[ehejsbbejsk]

I believe this is to punish RH for offering zero commissions. Especially on options. I seriously think what RH offers, for anyone who’s traded options on the retail side, is a game changer.

[cj]

Sometimes what's good for the 1 person isn't good for everyone.

For example, if a bank starts giving out 0% interest 100 year mortgages (with some fine print that gives them some obscure revenue source to make it possible for them to make such an appealing offer) the bank should still get in trouble in my opinion if the consumer isn't informed about how they're getting such an amazing deal, because you're removing the consumer's ability to make an informed decision.

[ehejsbbejsk]

I know what you want to say but that’s an awfully bad example. I would take out that loan 10 times over.

[bagacrap]

The article states that RH cost its consumers more in bad trade execution than it saved them in commissions. How are you sure this didn't happen to you?

[ehejsbbejsk]

I trade in multiple platforms and I put in limit orders (RH doesn’t even allow market afaik). To be fair, I am probably not your typical trader since I’ve been a fintech developer in the past as well as have been involved in analyzing many SEC cases for/against major financial institutions. I will say this: it’s extremely hard to prove execution quality on options trading let alone doing it in 2020 when the market was so volatile.

[renewiltord]

RH doesn't offer market orders on options. So GP never got a worse price than he was willing to pay.

[eru]

Alas, for most people, especially retail and even more especially options, it's better if they trade less.

[ehejsbbejsk]

Govt cannot be an arbiter of what people do with their money. Period.

[ummonk]

Interactive Brokers was offering near-zero commissions already.