She only lost about 10% of her life savings on that trade on the first day.
"Her son advised her to hold onto her shares until she either resolved the matter with Vanguard or the price bounced back."
That would be an interesting malpractice lawsuit, mom vs son. Just sayin.
How dare her trade not profit! I know, file a lawsuit for a 400% rate of return for, um, well, not winning in the casino, thats what.
This is what is known in the business as catching a falling knife. By the time the legal stuff wrapped up, she lost more like 90% of her life savings as the stock cratered. A legal maneuver attempting to cash in on the situation was the gamble that lost most of her money because she caught a falling knife and stubbornly refused to let go. Really its two back to back gambles both of which failed.
If she tried to cancel the order, the broker should have been able to cancel the order for her. They had over an hour to work with -- if it were their own money, it'd have been handled in milliseconds.
It's standard to blow up the damages figure in the initial lawsuit filing. Big companies do this EVERY SINGLE TIME. Yet this woman does it and she's the greedy one who won't take responsibility?
Vanguard had one job here, they failed at it, and they should have either settled with her for her first-day losses and no punitive damages immediately or lost in the lawsuit with bigger damages eventually. Of course, the game being what it is, they just won eventually.
How so? She clicked buy, did she not? And she got exactly what she wanted. Quite awhile later, she changed her mind about what she wanted. Oh well.
Its like buying a lottery ticket, then after the numbers are picked, deciding you don't want it anymore and trying to return it. You can get away with that kind of stuff at walmart or target, not so much at the lotto kiosk or the stock exchange. She had 12 years of stock trading experience per the article. Not as much as me, but she didn't exactly fall off the turnip truck the day before, either.
Oh come on. She changed her mind over an hour before the market opened and they couldn't process her cancellation. She didn't ask for her money back after losing it, she asked to stop the trade before it was executed and they failed at that for over an hour. Are you seriously not getting that distinction?
It's not like buying a lottery ticket and deciding you don't want it after the numbers are picked. It's like starting to buy a lottery ticket, then changing your mind, and the clerk punches you in the face and takes your wallet, giving you your lottery ticket anyways.
I understand that it wasn't on purpose but in most industries if you fuck up and cost your customer a lot of money then they're going to have legal recourse against you.
"Her son advised her to hold onto her shares until she either resolved the matter with Vanguard or the price bounced back."
That would be an interesting malpractice lawsuit, mom vs son. Just sayin.
How dare her trade not profit! I know, file a lawsuit for a 400% rate of return for, um, well, not winning in the casino, thats what.
This is what is known in the business as catching a falling knife. By the time the legal stuff wrapped up, she lost more like 90% of her life savings as the stock cratered. A legal maneuver attempting to cash in on the situation was the gamble that lost most of her money because she caught a falling knife and stubbornly refused to let go. Really its two back to back gambles both of which failed.