panicking moments I've ever had. I sent them a sternly worded email a couple days later saying they really need to change their verbiage so people don't get sent into a panic like I did.

 

[HiroTheProtagonist]

I think this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I kind of like Robinhood, or at least the idea behind it.

Yeah, people shouldn't be gambling with money they have no hope in hell of paying back and it's obviously important that the information provided be both accurate and understandable, but well... It sounds like that's the type of behavior that's getting nipped in the bud here.

And the core idea behind the company: getting more people interested in the stock market by making it free to play... I don't know... It seems good to me.

The main issue is that it lowers the bar to the point that it trips people. And from the sound of it, it seems like margin trading is either the default or incredibly easy to activate by accident, which is hilariously irresponsible. The core idea of giving the common person more access to the stock market is arguably noble, but from the looks of things Robinhood metaphorically handed a woodburning kit to a 5 year old and helped them plug it in next to the drapes.

 

[andrewb610]

I had a very shocking experience trading options on Robinhood about a year ago. I had dabbled in the stock market over the years buying and selling shares here and there and one of my buddies suggested trying out options trading. So like just about anyone would do I went and
educated myself on the whole subject and decided to give it a whirl. I started with the simplest option trade to kind of get my feet wet; I bought a call option for $100 total price and I knew the risk was that if the option expired out of the money I lost my full $100.

Fast forward a couple weeks to the day before expiry (yes it was a short expiry and I know it was a gamble, save your lectures) and my Robinhood app gave me horrifying warnings about how my option was going to expire and I could be looking at a $5,000 bill based on the amount of shares I had put to 'purchase'.

Through all my previous research I was fully confident that I knew the call option I was buying, if it was out of the money, I would only ever lose my initial $100 investment. But these messages from Robinhood had me CONVINCED I was about to lose over $5,000 the very next day because of the cryptic, confusing verbiage they used in their warnings for the following day. My heart was racing and I literally started panicking thinking of how I was going to come up with that much money and how could this have happened. Luckily I called my buddy and he assured me 'no, no I promise you aren't going to lose 5k' but holy cow it was one of the most panicking moments I've ever had. I sent them a sternly worded email a couple days later saying they really need to change their verbiage so people don't get sent into a panic like I did.

A few weeks is short? My first dabble in it was 3DTE. But I also went with the cheapest option I could get (Ford OTM call that for obvious reasons to Ford traders expired). I did that because it was ridiculously cheap ($2) and I wanted to see how it worked as well. I didn't use Robinhood, however (Webull) and I have a cash account there so I'm not 100% sure they would even have executed the option if I didn't have the funds (I wasn't even close). But my lesson for other Webull options traders who are new and get access to uncovered options is to default to enabling DNE (Do Not Execute) if you won't have the funds to cover it.

And as a side disclaimer: None of this is actual financial advice.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I think this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I kind of like Robinhood, or at least the idea behind it.

Yeah, people shouldn't be gambling with money they have no hope in hell of paying back and it's obviously important that the information provided be both accurate and understandable, but well... It sounds like that's the type of behavior that's getting nipped in the bud here.

And the core idea behind the company: getting more people interested in the stock market by making it free to play... I don't know... It seems good to me.

I get where you're coming from, but most people have no business picking individual stocks instead of buying stock and bond index fund shares.

Something like 80% of full-time professional fund managers do worse than just buying and holding an S&P 500 index fund. These people have access to more information about the stocks they pick, and do it full time as their job.

I've been investing for 27 years now and I'm humble enough to know that I'm better off with my index funds than if I gamble on stock-picking.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

.

 

[KnightSpawn]

Who gets the restitution and how will it be delivered?

The lawyers and the government will divide up the restitution, and any customers harmed in the making of this ruling will have to be satisfied with seeing Robinhood lightly slapped on the wrist.

 

[vonneguts]

Who gets the restitution and how will it be delivered?

The lawyers and the government will divide up the restitution, and any customers harmed in the making of this ruling will have to be satisfied with seeing Robinhood lightly slapped on the wrist.

Note: FINRA is a private industry organization, not a government agency. The government is not getting a cut of this.

 

[stealthy_tree]

I think this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I kind of like Robinhood, or at least the idea behind it.

Yeah, people shouldn't be gambling with money they have no hope in hell of paying back and it's obviously important that the information provided be both accurate and understandable, but well... It sounds like that's the type of behavior that's getting nipped in the bud here.

And the core idea behind the company: getting more people interested in the stock market by making it free to play... I don't know... It seems good to me.

I get where you're coming from, but most people have no business picking individual stocks instead of buying stock and bond index fund shares.

Something like 80% of full-time professional fund managers do worse than just buying and holding an S&P 500 index fund. These people have access to more information about the stocks they pick, and do it full time as their job.

I've been investing for 27 years now and I'm humble enough to know that I'm better off with my index funds than if I gamble on stock-picking.

I realize you're a 100% right on the superiority of index funds. A big assumption that I was making was that RH is pulling people from outside the market in rather than pulling people from making safe investments to stupid ones. I don't know which is true...