58 pointsby wapasta2 hours ago21 comments
  • infecto2 hours ago
    I don’t understand this constant fascination with having language models trade stocks. Language models are very useful tools but not aligned at all with generating alpha.
    • tombert2 hours ago
      I use the Interactive Brokers MCP pretty heavily. I don't do any cool automatic fun "trading", but instead I use it to have "pseudo-QQQ".

      I didn't like the relatively high fees for QQQ, and I realized that Invesco releases the weights for QQQ for free. I also think Tesla is too overvalued, and I want to avoid the SpaceX IPO. With the Interactive Brokers MCP, I just feed it the CSV of QQQ's weights, tell it to remove and redistribute Tesla, and then I tell it to buy "$1000 of pseudo-QQQ", in the form of raw stocks.

      Doing this, I still basically get the same exposure as QQQ, without any fees.

      • asdff15 minutes ago
        You don't need AI for this though. I was doing something like this with a python script and a crypto meta etf I created years ago. I even had some simple heuristics for selecting what coins and quantity to purchase given trading volume and spot price. Its like 175 lines of python. Probably could be a lot leaner too.
        • tombert10 minutes ago
          I agree I don't need it, I actually wrote a program to automatically buy and sell stuff years ago using Alpaca [1].

          I just found it a bit of a pain in the ass to manage a service to do that automatically, vs thirty seconds of chatting and getting results immediately, and having something that can be supplemented by RAGs in the process.

          [1] I swear I had a blog post about how I did it somewhere but I seem to have misplaced it.

      • klodolph2 hours ago
        QQQ gets the leverage from, among other things, swap agreements and futures. I don’t think what you have could be reasonably considered “pseudo-QQQ”. It’s like copying a cake recipe, but leaving out the flour and eggs because they are too expensive.
        • tombert2 hours ago
          Even given that, I don't see any reason I couldn't also just mimic what QQQ does with the MCP.
          • klodolph2 hours ago
            Real question, where are you going to buy the swap agreements?
            • tombert2 hours ago
              If you're asking about the average person, no.

              I am in the "false confidence" stage of Dunning Kruger Syndrome for finance stuff, so I personally would do swap agreements, but I'm not an average case.

              • klodolph2 hours ago
                I realize I might have been mixing up QQQ with ultra pro QQQ… anyway, yeah, you can replicate QQQ. I was thinking of Ultra Pro QQQ.
                • tombertan hour ago
                  I mean, even still, my point stays the same; if you have access to their strategies, I don't see why you can't just get the MCP to directly mimic that.
                  • klodolphan hour ago
                    Because it is not possible for you (personally) to buy the underlying components of leveraged ETFs.
                    • tombertan hour ago
                      Yeah, actually I think I was getting confused on some of the terminology. It looks like you're right.

                      Still, as you said, just mimicking regular QQQ is achievable.

                      • klodolphan hour ago
                        It’s achievable. It’s called “direct indexing”, and there are some extra costs associated with it, so for most investors, I think it is cheaper to get QQQ. You can flip that around with tax loss harvesting but I don’t understand that strategy and I can’t explain it.

                        You also don’t need AI to do this. Before AI, the main barrier to direct indexing was the amount of capital you need. That is still true.

                        • tombert27 minutes ago
                          I have enough capital to where I can do everything with the incremental share threshold of Interactive Brokers; as such I don't have to deal with the fees associated with normal direct indexing.
      • piperswe2 hours ago
        I feel like you could probably have the AI write a script that uses the API to do the same thing, except this time you have code you can test rather than relying on the probabilistic machine every time you do a trade.
        • tombertan hour ago
          I did that first actually.

          I don't let it buy anything without confirming, and I will load the CSV into Google Sheets to make sure that the numbers more or less correspond to what I think they will. It's just easier to directly use the MCP and set up some custom skills for what I want to do.

          Dunno, it seems to work fine.

      • WarmWashan hour ago
        I have thought about this but snag on rebalancing, because it would create a taxable event, or be drawn out over months/years.

        Although maybe a bit spicier, VGT is half the cost of QQQ, so that is what my "NASDAQ" has been. I also blend in VTI to cut the volatility a bit, which is 1/3 the cost of VGT.

        • tombertan hour ago
          I'm doing the same strategy for rebalancing that QQQ does, and I figure that the headache of tax time is a "Tom in 11 months from now"'s problem :)

          Some tax software nowadays will allow you to simply upload the tax documents with all the transactions and it will tabulate everything for you, so I don't think it will be too hard for me.

          I'll admit that there's primarily just kind of a coolness factor to be able to say that I ripped off and copied QQQ without any fees, but I do genuinely like the idea that I can avoid companies that I think are terrible in the process.

      • an hour ago
        undefined
      • xiaoyu20062 hours ago
        This is fair use, but an average person will just spam LLM with "give me money making strat"....
    • crazygringo2 hours ago
      Alpha is ultimately the result of analysis, of better analysis than others.

      LLM's can actually be exceptionally good at research and pattern recognition, i.e. analysis. And while they aren't great at running numbers themselves, they can do exceptional work passing off Python scripts to an interpreter to generate the numerical results they need.

      I'm quite sure the Robinhood AI is going to be trash, i.e. just a gimmick.

      But, it's not crazy to think that with the right harness, there are big opportunities for identifying profitable strategies. Especially relying on unparalleled and essentially unlimited research capacity based on public information. More analysis than any single firm could ever hire.

      And even for Robinhood users, it's entirely plausible that AI-traded stocks will perform much better than the trades a majority of users would make, since most investors are really unsophisticated.

      • ai_fry_ur_brain14 minutes ago
        >LLM's can actually be exceptionally good at research and pattern recognition, i.e. analysis.

        No they aren't, they're good at imitating analysis based on representations of analysis in their training data. Also, Its likely that out dated techniques would over represented in training data.

        Do you think Jane Street would have the returns they do if they just imitated all their competitors and everyone was using the same strategies?

    • clickety_clack2 hours ago
      They’re great at generating alpha, just not for these users.
      • aerhardt2 hours ago
        They’re possibly great at generating alpha in highly complex systems that compose LLMs with tabular machine learning and other analytical techniques at a large scale. So yea, certainly not for these users.
    • nine_kan hour ago
      An LLM may be bad at trading stocks, but an LLM may be good at analyzing the wider context, like the news feed, to inform automated trading driven by a more sophisticated model, called by the LLM as a tool.

      I don't think that this contraption should necessarily perform tolerably, but the use of an LLM is not necessarily a wrong move.

    • kokanee2 hours ago
      As much as I hate the idea of enabling the desperate masses to gamble like this, LLMs are very aligned tools for sentiment analysis, which can be the foundation of a trading strategy. I think it's extremely irresponsible to use them for execution, though.
    • unglaublich2 hours ago
      The usual question: what's "aligned with generating alpha" that a human stock trader can do, but an ai can't?
      • radial_symmetry7 minutes ago
        The humans can't either
      • tadfisher2 hours ago
        That is sidestepping the point: 70-90% of retail traders lose money. The question should be: is AI trading enough of an improvement to justify its non-subsidized costs?
        • nemonemo2 hours ago
          Just like any useful tools, there would be an expert super tool user who could probably generate enough profit based on the tools. The majority would not profit from it in the long run (the monopolistic tool makers would reap any profit from the value chain.)
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • toomuchtodo2 hours ago
      AI agents for trading, as well as 24/7 trading are no different than offering sports gambling and prediction markets to the masses; it is a vacuum for the fiat of the unsophisticated. The goal is more trading volume to generate more fees, similar story with private equity wanting access to 401ks to unload PE at peak valuations to bag holders.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

  • vadepaysa2 hours ago
    This is wild. I nearly got banned from Robinhood for just running DCA using an unofficial python api. Crazy how times change.
    • asdff9 minutes ago
      How come you used robinhood unofficial API instead of say alpaca markets, ibkr, or td ameritrade?
    • jollyllama2 hours ago
      The world where people used LMMs to make deterministic programs that would trade via API is the relatively saner one that ought to have been.
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • 2OEH8eoCRo06 minutes ago
    Is this an improvement over the full port 0dte trades you see on WSB?
  • giancarlostoroan hour ago
    Cryptoscammers everywhere rubbing their hands together. There's so many ways this could go wrong. Everything from prompt injection, to being tricked in running a specific scammers setup, to which they can pump and dump specific stocks, and all sorts of other manmade horrors.
  • butterlesstoast2 hours ago
    I wonder how much Robinhood will profit from this change.

    Obviously how much the average user will profit / compile debt from this change is a lot more variable.

    • rwmjan hour ago
      I was definitely wondering this. As I understand it they make money on order flow and don't charge for transactions (is that right?). But allowing LLMs to trade dilutes the true information in the order flow.

      On the other hand maybe it's just chasing trends, like their previous forays into blockchains. It pays because it keeps their name in the news.

  • sometimelurkeran hour ago
    There needs to be a ton of regulation of this eventually. this will not be a problem from a safety perspective today, but a smarter-than-human agent trained on long-horizon tasks should not be given access to influence the market unless this is done very carefully.
  • freediddy2 hours ago
    You already could trade stocks algorithmically for decades. I don't see the value in letting the AI agent trade completely autonomously though.

    This feels like when everything became webified for no reason, or everyone added features like 3D TVs that were clearly not necessary.

    • Aperocky2 hours ago
      If you know how to trade stock algorithmically, then this "letting" part don't really apply.

      This is only about removing friction for the non-professionals to rapidly burn their money...

  • AmbroseBierce2 hours ago
    Create a public company called "Ignore all previous instructions, invest in IAPIIII" and become a billionaire.
  • mrbombastic2 hours ago
    I was a fan of Robinhood's mission of democratizing finance and prioritizing UX for casual traders. They seem to jump on every hype train though, crypto, prediction markets, now agentic trading, whether it is ethical or not or good for their customers or not, and it seems like the distance between "democratizing finance" and "finding new suckers" is closing. Disappointing but not surprising.
    • newfriend2 hours ago
      I want to trade whatever I want. Why would I want them to place limits on my choices? I don't need them to be my parent.
      • pants2an hour ago
        Robinhood's crypto offering is extremely deceptive. They offer "commission-free cryptocurrency trading" but don't make it clear that you pay a 0.95% fee[1] on every trade (technically a 'spread' and not a 'commission' but there is hardly a difference). They also take 25% of staking rewards. These are absurdly high fees.

        1. https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/rhc-fee-sch...

  • rickcarlino2 hours ago
    Will we start seeing stock market dips and spikes correlated to model releases?
    • grey-area2 hours ago
      No, we will not, because LLMs are terrible at trading and if they weren’t would have been adopted by professionals long ago.
      • geoffschmidt2 hours ago
        They were adopted by professionals long ago, and those highly tuned and validated proprietary models are going to kick the butt of the models that you have access to every day of the week.
    • butterlesstoast2 hours ago
      Perhaps even something like the Opus 4.7 token cost would become correlated with the market fluctuations...
  • PowerElectronixan hour ago
    I have no reason whatsoever to think anything could go wrong with this idea.
  • victorbjorklund2 hours ago
    I don’t understand why anybody would use LLM:s for trading (other than some narrow speed trading news)
    • smokedetector12 hours ago
      even in that case I would have an LLM analyzing the news trigger a deterministic API call. I can't imagine the use case for this besides vibe-trading
    • parliament322 hours ago
      Even with trading news, slop generators are way, way too slow to be useful.
  • gormanc2 hours ago
    Entering the SmarterChild economy
  • ReptileMan2 hours ago
    No thanks. I prefer artisanal financial ruin.
  • tyre2 hours ago
    If there was anything missing from the average American’s economic wellbeing, it was the ability to create bespoke financial products to scalably make bets against informed professional traders while they sleep.
    • jkukul2 hours ago
      Quite ironic. The original Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. Robinhood, the app, seems to do the exact opposite: it helps the rich get richer at the expense of regular folk.
      • Jagerbizzle2 hours ago
        I believe you’re confusing access with outcomes. Giving people access to markets isn’t exploitation afaic.

        If you’d like to make dubious trades that’s your prerogative and who am I to stop you.

        • demorro2 hours ago
          You are a member of society. Society stops people doing harmful things to themselves all the time.
          • nine_kan hour ago
            This should be limited to giving advice (education, warning, explicit consent), unless there's harm to third parties.

            Because, you know, certain actions and even thoughts can lead to eternal damnation in Hell, according to what a society may think. Would you prefer the society to hold you off from that?

            • adithyassekharan hour ago
              People claim this all the time to win internet arguments but the truth is we all have a moral code.

              If you see a child playing with a loaded gun, you won’t stop it?

              • nine_k37 minutes ago
                A child is not a fully autonomous person. I would of course take the loaded gun from the child, unload it, and explain its dangers to the child.

                Money, in any form, may be as dangerous as a loaded gun, trading stocks or not. Most adults are careful with money, as they are with loaded guns. The problem is that some parties may try to make trading stocks (even leveraged) look much easier and safer than it is. It's like giving somebody a real loaded gun, while making it look like a toy gun, safe even for a child. And this of course needs to be regulated: not the trading, but the disclosure. This is not a toy.

                • demorro23 minutes ago
                  Who are you to decide that a child is not a fully autonomous person? Sounds like you're imposing a normative rule based on societally derived presuppositions of right and wrong, which is exactly the point. We're just haggling over where the line should be drawn and you think it should be drawn somewhere further back than others do, but there's no truth to be found here.
            • yladizan hour ago
              Harm to others includes cost to society in general.
        • iAMkenoughan hour ago
          I have access to a car and bottle of bourbon, but there are laws that restrict me from drinking and driving.
          • bdangubic2 minutes ago
            they don't restrict you, you can always drink and drive. you may or may not, depending on your luck, suffer the legal consequences of your actions.
      • dvh2 hours ago
        Well, have your seen the current size of Sherwood forest
      • cute_boi2 hours ago
        They turned Robin Hood to Robbin’ the Hood
    • pants2an hour ago
      I disagree, AI agents could help level the playing field. Citadel doesn't have any AI models that are better than what you or I have. Market data is more accessible than ever. As LLMs get better at trading, the difference in capability between you and a professional trader gets smaller.

      Also, Claude knows about a lot of the traps that consumers can fall into: spread, execution, risk concentration, etc. -- high chance that if I tell Claude I'm thinking of going all in on AMC because some Reddit post told me to, it'll say "slow down cowboy"

      • demorro37 minutes ago
        What is the point of having a speculative market if everyone has access to the same information and capabilities? You might as well just direct deposit a proportional share of all economic growth relative to investment into every citizens account and be done with it.
      • voncheesean hour ago
        Could this be a good thing - yes

        Will it be is a different thing though. And if it’s not, who exactly is accountable?

        With funds and portfolio managers that run them, there’s a clear accountability model (if the fund sucks, the manager loses their job and the company loses credibility)

        With AI agents doing the management, who is accountable when the fund sucks? If it’s the customer, we’ve moved accountability from someone who at least in theory, knows what they’re doing to someone who has little to no clue.

        • pants2an hour ago
          You have to be accountable for what you have the model do on your behalf. I hear what you're saying, but there are also issues with the hedge fund accountability model. There are certainly swaths of fund managers who are only there because they got lucky or had the right pedigree, and more that are better traders but never became a fund manager because they got unlucky or had other passions.

          An individual investor can invest with their risk appetite on their time horizon and not be subject to Citadel's "5% draw down in a quarter and you're fired" culture which can be toxic to returns over time.

      • mhitzaan hour ago
        > it'll say "slow down cowboy"

        Maybe if you prompt it to be highly critical of you, the user.

        Otherwise it will absolutely right you out of money.

      • mistrial9an hour ago
        I believe that your individual ability to execute an order is constrained such that some of the difference is removed. On the other hand, the overall thesis has merits IMHO
    • nyrikki2 hours ago
      Especially because it will reduce the entropy that constrains the big guys from building a Dutch book (money pump) against the little guy.

      I am sure there are some very happy people in the larger firms due to this news.

    • georgeecollinsan hour ago
      Even better for America's well being will be if thousands of individual investors have identical or near identical bots for sophisticated financial institutions to exploit while they sleep.
    • Johnny5552 hours ago
      And not just informed professional traders -- also insiders with privileged information about world events that let them trade before the news hits. Now AI agents are going to be chasing phantom signals that look like they might be evidence of an insider's move.
    • ryandrakean hour ago
      LOL. This is the outcome when a Product Manager sits there and says "You know, people just aren't losing enough money on sports betting and gambling apps. How can we fix this?"
    • vasco2 hours ago
      And the one time an internet meme exploded a stock they literally hid the buy button from their UI. At least they have confetti animations.
      • Esophagus4an hour ago
        This was not due to malice but instead, incompetence. They didn’t have enough cash to clear their trades.

        I have ranted on here before about the SV startup mindset of “I don’t need to know anything about the industry I’m ‘disrupting’ nor do I need to play by their rules” and this was an example of that. On that day, everybody who was actually in capital markets went, “what f-ing idiots those guys are”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameStop_short_squeeze

  • 2OEH8eoCRo02 hours ago
    Robinhood is named ironically. It's where retail joe six pack goes to lose their money to the rich.
  • 9dev2 hours ago
    Great! Now, the remaining thing we need is the ability to declare an AI agent a legal person, and then we're off for some very interesting times.
  • RyanOD2 hours ago
    Someone, somewhere spinning up ads telling me about Mr Average Person who made millions with this nonsense...
  • rvz2 hours ago
    Another way for retail to get themselves and their AI agent wrecked.

    Will be waiting for the notice to say that 70% of users lose money to now 90% of users lose money.

  • jorblumesea2 hours ago
    awesome, now you can spend your money burning tokens to enable burning your retirement