RHM、RHF、RHS以及我們的聯合創始人兼首席執行官(首席執行官)弗拉基米爾·特內夫等人已收到美國加利福尼亞州北區檢察官辦公室(USAO)、美國司法部(DoJ)、反壟斷司、美國證券交易委員會執法部、FINRA、紐約州總檢察長辦公室、其他州總檢察長辦公室和多個州證券監管機構發出的與2021年初交易限制調查和審查相關的信息請求,在某些情況下還收到傳票和作證請求。此外,美國國稅局還執行了相關的搜查令,以獲取特涅夫的手機。根據具體的客戶投訴,已經進行了幾次詢問。我們還收到了來自美國證券交易委員會執行部和FINRA的請求,涉及在2021年1月25日當週內員工交易某些受2021年初交易限制的證券,包括GameStop Corp.和AMC Entertainment Holdings,Inc.。這些事項包括與是否有任何員工在決定實施2021年初交易限制之後和2021年1月28日公開宣佈2021年初交易限制之前進行的這些證券交易有關的請求。我們正在配合這些調查。FINRA執法部門還要求提供與員工交易相關的一般政策、程序和監管信息。
這一部分介紹了管理層對我們的財務狀況和運營結果的看法,包括管理層用來評估公司業績的業績指標。以下討論和分析旨在突出和補充本季度報告中其他地方提供的數據和信息,應與本季度報告中其他地方的中期未經審計的簡明綜合財務報表和附註、經審計的綜合財務報表和相關附註以及2023 Form 10-k中「管理層對財務狀況和經營結果的討論和分析」標題下的討論一併閱讀。它還旨在爲您提供信息,幫助您了解我們的合併財務報表、這些合併財務報表中的關鍵項目每年的變化,以及導致這些變化的主要因素。在本討論描述以前業績的範圍內,描述僅涉及所列期間,這可能不表明我們未來的財務結果。除歷史信息外,本次討論還包含前瞻性陳述,涉及風險、不確定性和假設,這些風險、不確定性和假設可能導致結果與管理層的預期大不相同。可能導致這種差異的因素在標題爲「關於前瞻性陳述的告誡」和「風險因素」的章節中進行了討論。
截至2024年9月30日的三個月和九個月,其他收入分別增加了1300萬美元和3300萬美元,原因是黃金訂閱者增加導致黃金訂閱收入增加了800萬美元和2200萬美元。截至2024年9月30日的九個月裏,Sherwood Media LLC(「Sherwood Media」)廣告收入的其他收入也增加了600萬美元,該廣告收入於2023年第二季度推出。
•關於2021年初的交易限制,我們和我們的員工,包括我們的聯合創始人兼首席執行官弗拉基米爾·特內夫,已經收到要求提供信息的請求,在某些情況下,還收到來自美國反壟斷局、美國司法部、反壟斷司、美國證券交易委員會工作人員、FINRA、紐約州總檢察長辦公室、其他州總檢察長辦公室和一些州證券監管機構的傳票和作證請求。此外,美國國稅局還執行了相關的搜查令,以獲取特涅夫的手機。我們還收到了美國證券交易委員會審查與執行司和FINRA對2021年1月25日當週員工交易部分受2021年初交易限制的證券(包括GameStop CORP.和AMC Entertainment Holdings,Inc.)的詢問,特別是詢問是否有員工在決定實施2021年初交易限制之後、2021年1月28日公開宣佈2021年初交易限制之前進行了這些證券的交易。我們正在配合這些調查和審查。
The prices of most cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile. Fluctuations in the price of various cryptocurrencies might cause uncertainty in the market and could negatively impact trading volumes of cryptocurrencies, and we may not effectively identify, prevent or mitigate cryptocurrency market risks, any ofwhich would adversely affect the success of our business, financial condition and results of operations.
The prices of most cryptocurrencies are based in part on market adoption and future expectations, which might or might not be realized. As a result, the prices of cryptocurrencies are highly speculative. The prices of cryptocurrencies have been subject to dramatic fluctuations (including as a result of the 2022 Bear Markets), which have impacted, and will continue to impact, our trading volumes and operating results and might adversely impact our growth strategy and business. Several factors could affect a cryptocurrency’s price, including, but not limited to:
•Global cryptocurrency supply, including various alternative currencies which exist, and global cryptocurrency demand, which can be influenced by the growth or decline of retail merchants’ and commercial businesses’ acceptance of cryptocurrencies as payment for goods and services, the security of online cryptocurrency exchanges and digital wallets that hold cryptocurrencies, the perception that the use and holding of digital currencies is safe and secure, and regulatory restrictions on their use.
•Changes in the software, software requirements or hardware requirements underlying a blockchain network, such as a fork. Forks have occurred and are likely to occur again in the future and could result in a sustained decline in the market price of cryptocurrencies.
•Changes in the rights, obligations, incentives, or rewards for the various participants in a blockchain network.
•The maintenance and development of the software protocol of cryptocurrencies.
•Cryptocurrency exchanges’ deposit and withdrawal policies and practices, liquidity on such exchanges and interruptions in service from or failures of such exchanges. For example, in connection with the 2022 Crypto Bankruptcies, the prices of coins such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana significantly decreased.
•Regulatory measures, if any, that affect the use and value of cryptocurrencies or regulatory or judicial assertions or determinations that certain cryptocurrencies are securities.
•Competition for and among various cryptocurrencies that exist and market preferences and expectations with respect to adoption of individual currencies.
•Actual or perceived manipulation of the markets for cryptocurrencies.
•Actual or perceived connections between cryptocurrencies (and related activities such as mining) and adverse environmental effects or illegal activities.
•Social media posts and other public communications by high-profile individuals relating to specific cryptocurrencies, or listing or other business decisions by cryptocurrency companies relating to specific cryptocurrencies.
•Expectations with respect to the rate of inflation in the economy, monetary policies of governments, trade restrictions, and currency devaluations and revaluations.
While we have observed a positive trend in the total market capitalization of cryptocurrency assets over the long term, driven by increased adoption of cryptocurrency trading by both retail and institutional investors as well as continued growth of various non-investing use cases, historical trends are not indicative of future adoption, and it is possible that the rate of adoption of cryptocurrencies might slow or decline, which would negatively impact our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
While we currently support several cryptocurrencies for trading, market interest in particular cryptocurrencies can also be volatile and there are many cryptocurrencies in the market that we do not support. For example we support trading in Dogecoin and we benefited from a surge in interest for Dogecoin during the second quarter of 2021. For the first, second, and third quarters of 2021, transaction-based revenue attributable to transactions in Dogecoin generated approximately 7%, 32%, and 8% of our total net revenues, respectively. Our business could be adversely affected, and growth in our net revenue earned from cryptocurrency transactions could slow or decline, if the markets for the cryptocurrencies we support deteriorate or if demand moves to other cryptocurrencies not supported by our platforms. The listing committees of RHC and RHEC conduct regular reviews of the cryptocurrencies available on our platforms to ensure that they continue to meet our requirements under our internal policies and procedures (collectively, the “Crypto Listing Frameworks”) for continued support on our platforms and possess the authority to delist and cease support for any asset based on various factors. Ceasing support for a cryptocurrency with substantial market interest (or if our consideration to cease supporting such a cryptocurrency becomes known) has in the past exposed, and may continue to expose us to negative attention, adversely impacting our business, including revenue loss from no longer supporting a cryptocurrency or customer reaction to such a decision. For instance, in the past we have encountered an influx of customer complaints related to our decisions to cease support for certain cryptocurrencies.
Volatility in the values of cryptocurrencies caused by the factors described above or other factors might impact our regulatory net worth requirements as well as the demand for our services and therefore have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Although the 2022 Crypto Bankruptcies did not have any material impact on our business—and neither our board of directors nor management have to date identified any material gaps or weaknesses with respect to our existing risk management processes and policies in light of recent cryptocurrency market conditions—we remain subject to cryptocurrency market risks. If we are unable to effectively identify, prevent or mitigate such risks, the success of our business, our financial condition and results of
our operations may be adversely affected. As part of our overall risk management processes, our management Enterprise Risk Committee, which comprises senior leaders of the Company, including the CEO, CFO, Chief Legal, Compliance and Corporate Affairs Officer Chief Security Officer, Vice President of Risk and Audit, and Chief Brokerage Officer and General Manager of Brokerage, among others, reviews on at least a quarterly basis risks that are escalated by the Company’s Enterprise Risk Management (“ERM”) function. ERM maintains a risk taxonomy and a scoring methodology design to ensure risks are evaluated in a clear and transparent manner, and further escalates top risks to the Safety, Risk and Regulatory Committee of the board of directors (the “Safety Committee”), along with planned mitigants and monitoring procedures. The Safety Committee reviews management’s procedures to identify, assess, manage, monitor and mitigate material risks not allocated to the board of directors or another committee. In addition to RHM-level processes, entity-level risk teams affiliated with our operating subsidiaries, including one at RHC, perform ongoing risk operations, including risk and control self-assessments and maintaining risk and control registers. As management identifies operational risks, the entity-level risk team tracks the risk drivers and planned mitigating measures and escalates such risks, as needed, to ERM.
In light of events in 2022, including the 2022 Crypto Bankruptcies, cryptocurrency market risks were identified as a top risk to the Company and management has accordingly implemented certain measures, including enhanced monitoring for cryptocurrency markets (such as reducing net open position limits with liquidity partners through more frequent settlement; adding additional banking and liquidity partners; monitoring on-platform trading activity, coin deposits and withdrawals; and ongoing diligence for listings and banking relationships). ERM has also provided quarterly updates to the Safety Committee with respect to such risks and responses. In addition, RHC and RHEC maintain listing committees as described above.
In the United States, any particular cryptocurrency’s status as a “security” is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and if we have not properly characterized one or more cryptocurrencies, we might be subject to regulatory scrutiny, investigations, fines, and other penalties.
We currently facilitate customer trades for certain cryptocurrencies that we have analyzed under applicable internal policies and procedures and, for cryptocurrencies supported on our the RHC platform, that we believe are not securities under U.S. federal and state securities laws. Determining whether any given cryptocurrency is a security is a highly complex, fact-driven analysis, the outcome of which is difficult to predict and may evolve over time based on changes in the cryptocurrency and its related ecosystem. Different parties may reach different conclusions about the outcome of this analysis based on the same facts. The analysis may become clearer depending on the outcome in certain cases currently pending in varying stages of litigation. The SEC Staff has indicated that the determination of whether or not a cryptocurrency is a security depends on the characteristics and use of that particular asset. The SEC and the SEC Staff have taken positions that certain cryptocurrencies are “securities” in the context of settled or litigated enforcement actions – and we do not currently support any cryptocurrencies in the U.S. for which the SEC or the SEC Staff has taken such a position. Otherwise, the SEC has not historically provided advance confirmation on the status of any particular cryptocurrency as a security. While prior public statements by senior officials at the SEC indicated that the SEC does not intend to take the position that Bitcoin or Ethereum are securities (in their current forms), Bitcoin and Ethereum were the only specific cryptocurrencies as to which senior officials at the SEC had publicly expressed such a view. Moreover, such statements are not official policy statements by the SEC and reflect only the speakers’ views, which are not binding on the SEC or any other agency or court, cannot be generalized to any other cryptocurrency, and might evolve. For example, Chair Gensler was quoted in a February 2023 interview as saying “[e]verything other than Bitcoin” when discussing the SEC’s purview with respect to cryptocurrency and in April 2023 declined to provide his view when asked if he considered Ethereum to be a security during his testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee. In May 2024, however, the SEC approved the listing and trading of ETFs whose assets include Ethereum on SEC-regulated exchanges; some view this approval as an implicit acknowledgement by the SEC that Ethereum is not necessarily a security. Similarly, although the SEC’s Strategic Hub for Innovation and Financial Technology published a framework for analyzing whether any given cryptocurrency is a security in April 2019, this framework is also not a rule, regulation, or statement of the SEC and is not binding on
the SEC. With respect to all other cryptocurrencies, there is currently no certainty under the applicable legal test that such assets are not securities, and U.S. regulators have expressed concerns about cryptocurrency platforms adding multiple new coins, some of which the regulators question might be unregistered securities. Chair Gensler has made numerous statements (including in testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services) indicating that he believes most tokens in the crypto market are securities. Although our policies and procedures are intended to enable us to make risk-based assessments regarding the likelihood that a particular cryptocurrency could be deemed a security under applicable laws, including federal securities laws, our assessments are not definitive legal determinations as to whether a particular digital asset is a security under such laws. Accordingly, regardless of our conclusions, we could be subject to legal or regulatory action in the event the SEC or a court were to assert or determine that a cryptocurrency supported by our RHC platform is a “security” under U.S. law. In July 2022, the SEC filed an insider trading case against, among others, an employee of one of our competitors in which the complaint alleged that certain cryptocurrencies (none of which we currently support) were securities under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Additionally, in June 2023, the SEC charged Binance Holdings Ltd., and its affiliated U.S. entity, among others (collectively, “Binance”) and, separately, Coinbase Global, Inc., and Coinbase, Inc. (collectively, “Coinbase”) with operating their respective cryptocurrency trading platforms as unregistered national securities exchanges, brokers, and clearing agencies, also alleging that certain cryptocurrencies supported on their respective platforms are securities, including Cardano, Polygon, and Solana, which were supported on our RHC platform. The charges also implicated Coinbase’s staking-as-a-service program and its non-custodial wallet. Although we have since ceased support for Cardano, Polygon, and Solana, we do offer the Robinhood Wallet, which is a self-custodial crypto wallet. While the SEC’s September 2024 memorandum of law in support of motion for leave to amend the complaint against Binance states that the SEC’s prior use of “crypto asset securities” when referring to cryptocurrency assets did not mean that the SEC was referring to the “crypto asset itself as the security” but that the cryptocurrencies at issue were offered and sold as investment contracts (and therefore are securities), the SEC’s approach going forward remains unclear in light of this memorandum of law in support of motion for leave to amend the complaint as well as the August 2024 decision in the SEC’s case against Payward, Inc. and Payward Ventures, Inc. that the cryptocurrencies at issue were not themselves securities but were offered as, or sold as, investment contracts (and therefore were securities). The outcome of these matters and decisions by regulators not to bring enforcement actions provides, and any other action, settlement, or related investigation by regulators, might provide, additional guidance on the legal status of cryptocurrencies as securities more generally, which has affected and might significantly affect the actual or perceived regulatory status and value of cryptocurrencies we currently support or might support in the future. From time to time, we also have received, and might in the future receive SEC inquiries regarding specific cryptocurrencies supported on our RHC platform and added features and since December 2022, following the 2022 Crypto Bankruptcies, we have received investigative subpoenas from the SEC regarding, among other topics, RHC’s supported cryptocurrencies, custody of cryptocurrencies, and platform operations. During our discussions with the SEC Staff in the fourth quarter of 2023, the Staff asserted that they are considering whether, and may recommend that the SEC find that, certain cryptocurrencies supported by our RHC platform are securities, and in the second quarter of 2024, we received the May 2024 Wells Notice. The potential action related to the May 2024 Wells Notice may involve a civil injunctive action, public administrative proceeding, and/or a cease-and-desist proceeding and may seek remedies that include an injunction, a cease-and-desist order, disgorgement, pre-judgment interest, civil money penalties, and censure, revocation, and limitations on activities.
To the extent that the SEC or a court asserts or determines that any cryptocurrencies supported by our RHC platform are securities, that assertion or determination could prevent us from continuing to facilitate trading of those cryptocurrencies (including ceasing support for such cryptocurrencies on our RHC platform). It could also result in regulatory enforcement penalties and financial losses in the event that we have liability to our customers and need to compensate them for any losses or damages. We could be subject to judicial or administrative sanctions, including disgorgement or penalties which could be material, for failing to offer or sell the cryptocurrency in compliance with securities registration requirements, or for acting as a securities broker or dealer, national securities exchange, clearing agency, or other regulated entity without appropriate registration. Such an action could result in injunctions and cease and desist orders, as well as civil monetary penalties, fines, and disgorgement, criminal liability,
and reputational harm. Customers that traded such supported cryptocurrency through our RHC platform and suffered trading losses might also seek to rescind transactions that we facilitated on the basis that they were conducted in violation of applicable law, which could subject us to significant liability and losses. We might also be required to cease facilitating transactions in the supported cryptocurrency, which could negatively impact our business, operating results, and financial condition. Further, if Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any other supported cryptocurrency is deemed to be a security, it might have adverse consequences for such supported cryptocurrency. For instance, all transactions in such supported cryptocurrency would have to be registered with the SEC or other foreign authority, or conducted in accordance with an exemption from registration, which could severely limit its liquidity, usability, and transactability. Moreover, the networks on which such supported cryptocurrencies are used might be required to be regulated as securities intermediaries, and subject to applicable rules, which could effectively render the network impracticable for its existing purposes. In particular, Chair Gensler noted in his April 2023 testimony that “Given that most crypto tokens are securities, it follows that many crypto intermediaries are transacting in securities and have to register with the SEC” and that crypto investors should benefit from compliance with the securities laws. In April 2023, the SEC also reopened the comment period and provided supplemental information on proposed amendments to the definition of “exchange” under Exchange Act Rule 3b-16, including reiterating the applicability of existing rules to platforms that trade crypto asset securities. Additionally, any determination that Bitcoin or Ethereum is a security could draw negative publicity and cause a decline in the general acceptance of cryptocurrencies. Also, it would make it more difficult for Bitcoin or Ethereum, as applicable, to be traded, cleared, and custodied as compared to other cryptocurrencies that are not considered to be securities. In addition, our growth might be adversely affected if we are not able to expand our RHC platform to include additional cryptocurrencies that the SEC has determined to be securities or that we believe are likely to be determined to be securities.
We continue to analyze the cryptocurrencies supported on the RHC platform under our internal policies and procedures (collectively, our “RHC Crypto Listing Framework”) on a periodic basis to ensure that they continue to meet our requirements for continued support on the RHC platform which include, among other factors, that we continue to believe they are not securities under U.S. federal and state securities laws. We may make the determination to cease support for a cryptocurrency for any one or a variety of factors based on a totality of the circumstances under our RHC Crypto Listing Framework. However, an assertion or determination by the SEC or a court that a cryptocurrency supported by our RHC platform constitutes a security could also result in our determination that it is advisable to remove that and other cryptocurrencies from our RHC platform that have similar characteristics to the cryptocurrency that was asserted or determined to be a security. If we proactively remove certain cryptocurrencies from our RHC platform because the SEC or a court has asserted or determined they constitute securities or because they share similarities with such cryptocurrencies or otherwise do not meet our RHC Crypto Listing Framework, it has (for instance, with respect to Cardano, Polygon, and Solana) and could in the future negatively impact customer sentiment and our business, operating results, and financial condition, especially to the extent that our competitors continue to support such cryptocurrency on their platforms.
Cryptocurrency laws, regulations, and accounting standards are often difficult to interpret and are rapidly evolving in ways that are difficult to predict.Changes in these laws and regulations, or our failure to comply with them, could negatively impact cryptocurrency trading on our platforms.
Domestic and foreign regulators and governments are increasingly focused on the regulation of cryptocurrencies. In the United States, cryptocurrencies are regulated by both federal and state authorities, depending on the context of their usage. Cryptocurrency market disruptions and resulting governmental interventions are unpredictable, and might make cryptocurrencies, or certain cryptocurrency business activities, illegal altogether. As regulation of cryptocurrencies continues to evolve, there is a substantial risk of inconsistent regulatory guidance among federal and state agencies and among state governments which, along with potential accounting and tax issues or other requirements relating to cryptocurrencies, could impede the growth of our cryptocurrency operations. The outcome of the upcoming presidential and Congressional elections in the U.S. also presents considerable
uncertainty as to future cryptocurrency regulations. Additionally, regulation in response to the climate impact of cryptocurrency mining could negatively impact cryptocurrency trading on our platforms.
The cryptocurrency accounting rules and regulations that we must comply with are complex and subject to interpretation by the FASB, the SEC, and various bodies formed to promulgate and interpret accounting principles. A change in these rules and regulations or interpretations could have a significant effect on our reported financial results and financial position, and could even affect the reporting of transactions completed before the announcement or effectiveness of a change. Further, there are a limited number of precedents for the financial accounting treatment of cryptocurrency assets (including related issues of valuation and revenue recognition), and no official guidance has been provided by the FASB or the SEC. Accordingly, there remains significant uncertainty as to the appropriate accounting for cryptocurrency asset transactions, cryptocurrency assets, and related revenues. Uncertainties in or changes in regulatory or financial accounting standards could result in the need to change our accounting methods and/or restate our financial statements, and could impair our ability to provide timely and accurate financial information, which could adversely affect our financial statements, and result in a loss of investor confidence.
In addition, future regulatory actions or policies, including, for instance, the assertion of jurisdiction by domestic and foreign regulators and governments over cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency markets could limit or restrict cryptocurrency usage, custody, or trading, or the ability to convert cryptocurrencies to fiat currencies. For example, Chair Gensler remarked several times in 2021 and 2022 on the need for further regulatory oversight of crypto trading and crypto lending platforms. Additionally in February 2023, the SEC issued a new rule proposal (the “February 2023 Custody Rule Proposal”) related to the custody of client assets by registered investment advisers, which, if adopted as proposed, would expand the existing custody rules to apply to a broad range of assets, including cryptocurrencies, and would require that any client assets be maintained by a qualified custodian. In connection with the announcement of the February 2023 Custody Rule Proposal, Chair Gensler noted that “Based upon how crypto platforms generally operate, investment advisers cannot rely on them as qualified custodians.” If the February 2023 Custody Rule Proposal is adopted as proposed, and we are not deemed to be a “qualified custodian,” depending on how such proposal is applied, we may be required to cease our custodial crypto offerings under certain circumstances, which could have a material adverse impact on our business. Some lawmakers and regulators have also raised questions about Transaction Rebates from cryptocurrency trading. Transaction Rebates from cryptocurrency trading have historically, and might continue, to comprise a significant percentage of our total net revenues. Any future regulatory actions or policies could reduce the demand for cryptocurrency trading and might materially decrease our revenue derived from Transaction Rebates in absolute terms and as a proportion of our total revenues.
In March 2022, the SEC Staff issued SAB 121 requiring crypto platforms to recognize a liability and a corresponding asset equal to the fair value of the cryptocurrencies the entity safeguards on behalf of users. Such accounting treatment enhances the information received by investors regarding potential liabilities upon theft or loss of cryptocurrencies. But such treatment has also caused some users to question how safeguarded cryptocurrencies would be treated in a bankruptcy. We implemented SAB 121 for the quarter ended June 30, 2022, with retrospective application to the beginning of 2022. As a result of (and solely by virtue of) our implementation of SAB 121, the cryptocurrency we custody for users now appears on our balance sheets as an asset. In January 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in In re Celsius Network LLC, that certain crypto assets held by Celsius customer accounts were the property of Celsius’s estate and that the holders of such accounts are unsecured creditors. However, unlike the terms of our user agreement, the terms of Celsius’s user agreement unambiguously provided that the rights to cryptocurrency held, including ownership rights, belonged to Celsius. Based on the terms of our user agreement, the structure of our crypto offerings, and applicable law, after consultation with internal and external legal counsel, we believe that the cryptocurrency we hold in custody for users of our platforms should be respected as users’ property (and should not be available to satisfy the claims of our general creditors) in the event we were to enter bankruptcy. Although we are well-capitalized, to the extent users are concerned that cryptocurrencies might not be secure in a bankruptcy generally, their willingness to hold crypto in custodial accounts and their general interest in trading cryptocurrencies might decline. There is also no definitive guidance on
whether or how SAB 121 applies to broker-dealer entities in a corporate organizational structure where another, separate entity in that structure safeguards cryptocurrencies on behalf of users.
Furthermore, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act significantly changes the tax reporting requirements applicable to brokers and holders of cryptocurrency and digital assets. On August 25, 2023, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service released proposed regulations on the sale and exchange of digital assets by brokers. On June 28, 2024, final regulations were released that require information reporting by digital asset brokers on certain digital asset sales or exchanges that occur on or after January 1, 2025, and basis tracking for digital assets that are treated as “covered securities” if acquired on or after January 1, 2026. The implementation of these requirements, and any further legislative changes or related guidance from the Internal Revenue Service, might significantly impact our tax reporting and withholding processes and result in increased compliance costs. Failure to comply with these new information reporting and withholding requirements might subject us to significant tax liabilities and penalties. Similarly, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has published final guidance on a new “crypto-asset reporting framework” and amendments to the existing rules for reporting crypto assets under the global “common reporting standard” that might apply to our international operations. These new rules might give rise to potential liabilities or disclosure requirements, and implementation of these requirements might significantly impact our operations and result in increased costs.
Our international expansion also subjects us to additional laws, regulations, or other government or regulatory scrutiny as discussed in “—Risks Related to Our Business—We recently started operating in certain international markets and plan to further expand our international operations, which exposes us to significant new risks, and our international expansion efforts might not succeed.” For example, when the provisions of Markets in the Crypto Asset Regulation (“MiCA”) take effect on December 30, 2024, we will be subject to the authorization, compliance, and disclosure regime of MiCA for crypto asset service providers (“CASP”) and issuers of certain crypto assets. We will need to obtain a MiCA compliant CASP license in our home member state and compliance with such regulation will require the implementation of new systems and processes, and updates to our policies. While MiCA provides member states with the option of implementing a transitional period from December 30, 2024 to July 1, 2026, at this time, Lithuania’s Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Lithuania have proposed a MiCA transitional period for registrants in Lithuania to June 1, 2025. The relevant Lithuanian authorities are actively preparing for MiCA regulation, but the application process in Lithuania has not yet been finalized. Notwithstanding the transitional period, however, if we are unable to obtain a MiCA compliant CASP license by the end of the year, we may need to cease operations in several member states in the EU. Obtaining a MiCA compliant CASP license in our home EU member state could take longer than we expect and would adversely affect our international operations.
Our Crypto Transfers, Robinhood Wallet, and Robinhood Connect features could result in loss of customer assets, customer disputes, and other liabilities, which could harm our reputation and adversely impact trading volumes and transaction-based revenues.
In the United States, we allow customers to deposit and withdraw cryptocurrencies to and from our RHC platform through our Crypto Transfers feature in the states in which RHC operates (other than New York, where our regulatory application is still pending). Since July 2024, we also allow customers in select jurisdictions in Europe to deposit crypto onto our RHEC platform, and since August 2024, we have allowed customers to withdraw crypto from our RHEC platform. Crypto Transfers are processed using Robinhood’s general custodial infrastructure in which we hold some cryptocurrencies on behalf of customers; when transactions are completed, coins are allocated to and from individuals’ accounts in our customer records. Additionally, U.S. customers have access to a fiat-to-crypto on-ramp tool that developers can embed directly into their decentralized applications (“Robinhood Connect”), allowing their customers to use their RHC accounts to buy and transfer crypto, and fund their self-custody wallets.
Crypto Transfers initiated by users are subject to a heightened risk of user error. Under blockchain protocol, recording a transfer of cryptocurrency on the blockchain involves both the private key of the sending wallet and the unique public key of the receiving wallet.Such keys are strings of alphanumeric characters.In order for a customer to receive cryptocurrency on our platforms, the customer will need to arrange for the owner of an external source wallet to “sign” a transaction with the private key of that external wallet, directing a transfer of the cryptocurrency to our receiving custodial wallet by inputting the public key (which we will provide to the customer) of our custodial wallet. Similarly, in order to withdraw cryptocurrency from our platforms, the customer will need to provide us with the public key of the external wallet to which the cryptocurrency is to be transferred, and we will “sign” the transaction using the private key of our wallet.Some crypto networks might require additional information to be provided in connection with any transfer of cryptocurrency to or from our platforms. A number of errors could occur in the process of depositing or withdrawing cryptocurrencies to or from our platforms, such as typos, mistakes, or the failure to include information required by the blockchain network. For instance, a user might include typos when entering our custodial wallet’s public key or the desired recipient’s public key when depositing to and withdrawing from our platforms, respectively. Alternatively, a user could mistakenly transfer cryptocurrencies to a wallet address that he or she does not own or control, or for which the user has lost the private key. In addition, each wallet address is compatible only with the underlying blockchain network on which it is created. For instance, a Bitcoin wallet address can be used to send and receive Bitcoin only. If any Ethereum, Dogecoin, or other cryptocurrency is sent to a Bitcoin wallet address, for example, or if any of the other foregoing errors occur, such cryptocurrencies could be permanently and irretrievably lost with no means of recovery.
With Robinhood Wallet, our self-custody, web3 wallet, users have sole access and control over their cryptocurrencies on certain networks and personally hold and maintain their private keys. Although we do not custody cryptocurrencies held in a user’s Robinhood Wallet and do not have access to users’ private keys, users who lose their private keys, and thus access to their Robinhood Wallet balances, may react negatively. Although our account agreements for Crypto Transfers and licensing agreements for Robinhood Wallet disclaim responsibility for losses caused by user errors, such incidents could result in user disputes, damage to our brand and reputation, legal claims against us, and financial liabilities.
Additionally, allowing customers to deposit and withdraw cryptocurrencies to and from our platforms increases the risk that our platforms might be exploited to facilitate illegal activity such as fraud, gambling, money laundering, tax evasion, and scams. Crypto Transfers, Robinhood Wallet, and Robinhood Connect also expose us to heightened risks related to potential violations of trade sanctions, including OFAC regulations, and anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws, which among other things impose strict liability for transacting with prohibited persons.We engage blockchain analytics vendors to help determine whether the external wallets involved in Crypto Transfers are controlled by persons on prohibited lists or involved in fraudulent or illegal activity.However, fraudulent and illegal transactions and prohibited status could be difficult or impossible for us and our vendors to detect in some circumstances.The use of our platforms for illegal or improper purposes could subject us to claims, individual and class action lawsuits, and government and regulatory investigations, prosecutions, enforcement actions, inquiries, or requests that could result in significant liabilities and reputational harm for us and could cause cryptocurrency trading volumes and transaction-based revenues to decline.
A temporary or permanent blockchain “fork” could adversely affect our business.
Most blockchain protocols, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, are open source. Any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that users and miners of Bitcoin, Ethereum or other blockchain protocols adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of miners consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the Bitcoin, Ethereum or other blockchain protocol networks, as applicable, remain uninterrupted, although such modifications might cause certain cryptocurrencies to fail our Crypto Listing Frameworks. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the
software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “fork” (i.e., “split”) of impacted blockchain protocol network and respective blockchain with one prong running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of the Bitcoin, Ethereum or other blockchain protocol network, as applicable, running simultaneously, but with each split network’s cryptocurrency lacking interchangeability.
Both Bitcoin and Ethereum protocols have been subject to “forks” that resulted in the creation of new networks, including, among others, Bitcoin Cash, BSV, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold, Ethereum Classic, and Ethereum Proof-of-Work. Some of these forks have caused fragmentation among platforms as to the correct naming convention for forked cryptocurrencies. Due to the lack of a central registry or rulemaking body in the cryptocurrency market, no single entity has the ability to dictate the nomenclature of forked cryptocurrencies, causing disagreements and a lack of uniformity among platforms on the nomenclature of forked cryptocurrencies, and which results in further confusion to customers as to the nature of cryptocurrencies they hold on platforms. In addition, several of these forks were contentious and as a result, participants in certain communities might harbor ill will towards other communities. As a result, certain community members might take actions that adversely impact the use, adoption and price of Bitcoin, Ethereum or any of their forked alternatives.
Furthermore, forks can lead to disruptions of networks and our information technology systems, cybersecurity attacks, replay attacks, or security weaknesses, any of which can further lead to temporary or even permanent loss of customer cryptocurrencies. For instance, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast on the other network to achieve “double-spending,” plagued platforms that traded Ethereum through at least October 2016, resulting in significant losses to some cryptocurrency platforms. Another possible result of a fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to the splitting of some mining power across networks, making it easier for a malicious actor to exceed 50% of the mining power of that network. Such disruption and loss could cause our company to be exposed to liability, even in circumstances where we have no intention of supporting a cryptocurrency compromised by a fork.
Moreover, we might decide not to or not be able to support a cryptocurrency resulting from the fork of a network which might cause our customers to lose confidence in us or reduce their engagement on our platforms. In assessing whether we will support a cryptocurrency resulting from the fork of a network, among our top priorities is to safeguard our customer’s assets, and we spend extensive time designing, building, testing, reviewing and auditing our systems to check whether the cryptocurrencies we support remain safe and secure. There are several considerations that we consider as part of our Crypto Listing Frameworks (including security or infrastructure concerns that might arise with the integration of any new cryptocurrency into the technical infrastructure that allows us to secure customer cryptocurrencies and to transact securely in corresponding blockchains), which might operate to limit our ability to support forks. Further, we generally do not support a forked cryptocurrency that does not have support from a majority of the affiliated third-party miner and developer community. To the extent that we decide not to support, or to cease support of, certain forked cryptocurrencies, it could negatively impact customer sentiment and our business, operating results, and financial condition, especially to the extent that our competitors continue to support such forked cryptocurrencies on their platforms.
Whether we are obligated to provide services for a new and previously unsupported cryptocurrency is a question of contract, as recognized in recent published rulings of the California appellate courts and federal district courts. The user agreement each customer enters into in order to trade cryptocurrencies on our platforms clearly indicates that we have the sole discretion to determine whether we will support a forked network and the approach to such forked cryptocurrencies and that we may temporarily suspend trading for a cryptocurrency whose network is undergoing a fork without advanced notice to the customer. Regardless of the foregoing, we might in the future be subject to claims by customers arguing that they are entitled to receive certain forked cryptocurrencies by virtue of cryptocurrencies that they hold with us. If any customers succeed on a claim that they are entitled to receive the benefits of a forked cryptocurrency that we do not or are unable to support, we might be required to pay significant damages, fines or other fees to compensate customers for their losses.
Any inability to maintain adequate relationships with third-party banks, market makers, and liquidity providers with respect to, and any inability to settle customer trades related to, our cryptocurrency offerings would disrupt our ability to offer cryptocurrency trading to customers.
We rely on third-party banks, market makers, and liquidity providers to provide cryptocurrency products and services to our customers. The cryptocurrency market operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The cryptocurrency market does not have a centralized clearinghouse, and the transactions in cryptocurrencies on our platforms rely on direct settlements between us and our customers and direct settlements between us and our market makers or liquidity providers after customer trades are executed. Accordingly, we rely on third-party banks to facilitate cash settlements with customers’ brokerage accounts and we rely on the ability of market makers and liquidity providers to complete cryptocurrency settlements with us to obtain cryptocurrency for customer accounts. In addition, we must maintain cash assets in our bank accounts sufficient to meet the working capital needs of our business, which includes deploying available working capital to facilitate cash settlements with our customers, market makers, and liquidity providers (as well as maintaining the minimum capital required by regulators). If we, third-party banks, market makers, or liquidity providers have operational failures and cannot perform and facilitate our routine cash and cryptocurrency settlement transactions, we will be unable to support normal trading operations on our cryptocurrency trading platforms and these disruptions could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Similarly, if we fail to maintain cash assets in our bank accounts sufficient to meet the working capital needs of our business and necessary to complete routine cash settlements related to customer trading activity, such failure could impair our ability to support normal trading operations on our cryptocurrency platforms, which could cause cryptocurrency trading volumes and transaction-based revenues to decline significantly.
We might also be harmed by the loss of any of our banking partners and market makers. As a result of the many regulations applicable to cryptocurrencies or the risks of cryptocurrencies generally, many financial institutions have decided, and other financial institutions might in the future decide, not to provide bank accounts (or access to bank accounts), payments services, or other financial services to companies providing cryptocurrency products, including us. For instance, in May 2023, two prominent market makers announced their respective decisions to limit their offerings in cryptocurrency trading within the United States. If we or our market makers cannot maintain sufficient relationships with the banks that provide these services, if banking regulators restrict or prohibit banking of cryptocurrency businesses, if these banks impose significant operational restrictions, or if these banks were to fail or be taken over by the FDIC, such as occurred in the 2023 Banking Events, it could be difficult for us to find alternative business partners for our cryptocurrency offerings, which would disrupt our business and could cause cryptocurrency trading volumes and transaction-based revenues to decline significantly.
We might also be harmed by the loss of any of our liquidity partners. Unlike our customers’ orders for other cryptocurrencies, which are currently fulfilled by market makers, our RHC customers’ orders for USD coin (“USDC”), a stablecoin backed by dollar denominated assets held by the issuer in segregated accounts with U.S. regulated financial institutions, are fulfilled directly from Circle Internet Financial, LLC (“Circle”), the original issuer and main liquidity provider of USDC. If in the future we decide to offer other stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies designed to minimize price volatility, we may also work directly with other liquidity partners to fulfill those orders. If we cannot maintain sufficient relationships with Circle or any other liquidity providers, it could be difficult for us to find alternative liquidity partners for our stablecoin offerings, which would disrupt our business and could cause cryptocurrency trading volumes and transaction-based revenues to decline significantly.
From time to time, we might encounter technical issues in connection with changes and upgrades to the underlying networks of supported cryptocurrencies, which could cause revenues to decline and expose us to potential liability for customer losses.
Any number of technical changes, software upgrades, soft or hard forks, cybersecurity incidents or other changes to the underlying blockchain networks might occur from time to time, causing incompatibility, technical issues, disruptions or security weaknesses to our platforms. If we are unable to
identify, troubleshoot and resolve any such issues successfully, we might no longer be able to support such cryptocurrency, our customers’ assets might be frozen or lost, the security of our hot or cold wallets might be compromised and our platforms and technical infrastructure might be affected, all of which could cause trading volumes and transaction-based revenue to decline and expose us to potential liability for customer losses.
Risks Related to Our Spending and Payments Products and Services
Our spending and payments products and services subject us to risks related to bank partnerships, FDIC pass-through insurance and other regulatory obligations.
We offer a Spending Account (in connection with a partnership with J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.), and we have also partnered, on a non-exclusive basis, with Sutton Bank (“Sutton”), an Ohio-chartered bank, pursuant to a license from Mastercard International Incorporated, to offer the Robinhood Cash Card. Under the terms of our program agreement with Sutton, Robinhood Cash Card accounts for our users are opened and maintained by Sutton. We act as the service provider to, among other things, facilitate communication between our users and Sutton for which we receive compensation from Sutton. Additionally, Robinhood branded credit cards are issued by Coastal Bank, a Washington-chartered bank, pursuant to a partnership with Visa U.S.A. Inc. Our partner banks are members of the FDIC.
We believe our record keeping for our users’ funds held in Robinhood Cash Card accounts at Sutton and held in a Spending Account at our other partner bank complies with all applicable requirements for each participating user’s deposits to be eligible for FDIC pass-through insurance coverage, up to the applicable maximum deposit insurance amount. However, if the FDIC were to disagree, the FDIC might not recognize users’ claims as covered by deposit insurance in the event of bank failure and bank receivership proceedings under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. If the FDIC were to determine that our users’ funds held at our partner banks are not covered by deposit insurance, participating users might decide to withdraw their funds, which could adversely affect our brand and our business. Due to the fact that we are deemed a service-provider to our partner banks, we are subject to audit standards for third-party vendors in accordance with bank regulatory guidance and examinations by federal bank regulatory authorities and the CFPB.
As a result of the stored value Spending Account program and the Robinhood Cash Card, we are subject to federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations, including the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E as implemented by the CFPB. As a result of Robinhood Credit, we are also subject to a number of state licensing and other regulatory requirements and to payment card association operating rules, including data security rules and certification requirements, which could change or be reinterpreted to make it difficult or impossible for us to comply. Robinhood Credit is in the process of acquiring licenses in all states where required to do so and is discussing with regulators, such as the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance and Massachusetts Division of Banks, certain prior related activity. Failure to obtain or maintain these licenses, failure to comply with these rules or requirements, or conducting such activity without a license, as well as any breach, compromise, or failure to otherwise detect or prevent fraudulent activity involving our data security systems, could result in our being liable for card issuing banks’ costs, and subject to regulatory fines, penalties, or criminal charges. Violations of any of these requirements could result in the assessment of significant actual damages or statutory damages or penalties (including treble damages in some instances) and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.
Offering Robinhood Credit increases our exposure to customer defaults and credit risk and could result in losses.
We market consumer credit cards, such as the Robinhood Gold Card, originated by our partner bank, Coastal Bank, pursuant to the Program Agreement, and indemnify Coastal Bank for certain losses under the Program Agreement. We partner with Coastal Bank to develop proprietary scoring models and other analytical techniques that are designed to set terms and credit limits to appropriately compensate for
credit risk in connection with selecting customers, managing accounts and establishing terms and credit limits. The revenue generated from the Program Agreement and the extent of credit losses incurred, as well as our ability to offer competitive features such as the Robinhood Gold Card Rewards Program, depends in part on managing credit risk while attracting new customers with profitable usage patterns. The models and approaches used to manage credit risk may not accurately predict future charge-offs and our ability to avoid high charge-off rates also may be adversely affected by general economic conditions including unemployment, the availability of consumer credit and the competitive environment, as well as events that may be difficult to predict, such as a general downturn in economic conditions (like the one that occurred in 2022) or public health threats (like the COVID-19 pandemic). Additionally, if any of these factors make it economically unfeasible for us to continue to offer the Robinhood Gold Card Rewards Program and we cease to offer such rewards, it might make Robinhood Credit products less desirable to customers. Any material increase in credit losses and defaults or inability to retain existing or attract new Robinhood Credit customers could have adverse effects on our financial condition and results of operations.
Use of our spending and payments services for illegal activities or improper purposes could harm our business.
The highly automated nature of, and liquidity offered by, our spending and payments services to move money make us and our customers a target for illegal or improper uses, including scams and fraud directed at our stored value Spending Account, Robinhood Cash Card, and Robinhood Credit customers, money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion, illegal online gambling, fraudulent sales of goods or services, illegal telemarketing activities, illegal sales of prescription medications or controlled substances, piracy of software, movies, music, and other copyrighted or trademarked goods (in particular, digital goods), bank fraud, child pornography, human trafficking, prohibited sales of alcoholic beverages or tobacco products, securities fraud, pyramid or ponzi schemes, or the facilitation of other illegal or improper activity. Moreover, certain activity that is legal in one jurisdiction might be illegal in another jurisdiction, and a customer might be found responsible for intentionally or inadvertently importing or exporting illegal goods, resulting in liability for us. Owners of intellectual property rights or government authorities might seek to bring legal action against providers of payments solutions, including Robinhood, that are peripherally involved in the sale of infringing or allegedly infringing items. While we invest in measures intended to prevent and detect illegal activities with respect to our spending and payments services, these measures require continuous improvement and might not be effective in detecting and preventing illegal activity or improper uses.
Any illegal or improper uses of our spending and payments services by our users might subject us to claims, individual and class action lawsuits, and government and regulatory requests, inquiries, or investigations that could result in liability, restrict our operations, require us to change our business practices, harm our reputation, increase our costs, and negatively impact our business. For example, government enforcement or regulatory authorities could seek to impose additional restrictions or liability on us arising from the use of our spending and payments services for illegal or improper activity, and our failure to detect or prevent such use. Illegitimate transactions can also prevent us from satisfying our contractual obligations to our third-party partners, which might cause us to be in breach of our obligations.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
Any failure to obtain, maintain, protect, defend or enforce our intellectual property rights could adversely affect our business.
Our success and ability to compete depend in part upon our ability to obtain, maintain, protect, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights and technology. The steps we take to protect our intellectual property rights might not be sufficient to effectively prevent third parties from infringing, misappropriating, diluting, or otherwise violating our intellectual property rights or to prevent unauthorized disclosure or unauthorized use of our trade secrets or other confidential information. We make business decisions
about when to seek patent protection for a particular technology, obtain trademark or copyright protection and when to rely upon trade secret protection, and the approach we select might ultimately prove to be inadequate. We will not be able to protect our intellectual property rights, however, if we do not detect unauthorized use of our intellectual property rights. We also might fail to maintain or be unable to obtain adequate protections for some of our intellectual property rights in the United States and some non-U.S. countries, and our intellectual property rights might not receive the same degree of protection in non-U.S. countries as they would in the United States because of the differences in non-U.S. patent, trademark, copyright, and other laws concerning intellectual property and proprietary rights. In addition, if we do not adequately protect our rights in our trademarks from infringement and unauthorized use, any goodwill that we have developed in those trademarks could be lost or impaired, which could harm our brand and our business. Our trademarks might also be opposed, contested, circumvented or found to be unenforceable, weak or invalid, and we might not be able to prevent third parties from infringing or otherwise violating them or using similar marks in a manner that causes confusion or dilutes the value or strength of our brand.
In addition to registered intellectual property rights, we rely on non-registered proprietary information and technology, such as trade secrets, confidential information and know-how. We attempt to protect our intellectual property, technology, and confidential information by requiring our employees, contractors, consultants, corporate collaborators, advisors and other third parties who develop intellectual property on our behalf to enter into agreements relating to confidentiality and invention assignments, and third parties we share information with to enter into nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements. However, we might not have any such agreements in place with some of the parties who have developed intellectual property on our behalf and/or with some of the parties that have or might have had access to our confidential information, know-how, and trade secrets. Even where these agreements are in place, they might be insufficient or breached, or might not effectively prevent unauthorized access to or unauthorized use, disclosure, misappropriation, or reverse engineering of our confidential information, intellectual property, or technology. Moreover, these agreements might not provide an adequate remedy for breaches or in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our confidential information or technology, or infringement of our intellectual property. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us, and our competitive position could be materially and adversely harmed.
The loss of trade secret protection could make it easier for third parties to compete with our products and services by copying functionality. Additionally, individuals not subject to invention assignment agreements might make adverse ownership claims to our current and future intellectual property, and, to the extent that our employees, independent contractors, or other third parties with whom we do business use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes might arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.
In addition, we might need to expend significant resources to apply for, maintain, enforce and monitor our intellectual property rights and such efforts might be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources.An adverse outcome in any such litigation or proceedings might expose us to a loss of our competitive position, significant liabilities, and damage to our brand, or require us to seek licenses that might not be available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all.
We have been, and might in the future be, subject to claims that we violated third-party intellectual property rights, which, even where meritless, can be costly to defend and could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our success depends, in part, on our ability to develop and commercialize our products and services without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. However, we might not be aware that our products, services, or marketing materials are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating third-party intellectual property rights and such third parties might
bring claims alleging such infringement, misappropriation or violation. As we face increasing competition and become increasingly high profile, the possibility of receiving a larger number of intellectual property claims against us grows. In addition, various “non-practicing entities,” and other intellectual property rights holders have in the past and might in the future attempt to assert intellectual property claims against us or seek to monetize the intellectual property rights they own to extract value through licensing or other settlements.
Our use of third-party software and other intellectual property rights might be subject to claims of infringement or misappropriation. The vendors who provide us with technology that we incorporate in our product offerings also could become subject to various infringement claims.
From time to time, our competitors or other third parties might claim, and have in the past claimed, that we are infringing upon, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights. We cannot predict the outcome of lawsuits and cannot ensure that the results of any such actions will not have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects. Any claims or litigation, even those without merit and regardless of the outcome, could cause us to incur significant expenses and, if successfully asserted against us, could require that we pay substantial costs or damages, obtain a license, which might not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, pay significant ongoing royalty payments, settlements or licensing fees, satisfy indemnification obligations, prevent us from offering our products or services or using certain technologies, force us to implement expensive and time-consuming work-arounds or re-designs, distract management from our business or impose other unfavorable terms.
We expect that the occurrence of infringement claims is likely to grow as the market for financial services grows and as we introduce new and updated products and services, and the outcome of any allegation is often uncertain. Accordingly, our exposure to damages resulting from infringement claims could increase and this could further exhaust our financial and management resources. Even if intellectual property claims do not result in litigation or are resolved in our favor, these claims, and the time and resources necessary to resolve them, could divert the resources of our management and require significant expenditures.
Some of our products and services contain open source software, which could pose particular risks to our proprietary software, products, and services in a manner that could harm our business.
We use open source software in our products and services (as well as in some of our internally developed systems) and we anticipate using open source software in the future. Some open source software licenses require those who distribute open source software as part of their own software product to publicly disclose all or part of the source code to such software product or to make available any derivative works of the open source code on unfavorable terms or at no cost, and we might be subject to such terms. The terms of many open source licenses to which we are subject have not been interpreted by U.S. or foreign courts, and there is a risk that open source software licenses could be construed in a manner that imposes unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to provide or distribute our products or services. We could face claims from third parties claiming ownership of, or demanding release of, the open source software or derivative works that we developed using such software, which could include our proprietary source code, or otherwise seeking to enforce the terms of the applicable open source license. These claims could result in litigation and could require us to make our proprietary software source code freely available, purchase a costly license, or cease offering the implicated products or services unless and until we can offer a different solution, which might be a costly and time-consuming process. While we monitor our use of open source software and try to ensure that none is used in a manner that would require us to disclose our proprietary source code or that would otherwise breach the terms of an open source agreement, such use could inadvertently occur, or could be claimed to have occurred, in part because open source license terms can be ambiguous, vague, or subject to various interpretations, especially given the absence of controlling case law in the U.S. or other courts. Additionally, we may open source some of our own proprietary source code and/or may make contributions to open source software. There is a risk that our proprietary software or contributions may
be used in such a manner that we may need to enforce our rights to ownership of such open source software, including seeking proper usage, compliance with our license terms, or through litigation. Any actual or claimed requirement to disclose our proprietary source code or pay damages for breach of license terms, or failure to enforce our ownership rights over the use of our proprietary source code could harm our business and could help third parties, including our competitors, develop products and services that are similar to or better than ours.
Risks Related to Finance, Accounting and Tax Matters
Covenants in our credit agreements could restrict our operations and if we do not effectively manage our business to comply with these covenants, our financial condition could be adversely impacted.
We have entered into certain credit agreements and might enter into additional agreements for other borrowing in the future. These agreements contain various restrictive covenants, including, among other things, minimum liquidity and tangible net worth requirements, restrictions on our ability to dispose of assets, make acquisitions or investments, incur debt or liens, make distributions to our stockholders, or enter into certain types of related person transactions. These agreements also contain financial covenants, including obligations to maintain certain capitalization amounts and other financial ratios. These restrictions might restrict our current and future operations, including our ability to incur debt to increase our liquidity position.
Our ability to meet these restrictive covenants can be impacted by events beyond our control that could cause us to be unable to comply. The credit agreements provide that our breach or failure to satisfy some of these covenants constitutes an event of default. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, our lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under our debt agreements to be immediately due and payable. In addition, our lenders might have the right to proceed against the assets we provided as collateral pursuant to the agreements. If the debt under the credit agreements were to be accelerated, and if we did not have sufficient cash on hand or be able to sell sufficient collateral to repay it, it would have an immediate adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our insurance coverage might be inadequate or expensive.
We use a combination of third-party insurance and self-insurance mechanisms, including a wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary. We are subject to claims in the ordinary course of business. These claims can involve substantial amounts of money and involve significant defense costs. It is not possible to prevent or detect all activities giving rise to claims and the precautions we take might not be effective in all cases. We maintain voluntary and required insurance coverage, including, among others, general liability, property, director and officer, excess-SIPC, cyber and data breach, crime, and fidelity bond insurance. Our insurance coverage is expensive and maintaining or expanding our insurance coverage might have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
Our insurance coverage is subject to terms such as deductibles, coinsurance, limits and policy exclusions, as well as risk of counterparty denial of coverage, default or insolvency, and might be insufficient to protect us against all losses and costs stemming from processing, operational, and technological failures. Furthermore, for certain lines of coverage, continued insurance coverage might not be available to us in the future on economically reasonable terms, or at all. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceed available insurance coverage, or the occurrence of material changes in our insurance policies, including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or co-insurance requirements, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Changes in U.S. and foreign tax laws and policies could adversely impact our tax liabilities.
We are, and may in the future become, subject to complex and evolving U.S. and foreign tax laws and regulations, which might in the future make changes to corporate income tax rates, the treatment of foreign earnings, or other income tax laws that could have an adverse impact on our business, result of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Our determination of our tax liability is subject to review by applicable tax authorities. The determination of our tax liabilities requires significant judgment and, in the ordinary course of business, there are transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is complex and uncertain. Although we believe our determinations are reasonable, the ultimate amount of our tax obligations owed might differ from the amounts recorded in our financial statements in the event of a review by applicable tax authorities and any such difference could have an adverse effect on our results of operations. Tax authorities might also disagree with certain positions we have taken or might take in the future, which could subject us to additional tax liabilities.
Our corporate structure and associated transfer pricing policies also contemplate future growth in international markets, and consider the functions, risks, and assets of various entities involved in intercompany transactions. The taxing authorities of the jurisdictions in which we operate may challenge our methodologies for valuing intercompany transactions pursuant to our intercompany arrangements or disagree with our determinations as to the income and expenses attributable to specific jurisdictions.
In addition, from time to time, proposals are introduced in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures, as well as by foreign governments, to impose new taxes on a broad range of financial transactions, including transactions that occur on our platforms, such as the buying and selling of stocks, derivative transactions, and cryptocurrencies. If enacted, such financial transaction taxes could increase the cost to customers of investing or trading on our platforms and reduce or adversely affect U.S. market conditions and liquidity, general levels of interest in investing, and the volume of trades and other transactions from which we derive transaction-based revenues. Any financial transaction tax implemented in any jurisdiction in which we operate could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations, and as a retail brokerage we could be impacted to a greater degree than other market participants.
We also are subject to non-income taxes, such as payroll, sales, use, value-added, net worth, excise, goods and services, and property taxes in the United States and various foreign jurisdictions. Specifically, we might be subject to ''digital service taxes'' or new allocations of tax as a result of increasing efforts by certain jurisdictions to tax cross border activities that might not have been subject to tax under existing international tax principles. Companies such as ours could be adversely impacted by such taxes.
Our ability to use our net operating losses to offset future taxable income could be subject to certain limitations.
As of December 31, 2023, we have net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) available to reduce future taxable income. However, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” (as defined by the Code) may be subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs and other tax attributes such as research tax credits to offset future taxable income. If it is determined that we have in the past experienced an ownership change, or if we undergo one or more ownership changes as a result of future transactions in our stock, then our ability to utilize NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes could be limited by Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, and similar state provisions. Future changes in our stock ownership, many of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Section 382 or 383 of the Code. Furthermore, our ability to utilize NOLs of any companies that we acquire in the future may be subject to limitations. For these reasons, we might not be able to utilize our NOLs, even if we maintain profitability.
Our tax information reporting obligations are subject to change.
Although we believe we are compliant with the tax reporting and withholding requirements with respect to our customers’ transactions in the jurisdictions in which we operate, various U.S., state or foreign tax authorities might significantly change applicable tax reporting requirements or disagree with the exact application of new or existing requirements. If the taxing authorities determine that we are not in compliance with our tax reporting or withholding requirements with respect to customer asset transactions, we may be exposed to additional withholding obligations, which could increase our compliance costs and result in penalties.
We track certain operational metrics, which are subject to inherent challenges in measurement, and real or perceived inaccuracies in such metrics could harm our reputation, adversely affect our stock price, and result in litigation.
We track certain operational metrics using internal company data gathered on an analytics platform that we developed and operate, including metrics such as Funded Customers, AUC, and Gold Subscribers, as well as cohorts of our customers, which have not been validated by any independent third party and which might differ from estimates or similar metrics published by other parties due to differences in sources, methodologies, or the assumptions on which we rely. Our internal systems and tools are subject to a number of limitations and our methodologies for tracking these metrics have changed in the past and might change further over time, which could result in unexpected changes to our metrics or otherwise cause the comparability of such metrics from period to period to suffer, including the metrics we publicly disclose. For example, prior to our becoming self-clearing in November 2018, we relied on a third-party provider for our clearing operations, and used data collected by that third party to compute certain metrics, such as Funded Customers, that, since November 2018, we have calculated based on data sourced and processed internally. In addition, if the internal systems and tools we use to track these metrics undercount or overcount performance or contain algorithmic or other technical errors, the data we report might not be accurate. While these numbers are based on what we believe to be reasonable estimates of our metrics for the applicable period of measurement, there are inherent challenges in measuring how our platforms are used across large populations globally. You should not place undue reliance on such operational metrics when evaluating an investment in our Class A common stock. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Key Performance Metrics” for definitions of our key operational metrics.
If our operational metrics are not accurate representations of our business, or if investors do not perceive these metrics to be accurate, or if we discover material inaccuracies with respect to these figures, our reputation could be significantly harmed, the trading price of our Class A common stock could decline and we might be subject to stockholder litigation, which could be costly.
If we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, as well as required disclosure controls and procedures, our ability to produce timely and accurate consolidated financial statementsor comply with applicable regulations could be impaired.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related rules of the SEC require, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, we have expended, and anticipate that we will continue to expend, significant resources, including accounting-related costs and significant management oversight.
Our current controls and any new controls that we develop could become inadequate because of changes in conditions in our business. In addition, changes in accounting principles or interpretations could also challenge our internal controls and require that we establish new business processes, systems and controls to accommodate such changes. We have limited experience with implementing the systems and controls that are necessary to operate as a public company, as well as adopting changes in accounting principles or interpretations mandated by the relevant regulatory bodies. Additionally, if these
new systems, controls or standards and the associated process changes do not give rise to the benefits that we expect or do not operate as intended, it could adversely affect our financial reporting systems and processes, our ability to produce timely and accurate financial reports or the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Moreover, our business might be harmed if we experience problems with any new systems and controls that result in delays in their implementation or increased costs to correct any post-implementation issues that might arise. Further, weaknesses in our disclosure controls and internal control over financial reporting could be discovered in the future. Any failure to develop or maintain effective controls or any difficulties encountered in their implementation or improvement could harm our business or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations and could result in a restatement of our consolidated financial statements for prior periods.
Any failure to implement and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could also adversely affect the results of periodic management evaluations and annual independent registered public accounting firm attestation reports regarding the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting that are required in our periodic reports filed with the SEC. Ineffective disclosure controls and procedures or internal control over financial reporting could harm our business, cause investors to lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our reported financial and other information, and result in us becoming subject to investigations by the stock exchange on which our securities are listed, the SEC or other regulatory authorities, any of which would likely have a negative effect on the trading price of our Class A common stock and have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, if we are unable to continue to meet these requirements, we might not be able to remain listed on the Nasdaq. Risks Related to Our Class A Common Stock
The trading price for our Class A common stock has been and might continue to be volatile and you could lose all or part of your investment.
The trading price of our Class A common stock has been and might continue to be highly volatile and could continue to be subject to fluctuations in response to one or more of the risk factors described in this report, many of which are beyond our control. For example, on November 8, 2022 (the day that FTX halted all non-fiat customer withdrawals from its platform) the intra-day trading price of our Class A common stock fell as much as 18%, and on December 14, 2022 (the day the December 2022 Rule Proposals were announced), the intra-day trading prices of our Class A common stock fell as much as 5.3%. These fluctuations could cause you to lose all or part of your investment in our Class A common stock since you might be unable to sell your shares at or above the price you paid. Additional factors that could have a significant effect on the trading price of our Class A common stock include:
•publication of research reports about us, our competitors, or our industry, or changes in, or failure to meet, estimates made by securities analysts or ratings agencies of our financial and operating performance, or lack of research reports by industry analysts or ceasing of analyst coverage;
•announcements by us or our competitors of new offerings or platform features;
•the public’s perception of the quality and accuracy of our key metrics on our customer base and engagement;
•the public’s reaction to our media statements, other public announcements and filings with the SEC;
•rumors and market speculation involving us or other companies in our industry;
•the extent to which retail and other individual investors (as distinguished from institutional investors), including our customers, invest in our Class A common stock, which might result in increased volatility; and
•media coverage related to certain individuals and entities identified as having owned our stock, and any speculation related to plans to dispose of their holdings.
In addition, in the past, following periods of volatility in the overall market and the trading price of a particular company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against these companies. This litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources.
Further, if the market price of our Class A common stock is above the level that investors determine is reasonable for our Class A common stock, some investors might attempt to short our Class A common stock, which would create additional downward pressure on the trading price of our Class A common stock.
Substantial future issuances or sales of shares of our Class A common stock in the public market could result in significant dilution to our stockholders and such issuances or sales, or the perception that they may occur, could cause the trading price of our Class A common stock to fall.
As of September 30, 2024, our founders and their related entities hold approximately 14% of our outstanding common stock (and, as described in the following risk factor, over 50% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock). If our founders or other significant stockholders sell, or indicate an intent to sell, large amounts of stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could cause the trading price of our Class A common stock to decline substantially.
Similarly, significant numbers of shares are subject to future issuance including under outstanding warrants held by pre-IPO investors, and under outstanding stock options and RSUs held by employees and other service providers, and significant numbers of additional shares are available for award grant purposes under our 2021 Plan and for issuance under our ESPP. All of these shares will become eligible for sale in the public market upon exercise, vesting, or settlement, as applicable (and to the extent granted in the discretion of our board of directors, in the case of shares available for grant). These and any future issuances of shares of our capital stock, or of securities convertible into or exercisable for our capital stock could depress the market price of our Class A common stock and result in a significant dilution for stockholders.
We have authorized more capital stock in recent years to provide additional stock options and RSUs to our employees and to permit for the consummation of equity and equity-linked financings and might continue to do so in the future. Our employee headcount has increased significantly in the past few years, so the amount of dilution due to awards of equity-based compensation to our employees could be substantial. Further, any sales of our Class A common stock (including shares of Class A common stock issuable upon conversion of our Class B common stock, as stock options are exercised, or as RSUs are settled) might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. These sales could also cause the trading price of our Class A common stock to fall and make it more difficult for you to sell shares of our Class A common stock.
There are no guarantees that we will repurchase shares under the Repurchase Program or that the Repurchase Program will result in increased shareholder value.
On May 28, 2024, Robinhood announced that its board of directors approved the Repurchase Program authorizing the Company to repurchase up to $1 billion of its outstanding Class A common stock to return value to shareholders. In July 2024, Robinhood began to execute on the Repurchase Program. While the Repurchase Program does not have an expiration date, the Company’s management currently expects to conduct the Repurchase Program over a period of two to three years, beginning in the third quarter of 2024. The timing and amount of repurchase transactions will be determined by the Company from time to time at its discretion based on its evaluation of market conditions, share price, and other factors, and repurchase transactions may be made using a variety of methods, such as open market share repurchases, including the use of trading plans intended to qualify under Rule 10b5-1 under the
Exchange Act, or other financial arrangements or transactions. The Repurchase Program does not obligate the Company to acquire any particular amount of Class A common stock, and the Repurchase Program may be suspended or discontinued at any time at the Company’s discretion. As a result, there is no guarantee with respect to the timing or amount of any future share repurchases, or that we will repurchase the full amount authorized under the Repurchase Program. Other factors, including changes in tax or securities laws, such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 which imposes a corporate excise tax of 1% on net stock repurchases, could also impact our stock repurchases.
There are a number of ways in which the Repurchase Program could fail to result in enhanced shareholder value. For example, any failure to repurchase stock after we have announced our intention to do so may negatively impact the trading price of our Class A common stock. The existence of the Repurchase Program could also cause our stock price to trade higher than it otherwise would and could potentially reduce the market liquidity for our stock. The trading price of our Class A common stock could decline below the levels at which we repurchased shares and short-term stock price fluctuations could reduce the effectiveness of the Repurchase Program. Any announcement of a pause in, or termination of, the Repurchase Program may also result in a decrease in the trading price of our Class A common stock. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that our stock repurchases will be able to successfully mitigate the dilutive effect of the equity awards we grant to our employees.
Additionally, repurchasing our Class A common stock will reduce the amount of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities we have available to fund working capital, capital expenditures, capital preserving investments, strategic acquisitions or business opportunities, and other general corporate purposes, and there are no guarantees that the Repurchase Program will result in increased shareholder value. Furthermore, the timing and amount of any repurchases, if any, will be subject to liquidity, market and economic conditions, compliance with applicable legal requirements and other relevant factors. If we are unable to, or choose not to, repurchase shares under the Repurchase Program, this may have a negative impact on the perception of the Company as an investment opportunity by shareholders or investment analysts, which may in turn negatively impact the trading price of our Class A common stock.
The multi-class structure of our common stock has the effect of concentrating voting power with our founders, which limits your ability to influence the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval. In addition, the Founders’ Voting Agreement and any future issuances of our Class C common stock could prolong the duration of our founders’ voting control.
Our Class A common stock has one vote per share, our Class B common stock has 10 votes per share and our Class C common stock has no voting rights, except as otherwise required by law. Our founders and certain of their related entities (“Founder Affiliates”) together hold all of the issued and outstanding shares of our Class B common stock. Accordingly, Mr. Tenev, who is also our CEO, President and Chair of our board of directors, and Mr. Bhatt, who is a director, collectively with their related entities hold over 50% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. As a result, our founders have the ability to determine or significantly influence any action requiring the approval of our stockholders, including the election of our board of directors, the adoption of amendments to our Charter and our Amended and Restated Bylaws (our “Bylaws”) and the approval of any merger, consolidation, sale of all or substantially all of our assets or other major corporate transaction.
In addition, our founders and Founder Affiliates have entered into a voting agreement (the “Founders’ Voting Agreement”) in which they have agreed, among other things, (i) to vote all of the shares of our common stock held by such founder or Founder Affiliate for the election of each founder to, and against the removal of each founder from, our board of directors, (ii) to vote together in the election of other directors generally, subject to deferring to the decision of the nominating and corporate governance committee in the event of any disagreement between the founders, (iii) effective upon a founder’s death or disability, to grant a voting proxy to the other founder with respect to shares of our common stock held by the deceased or disabled founder or over which he was entitled to vote (or direct the voting) immediately prior to his death or disability, and (iv) to grant each other rights of first offer in the event of
proposed transfers that would otherwise cause Class B shares to convert into Class A shares under our Charter. The Founders’ Voting Agreement has the effect of concentrating voting power in our founders (or either one of them).
Further pursuant to the equity exchange right agreements entered into between us and each of our founders in connection with our IPO, each of our founders has a right (but not an obligation) to require us to exchange, for shares of Class B common stock, any shares of Class A common stock received by them upon the vesting and settlement of pre-IPO RSUs (the “Equity Exchange Rights”). Any exercise by our founders of these Equity Exchange Rights will dilute the voting power of holders of our Class A common stock.
Our founders might have interests that differ from yours and might vote in a way with which you disagree and which may be adverse to your interests. Therefore, the founders’ concentrated voting control might have the effect of delaying, preventing or deterring a change in control of our Company, could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their capital stock as part of a sale of our Company, and might ultimately affect the market price of our Class A common stock. Further, the separation between voting power and economic interests could cause conflicts of interest between our founders and our other stockholders, which might result in our founders undertaking, or causing us to undertake, actions that would be desirable for our founders but would not be desirable for our other stockholders.
We have no current plans to issue shares of our Class C common stock. Because the shares of our Class C common stock have no voting rights, except as required by law, if we issue Class C common stock in the future, the voting control of our founders could be maintained for a longer period of time than would be the case if we issued Class A common stock rather than Class C common stock.
Certain provisions in our Charter and our Bylaws and of Delaware law as well as certain FINRA rules might prevent or delay an acquisition of Robinhood, which could decrease the trading price of our Class A common stock.
Our Charter and our Bylaws contain, and Delaware law contains, provisions that might have the effect of deterring takeovers by making such takeovers more expensive to the bidder and by encouraging prospective acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors rather than to attempt a hostile takeover, such as a classified board, limitations on the ability of stockholders to take action by written consent, and the ability of our board of directors to designate the terms of preferred stock and authorize its issuance without stockholder approval. We believe these provisions will protect our stockholders from coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors and by providing our board of directors with more time to assess any acquisition proposal. These provisions are not intended to make Robinhood immune from takeovers. However, these provisions will apply even if the offer might be considered beneficial by some stockholders and could delay or prevent an acquisition that our board of directors determines is not in the best interests of Robinhood and our stockholders. Accordingly, if our board of directors determines that a potential acquisition is not in the best interests of Robinhood and our stockholders, but certain stockholders believe that such a transaction would be beneficial to Robinhood and our stockholders, such stockholders might elect to sell their shares in Robinhood and the trading price of our Class A common stock could decrease. These and other provisions of our Charter, our Bylaws and the Delaware General Corporation Law could have the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control, which might limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our Class A common stock and might also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our Class A common stock.
In addition, a third party attempting to acquire us or a substantial position in our Class A common stock might be delayed or ultimately prevented from doing so by change in ownership or control regulations to which certain of our regulated subsidiaries are subject.For example, FINRA Rule 1017 generally provides that FINRA approval must be obtained in connection with any transaction resulting in a single person or entity owning, directly or indirectly, 25% or more of a FINRA member firm’s equity and would include a change in control of a parent company and similar approval from the Financial Conduct
Authority, which regulates our U.K. authorized broker-dealer subsidiary, must be obtained in connection with any transaction resulting in a person or entity holding, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of the equity or voting power of a U.K. authorized person or the parent of a U.K. authorized person. These and any other applicable regulations relating to changes in control of us or our regulated subsidiaries could further have the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control of us.
The exclusive forum provisions of our Charter could limit our stockholders’ ability to choose the judicial forum for some types of lawsuits against us or our directors, officers, or employees.
Our Charter provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the sole and exclusive forum for a number of types of actions or proceedings shall be the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery does not have subject matter jurisdiction, another state court sitting in the State of Delaware) (or, if no state court located within the State of Delaware has jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware), in all cases subject to the court having jurisdiction over indispensable parties named as defendants. Our Charter also provides that the federal district courts of the United States will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action under the Securities Act. Nothing in our Charter precludes stockholders that assert claims under the Exchange Act from bringing such claims in any court, subject to applicable law.
Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring or holding any interest in any of our securities shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to these provisions. These exclusive forum provisions might limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum of its choosing for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or other employees, which might discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, and other employees. The enforceability of similar choice of forum provisions in other companies’ charter documents has been challenged in legal proceedings, and it is possible that a court could find these types of provisions to be inapplicable or unenforceable. If a court were to find the exclusive forum provisions in our Charter to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we might incur additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our results of operations.
ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
Sales of Unregistered Securities
From January 1, 2024 through September 30, 2024 we did not sell any shares of Class A common stock (or other equity securities of Robinhood Markets, Inc.) that were not registered under the Securities Act.
The following table presents repurchases of shares of our Class A common stock during the three months ended September 30, 2024:
Period
Total Number of Shares Purchased
Average Price Paid per Share (1)
Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs (2)
Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs (2)
(in millions)
July 1, 2024 - July 31, 2024
386,603
$
22.58
386,603
$
991
August 1, 2024 - August 31, 2024
2,823,247
$
18.86
2,823,247
938
September 1, 2024- September 30, 2024
1,802,345
$
19.62
1,802,345
903
Total
5,012,195
$
19.42
5,012,195
$
903
(1) The average cost per share excludes the 1% excise tax on net share repurchase and commissions.
(2) On May 28, 2024, we announced that the Board of Directors approved the Repurchase Program authorizing the Company to repurchase up to $1 billion of its outstanding Class A common stock. Repurchase transactions may be made using a variety of methods, such as open market share repurchases, including the use of trading plans intended to qualify under Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act, or other financial arrangements or transactions. The Repurchase Program does not obligate us to acquire any particular amount of Class A common stock and the Repurchase Program may be suspended or discontinued at any time at our discretion. Refer to Note 11 - Common Stock and Stockholders' Equity to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements in this Quarterly Report for more information about the Repurchase Program.