September 7, 2021
Despite the recent bad press surrounding Robinhood and GameStop, in my opinion Robinhood continues to define what an accessible market platform looks like. Without it, we wouldnt have non fee-based trading (prior to Robinhood, simple per transaction/trade fees were at least 5 to 15 each across various platforms like eTrade, Fidelity, etc.). Trading/investing is inherently risky and thats just the nature of it. Robinhood helps to reduce the burden to regular investors by minimizing fees, and allowing for fractional shares which reduces barriers to entry. This allows people to develop investing skills with a lower total risk profile. Ive used it for half a decade at least. Sometimes Ive lost, sometimes Ive gained. I like having the option to participate on my own terms.
Being able to develop investing skills with a lower total commitment (in funds) has helped to reduce the long-term risk to my investment portfolio to date.
Based on my trading practices (the products I participate in), the only chance for restriction/suspension is derived from: excess volatility in the market/individual stock, or if I were to go over my threshold of trading frequency (3 trades for portfolio below 25K USD).
Market accessibility across various products is necessary to develop skill in investing. Too many fees, or paternalistic attitudes towards participation based purely on income/asset levels only serves to widen the gap between the middle-class and the upper-class and works against the principles of a free-market.