Robinhood Sued in Wrongful Death

creepycoug

20-year old thought he owed hundreds of thousands because options trading and tragically killed himself.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alex-kearns-robinhood-trader-suicide-wrongful-death-suit/

dnc

RaceBannon

Supposedly the stories of stock brokers jumping out of windows in 1929 were urban legends. Didn't happen

This story is a sad tale of loss but the parents suing is part of the problem little Timmy had accepting that he fucked up only not as bad as he thought

It isn't always someone else's fault

In the financial markets everyone doesn't get post game orange slices

@PGOS

Doog_de_Jour

Sadly this type of thing is nothing new. I’ve read stories about young people taking their lives over credit card debt. Absolutely tragic.

Do these parents have a case?

creepycoug

Doog_de_Jour said:

Sadly this type of thing is nothing new. I’ve read stories about young people taking their lives over credit card debt. Absolutely tragic.

Do these parents have a case?

Not sure. Not my area, but wrongful death really does require some fault, and "I didn't know what I was doing" coupled with letting him do it ... eh. Maybe.

It's not like letting a 10 year old drive on the highway. Is the hazard you created so reckless as to make a death reasonable foreseeable?

One of the other attorneys who actually try cases should answer.

GreenRiverGatorz

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

creepycoug

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

FireCohen

Jesus, if you can’t critically think by age 20 that something is wrong then maybe life was not for him.

RaceBannon

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

GreenRiverGatorz

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

I'm not sure that's middle of the road, it's just common sense.

Too late to undo now, but having SS recipients actually receiving their own mandated savings from years prior makes a lot more sense than the convaluted ponzi scheme we have now where the impending doom of insolvency is always around the corner of the next generational demographic shift. I'd imagine it'd be a hell of a lot simpler to administer as well.

RaceBannon

GreenRiverGatorz said:

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

I'm not sure that's middle of the road, it's just common sense.

Too late to undo now, but having SS recipients actually receiving their own mandated savings from years prior makes a lot more sense than the convaluted ponzi scheme we have now where the impending doom of insolvency is always around the corner of the next generational demographic shift. I'd imagine it'd be a hell of a lot simpler to administer as well.

It would require a lock box


And that was the main reason I voted for Gore in 2000 - the lock box

Alas there is no lock box

creepycoug

FireCohen said:

Jesus, if you can’t critically think by age 20 that something is wrong then maybe life was not for him.

I don't know too many 20 year olds who should be fucking around in derivatives. Of the people who I personally know who do, I'd guess 1/2 actually really know what they're doing.

creepycoug

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

I'm in for that, but we're agreed that is still some form of babysitting.

The reason I believe in some babysitting is that we're all going to help these people in the end if they don't have enough on which to live. Talk about your bloated welfare state.

Doog_de_Jour

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

I forgot what the the exact percentage is, but a shockingly high number of 20 to 30 year olds cash out their 401ks when they switch jobs rather than roll them over (I wanna say close to half).

So yeah, people aren’t always wise when it comes to their money.

GreenRiverGatorz

Doog_de_Jour said:

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

I forgot what the the exact percentage is, but a shockingly high number of 20 to 30 year olds cash out their 401ks when they switch jobs rather than roll them over (I wanna say close to half).

So yeah, people aren’t always wise when it comes to their money.

I had no idea that was a phenomenon. It's cliche to say at this point, but we as a country are remarkably financially illiterate. It's also cliche to say once again that we should include more financial literacy courses in high school.

In the meantime, it sounds like we need some babysitting.

FireCohen

Doog_de_Jour said:

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

I forgot what the the exact percentage is, but a shockingly high number of 20 to 30 year olds cash out their 401ks when they switch jobs rather than roll them over (I wanna say close to half).

So yeah, people aren’t always wise when it comes to their money.

Lol I am too lazy to cash out. Got like 3 retirement accounts with different places. Don’t remember the log into the first one lolz

creepycoug

Doog_de_Jour said:

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

I forgot what the the exact percentage is, but a shockingly high number of 20 to 30 year olds cash out their 401ks when they switch jobs rather than roll them over (I wanna say close to half).

So yeah, people aren’t always wise when it comes to their money.

Yep. Even people who are smart about money let life happen to them and then they are not smart about money.

creepycoug

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Doog_de_Jour said:

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

I forgot what the the exact percentage is, but a shockingly high number of 20 to 30 year olds cash out their 401ks when they switch jobs rather than roll them over (I wanna say close to half).

So yeah, people aren’t always wise when it comes to their money.

I had no idea that was a phenomenon. It's cliche to say at this point, but we as a country are remarkably financially illiterate. It's also cliche to say once again that we should include more financial literacy courses in high school.

In the meantime, it sounds like we need some babysitting.

Then again, I'm a commie centrist, who loves to lie, and loves to be lied to, so don't rely on what I say.

Doog_de_Jour

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Doog_de_Jour said:

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

I forgot what the the exact percentage is, but a shockingly high number of 20 to 30 year olds cash out their 401ks when they switch jobs rather than roll them over (I wanna say close to half).

So yeah, people aren’t always wise when it comes to their money.

I had no idea that was a phenomenon. It's cliche to say at this point, but we as a country are remarkably financially illiterate. It's also cliche to say once again that we should include more financial literacy courses in high school.

In the meantime, it sounds like we need some babysitting.

Yes. I would take things a step further and destigmatize talking about money. I see a lot of positive momentum in that area, but if a child hears messages like “we can’t afford this”, etc. early on it makes them frightened to ask questions - and that sense of curiosity is needed for any financial literacy program to work.

To take it a step further, we as a society need to stop shaming people who fucked up. Not only financial literacy, but financial resiliency is needed. I swear people are more sometimes more forgiving of drug problems, infidelity, criminal records, etc. than a bankruptcy or low FICO score.

RE: babysitting - I struggle of where that line in the sand is for me. People should be held accountable for their choices, but are also human. That’s also a pretty far reaching topic beyond finance that you can’t separate from politics, so I’d move that discussion to the Tug.

greenblood

I've never been a fan of options trading, especially if you're a young and inexperienced trader. Position trading is the farthest I'll go. You don't earn as much if you hit, but your losses are capped at what's funded. Shorting is a terrible idea unless you're a hedge fund and using other people's money.

The fact that Robinhood mistakenly sent a demand email, might give the family a case.

RaceBannon

Doog_de_Jour said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Doog_de_Jour said:

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

I can't imagine there's an actual case here, though I'm sure they'll settle.

But the bigger picture is interesting. While at some point you can't protect adults from themselves, I do find it troubling that there's such a comically easy path to losing multiples of your own money through options trading. There needs to be at least some sort of meaningful barrier that prevents laymen from accessing those kinds of high stakes. And a dialogue box that asks "are you sure?" isn't a sufficient barrier.

This was my concern with privatizing SS. Should the masses of people who retire counting on SS as the mainstay of existence be investing?

Anyway, I'm a free market privateer who believes in some basic regulation ... a lying communist centrist. Does it make sense to turn these people loose into a sea of sharks against whom they have literally no chance? Their only hope being to get lucky once in a while?

I think there was a middle path on Social Security. They tell you how much you have paid and it always hurts. Then I like to say if I had invested that I'd be rich!

But as an old grasshopper the truth is I would have blown it on hookers and blow. But is that enough reason to not let the Ants have theirs? Philosophical question

The middle road would be for the US Gubmint to actually invest the money instead of blowing it on Hookers and Blow and pass the increased payments to the customer, us.

I forgot what the the exact percentage is, but a shockingly high number of 20 to 30 year olds cash out their 401ks when they switch jobs rather than roll them over (I wanna say close to half).

So yeah, people aren’t always wise when it comes to their money.

I had no idea that was a phenomenon. It's cliche to say at this point, but we as a country are remarkably financially illiterate. It's also cliche to say once again that we should include more financial literacy courses in high school.

In the meantime, it sounds like we need some babysitting.

Yes. I would take things a step further and destigmatize talking about money. I see a lot of positive momentum in that area, but if a child hears messages like “we can’t afford this”, etc. early on it makes them frightened to ask questions - and that sense of curiosity is needed for any financial literacy program to work.

To take it a step further, we as a society need to stop shaming people who fucked up. Not only financial literacy, but financial resiliency is needed. I swear people are more sometimes more forgiving of drug problems, infidelity, criminal records, etc. than a bankruptcy or low FICO score.

RE: babysitting - I struggle of where that line in the sand is for me. People should be held accountable for their choices, but are also human. That’s also a pretty far reaching topic beyond finance that you can’t separate from politics, so I’d move that discussion to the Tug.

Never talked about money when I was a kid. It wasn't an issue. Never heard of a mortgage or why we were living in a house. Food appeared on the table

We weren't rich but comfortable as it was called. New clothes for school and a summer vacation.

The only advice was to save half of what you earn. Ooops.

Anyway that's how I've lived. If we need it, it will be there.

As for babysitting I'm 81 percent sure if we were smart and efficient we could take care of those who failed far cheaper than we do now. I don't think that's too controversial

As a country we simply aren't going to put folks on an ice flow

Sad