The downside for potential shareholders is that Robinhood is unlikely to escape the scrutiny of regulators. Much of the broker’s 300-page prospectus discusses the main risks to its business. These include the possible introduction of a financial-transaction tax, which might scupper its ability to offer free trading and deter customers from trading every day. It also allows for the possibility that payment for order flow, which accounts for 80% of Robinhood’s revenues, might be restricted or banned by regulators.

Indeed, Gary Gensler, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has said his agency is looking closely into whether the current market structure creates conflicts of interest. The financial-services committee of the House of Representatives, which hosted the GameStop hearing, has drafted a bill that bans payment for order flow.

Retail punters, however, remain far more enthusiastic about Robinhood than regulators, which provides potential investors with an upside. It was common (including in the pages of The Economist) to expect that the GameStop episode could be the undoing of Robinhood; that its original adopters might feel betrayed by the firm’s suspension of trading in GameStop and junk the app. But the company’s user numbers suggest that the adage “all publicity is good publicity” still holds. In the first half of 2021 alone more than 10m funded trading accounts were opened on Robinhood, boosting the total number of accounts by 80%. If there is one constant about the retail mania, it is its sheer unpredictability. That might be why your correspondent feels comfortable with her single share, content mainly to watch from the sidelines.

译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。