Thank you Tim for stopping by and for your feedback. You are right about this. Thanks for pointing this out to me. For sake of completeness and in order to have a more balanced view on the whole saga , I have inserted a couple of new paragraphs in my article. The following extract is my response to your comment. "Robinhood’s explanation for halting trades of some of their stocks is that it was to comply with their regulatory obligations; in other words, it was a risk management issue. My question is: how often does a brokerage house have to suspend trading in order to comply with its basic regulatory obligations? Can we reasonably infer that it was the broker’s own conduct and operation that made their exposure so risky that they put their customers and their own operation at risk, so much so that they had to halt trading?"