I'll just put this out there:

1. This is classic liquidity crunch and has happened many times.

2. RH/etc. will turn out to have made mistakes, didn't plan for any of this, ultimately lose big.

3. Reform will center on how services are offered/advertised to retail investors.

4. Lots of coverage will center on class warfare narrative and the 'game being rigged'.

5. That same coverage will make 3 seem like the answer and a fair resolution to the problem.

6. The real culprit, as always, was leverage and incentives.

7. In the US financial institutions that accept deposits insured by the federal government (FDIC etc) are allowed to hold positions in risky assets, though this is regulated.

8. Other even less regulated institutions (funds etc) hold shares in the guys referred to in 7.

9. The REAL problem is those institutions are allowed to make leveraged bets that, if they go badly enough, could affect the value of 'safe' assets like savings accounts and pension funds.

10. Thus the ultimate incentive problem: Big funds ultimately insured by taxpayer dollars

11. Ultimately the ONLY real reforms that matter are:

i) Reserve requirements, i.e. how much banks/funds/etc are allowed to borrow to invest in risky assets

ii) Trade restrictions, i.e. some institutions (commercial banks) not allowed to hold some assets/positions (short)