Admittedly I know nothing about the stock market but when your decision somehow align with your business decisions and business partners interests, it’s hard not for people to expect there’s a more nefarious reason behind it.
Let's say some subreddit convinces a whole town that it would be a good idea to turn on all their water taps, and leave them on, at the same time. And, as the reservoir drains dry and the sewage lines start overflowing, the water company cuts supply. And then it turns out that the water company has some vague amorphous relationship with a bottled water company. Do you assume that the water company shut off supply because everyone did something weird and the system was about to stop working, or that they did it to benefit the bottled water company?
Like, at some point, "this entity was forced into a position where they had to do the thing, but the thing might have benefited someone they're connected to, therefore they must have done it intentionally for reasons of collusion" looks like a pretty flimsy explanation.
While I understand the sentiment of your analogy, I think a big part that’s missing in your analogy is that the water bottle company loses a ton of money (if not bankrupt) if everyone keeps their water taps on and they gain a ton of money if they turn it off which changes the story completely. If I am the water company, and it’s in the water bottle interests, what stops the water company from simple saying “oh we have sewage issues” while the water bottle company rakes in the dough.
What I don’t get is why Robinhood didn’t outright explain this at first. It seems like it’s a good excuse and they announced it right after the media suggested this was the possibility.
They probably should have. But “we are virtually insolvent”, if that was the case, is not the sort of thing that companies, especially private companies, are normally excited about doing. Bad look.
