points by JumpCrisscross 4 days ago | 0 comments
> why doesn't the reasoning apply to stock market?
You have lots of recourse if you lose money through your stock broker. Kalshi, on the other hand, is less regulated than a casino.
You have lots of recourse if you lose money through your stock broker. Kalshi, on the other hand, is less regulated than a casino.
[–] weird-eye-issue 4 days ago
[–] JumpCrisscross 4 days ago
Of course there is. If the broker improperly evaluated your suitability to trade options, you'd be able to–at the very least–cost them tens of thousands of dollars in compliance costs. In all likelihood, a retail investor taking their broker to FINRA arbitration has even odds of prevailing.
[–] weird-eye-issue 4 days ago
And even in the extreme case that you did file a claim and you were awarded damages it would probably be only for a fraction of what you lost
[–] JumpCrisscross 4 days ago
What are you basing this on?
[–] cowlevel 4 days ago
[–] JumpCrisscross 4 days ago
[–] weird-eye-issue 4 days ago
[–] JumpCrisscross 4 days ago
Sure. What are you looking at?
> common sense
There's your problem.
> real world experience with options trading
Did you ever take anything to arbitration?
For what it's worth, former options market maker here.
[–] weird-eye-issue 4 days ago
The number seems very small compared to the sheer number of retail investors that lose money on options and a lot of these don't even go in favor of the complaintant either.
Just to clarify I'm not talking about somebody doing some sort of complex options play that ends them up in debt when they are 17 years old or something like that.
I'm talking about the average case where somebody signs up for a brokerage account, funds the account, accepts the disclaimers and fills out the questionnaire to do options, is approved for level one, buys some call options, and they all go to zero. Why should they get their money back?