This headline is nonsense. The article basically comes down to: Robinhood users may get slightly worse prices on trades.
If your trades comes down to a cent or two, you shouldn't be using Robinhood. If you're actually investing, and not a high frequency trader, Robinhood is great.
From the article: "The SEC identified $34 million that Robinhood customers lost by not receiving best execution, which is much less than the money they saved by forgoing trading commissions." The article literally confirms that the saved money on trading commissions is far more than the money lost on slightly worse executions.
I commented above[1] that the author seems to have misunderstood. The SEC Order[2] actually says the opposite:
> ... certain Robinhood orders lost a total of approximately $34.1 million in price improvement compared to the price improvement they would have received had they been placed at competing retail broker-dealers, even after netting the approximately $5 per-order commission costs those broker-dealers were charging at the time.
"(That said, their losses might also be much higher. That $34 million comes only from “certain” transactions, which might be the tip of the iceberg that the SEC possessed the ability to measure.)"
If your trades comes down to a cent or two, you shouldn't be using Robinhood. If you're actually investing, and not a high frequency trader, Robinhood is great.
From the article: "The SEC identified $34 million that Robinhood customers lost by not receiving best execution, which is much less than the money they saved by forgoing trading commissions." The article literally confirms that the saved money on trading commissions is far more than the money lost on slightly worse executions.