If you really are hell bent into making some crypto parallel, you have to think decentralized exchange, where you're custodian of your wallet (your own broker) and the exchange is an independent market. Your wallet getting hacked does not impact the exchange in this case. By the same token, RH getting hacked does not impact the trading at the NYSE unless said user was a whale that could move volume
Almost 2,000 RobinHood Accounts Hacked
- Thread starter bone
- Start date
If you really are hell bent into making some crypto parallel, you have to think decentralized exchange, where you're custodian of your wallet (your own broker) and the exchange is an independent market. Your wallet getting hacked does not impact the exchange in this case. By the same token, RH getting hacked does not impact the trading at the NYSE unless said user was a whale that could move volume
Nouns and verbs. That's all it is. Give the guy a break? Oh, wait, that would make you an EXCHANGE, because you are trading one thing for another. Never mind.
Believe it or not, a lot of people here are taking what you are saying with more consideration, otherwise, they would have never bothered to respond in the first place.
An exchange is where the actual trade happens between 2 parties or their respective agents (In the case of securities exchanges, they are called brokers or agents or authorized participants or authorized person, all are principally meaning the same).
Trades do not actually get executed @RH, Robinhood as well as other brokers send orders on behalf of their customers to the relevant exchange to get them executed.
If Robinhood matches orders between buyers and sellers themselves, they would definitely be an exchange, but in reality, they don't, hence they are not considered an exchange.
Even your definition of Walmart by considering it as an exchange is not very accurate. Walmart, Amazon, etc...are more of marketplaces rather than exchanges. It's true that @Walmart or @Amazon, you do exchange money for products/services, so from this angle (and by the exact wording), they can be considered exchanges where there is one seller and multiple buyers. Amazon is probably more close to an exchange than Walmart since Amazon allows almost anyone to setup their shop and sell their products, though not accurate because Amazon themselves are a seller as well, which pretty much have a conflict of interest, but that's a different topic.
And who said that you can't have charts for Amazon products? If you check camelcamelcamel.com, you will find that they chart Amazon product prices for you.
I guess you are taking the discussion from a precise wording view, while most of the people here are taking it from the real world practical perspective, but I believe you are on the wrong side of the discussion as this is not really an English language forum, it's a traders forum.
Cheers
No. Robinhood is not a trading exchange.
The SEC has broad authority over defining and regulating securities exchanges, and here is the list of securities exchanges in the United States:
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
With this Act, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Act empowers the SEC with broad authority over all aspects of the securities industry. This includes the power to register, regulate, and oversee brokerage firms, transfer agents, and clearing agencies as well as the nation's securities self regulatory organizations (SROs). The various securities exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Stock Market, and the Chicago Board of Options are SROs. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is also an SRO.
The Act also identifies and prohibits certain types of conduct in the markets and provides the Commission with disciplinary powers over regulated entities and persons associated with them.
The Act also empowers the SEC to require periodic reporting of information by companies with publicly traded securities.
The SEC has broad authority over defining and regulating securities exchanges, and here is the list of securities exchanges in the United States:
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
With this Act, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Act empowers the SEC with broad authority over all aspects of the securities industry. This includes the power to register, regulate, and oversee brokerage firms, transfer agents, and clearing agencies as well as the nation's securities self regulatory organizations (SROs). The various securities exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Stock Market, and the Chicago Board of Options are SROs. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is also an SRO.
The Act also identifies and prohibits certain types of conduct in the markets and provides the Commission with disciplinary powers over regulated entities and persons associated with them.
The Act also empowers the SEC to require periodic reporting of information by companies with publicly traded securities.
Last edited:
Should you warn them, about the fact that you're recording as well ?
Because, here, they warn you prior to live conversation, that they (they - small bis, goverment etc) will record.
Sounds bit silly tho, both sides warning each other and chat happily ever aftet.
Conversation in the office :
,, - Yo, John, the recording guy is calling, wanna take it ? (Big smile)
,, - Nah, send him to Susan, i heard that shes having a greaaat day " (Raises eyebrows)
Last edited:
Recording calls in the USA can be tricky, because each state has different laws. Some state laws allow you to record your own calls without informing the other party. But in other states, it is illegal unless you inform the other party.
And when you place a call to a customer service center, you have no idea where the rep on the other end is. They might even be in another country.
And I have had calls where I informed the rep that I was recording, and they have refused to continue the call, claiming that their company policy does not allow them to talk with a customer who is recording the call.
... which of course is f*cking ridiculous, because almost every call center is already recording the call, and when you call in you get a warning that the call may be recorded or monitored "for quality assurance purposes." Which means that the rep already consented to the recording of all of their calls when they took the job.
In short, the law is not clear. Each state is different, but because customer service reps have already consented to the recording of their calls by a third party, i.e., their employer, it may be unnecessary to inform them that you are recording.
But that argument has not been tested in court in each state. In some states it is actually a criminal offense to record a call without notifying every participant first. But it is very rare for someone to be charged under those laws. The real impact of those laws is that if you don't inform the other party, the recording will probably be inadmissible as evidence in a lawsuit or arbitration hearing...
BMK
In every business or commercial relationship, be it B2C or B2B, documenting activities (And especially communication) is a must, either for internal, external or regulatory purposes. Regardless of the medium of communication, be it mail/post/email/phone calls, even chat transcripts (Bloomberg chat for example is stored and the transcripts can be and were used in courts in lawsuits involving Banks traders).
A proper notification of recording/storing/documenting can be mandated by some laws in some states/countries while others might not, but this does not change the fact that it is a must for business relationships to be clear and to help easily settle conflicts in the future regarding any dispute (Whether the business relationship was a B2B or a B2C).
I can understand that recording a personal call with your girlfriend without having her consent should be a criminal offense and if such non-consented recorded call was to be taken to court for whatever reason, it should be dismissed. But I don't understand how recording a call with a support rep from a company which I am buying a product or service from should be dismissed at court only because I didn't inform the agent that I am recording. As BMK mentioned, the support rep already consented that his company is recording the call, so why shouldn't he/she expect the same from customers?
A court will almost always take email as an evidence (As long as it was confirmed by the email provider to be legitimate & not tampered with and matched the email records of the other party), so what difference does that make to phone calls?
A proper notification of recording/storing/documenting can be mandated by some laws in some states/countries while others might not, but this does not change the fact that it is a must for business relationships to be clear and to help easily settle conflicts in the future regarding any dispute (Whether the business relationship was a B2B or a B2C).
I can understand that recording a personal call with your girlfriend without having her consent should be a criminal offense and if such non-consented recorded call was to be taken to court for whatever reason, it should be dismissed. But I don't understand how recording a call with a support rep from a company which I am buying a product or service from should be dismissed at court only because I didn't inform the agent that I am recording. As BMK mentioned, the support rep already consented that his company is recording the call, so why shouldn't he/she expect the same from customers?
A court will almost always take email as an evidence (As long as it was confirmed by the email provider to be legitimate & not tampered with and matched the email records of the other party), so what difference does that make to phone calls?
I've been dealing with Futures Commissions Merchants and Investment Bank Desks for about 25 years now - every client agreement has verbiage in it about phone calls being recorded, and you can hear the intermittent beep on the line alerting you as such. In such a client-broker contracted arrangement, there is no legal requirement for each and every subsequent phone call to be prefaced with a notification about recorded communications.
To everyone that thinks I don't know what i'm talking about,
I'm done with this discussion. And before I leave I just want to point out what the english dictionary has to say about this. I'm not making this up, this is what the dictionary has to say. You can say i'm wrong all you want but that would also be going against the true meaning of what an exchange is.
Let that sink in for a minute...
I'm done with this discussion. And before I leave I just want to point out what the english dictionary has to say about this. I'm not making this up, this is what the dictionary has to say. You can say i'm wrong all you want but that would also be going against the true meaning of what an exchange is.
Let that sink in for a minute...