31–40 of 230 posts
> Initial Disclosure: After extensive research, we have taken a short position in Adani Group Companies
idk, should I also take one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is pretty much what Hindenburg does; they find frauds and short them. Peruse their site. I mean, it’s in the name, you know, like the dirigible. https://hindenburgresearch.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
I thought it was named after the former German field marshal and president.
These are the people that broke the “Nikola rolling a truck down a hill” story. https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/
They have been suing a climate activist here for millions of dollars, and as part of it they had private investigators following him, his wife, and his children, including photographing his children while they were alone on the way to and from school. They were “unapologetic” [2].
Although from what I read of Adani’s human rights abuses overseas (such as forcing native tribes off their lands to build mines and infrastructure, and complete disregard for the environmental effects of their operations poisoning nearby communities’ air and water/food sources) this is a tiny drop in the bucket of that company’s scummyness.
1. https://cdn.getup.org.au/2061-2059-The-Adani-Files.pdf
2. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/28/private-inv...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
idk, should I also take one?
Given that we're reading this, it's probably priced in by now. But in principle the answer would be yes, but only with money you can afford to lose; any investment on a single-name stock is risky, and shorting is even more so.
This is reminiscent of the FTT/SRM debacle: 1. A highly illiquid asset that's mostly owned by the founder 2. Price manipulation to artificially inflate the asset price 3. Mark-to-market accounting to artificially inflate the market cap 4. Using the inflated market cap to justify borrowing billions in liquid assets 5. A downturn in the market and... the money's gone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
today?
Yeah. Back in the day you needed forced labour and violent conquest to become rich. Becoming the richest in the world through something as benign as fraud is relatively new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that we're reading this, it's probably priced in by now. But in principle the answer would be yes, but only with money you can afford to lose; any investment on a single-name stock is risky, and shorting is even more so.
And it's shorting, so no cap on losses, right?