Not really, because there's an extenuating circumstance that forced them to do it (ie. DTCC raising deposit requirements).
EDIT: Updated with source. I'm curious about the downvotes.
1. Page 4. https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/PDFs/DTCC-Statement-Febru...
Source? And for how long?
>All DTCC clearing members satisfied their requirements before the market opened.
That says nothing about the requirements they'll face later, as a result of trades made on the 28th.
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/9a1b24e6-0433-462a-a860-c2504ea56... Excerpt: "Robinhood, the online brokerage at the centre of wild trading in equities this week, has raised more than $1bn from its existing investors and tapped credit lines from banks to shore up its financial position after a turbulent four days. The company has drawn down at least several hundred million dollars via a credit facility with banks led by JPMorgan and including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Barclays and Wells Fargo, according to people familiar with the move."
Even if they had not met the requirements (again, which they did), a depository requirement change is not an extenuating circumstance in the least. That is part and parcel of this business.
Nobody should be defending Robinhood here. People are just wrong about what Robinhood did wrong.
...the morning of. The deposit requirements will go up as customers place more trades.
>a depository requirement change is not an extenuating circumstance in the least. That is part and parcel of this business.
If it's a 99 percentile event that nobody could have saw coming happened, why shouldn't it be an extenuating circumstance? Keep in mind, they're a discount brokerage. It's like getting mad that your vps from a lowendbox provider had a few days of downtime because their raid6 had 2 disk failures.
