Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

hindenburgresearch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 430 posts

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#171

Post by pclmulqdq »

weard_beard wrote: post #137
gizmo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Naked short selling basically doesn't happen anymore. To the extent that it does happen it's a mere technicality and the borrow is found after a couple of days. 2. There is very little money in shorting. Pumping and dumping by making up positive news is much more lucrative. "to the moon" has been a trope for years, and there is no equivalent on the short side. Even the world's most successful short seller Jim Chan…

1. FTDs are at an all time high. Naked short selling is an epidemic. This is provably false. 2. Operational shorting as a part of market making and derivatives strategies is an enormous part of the market. This is also demonstrably false. 3. The DOJ has the resources, not the jurisdiction. Self regulation will always be underfunded. Trying to argue that short selling is an effective form of privatized self regulation…

The few firms (market makers) that are allowed to short naked pretty much always deliver.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#172

Post by chii »

leoqa wrote: post #152
dinp wrote: post #86

The impact this organization had was incredible. I doubt they would have been able to do this work if they were based out of any other country, which makes me wonder how the US legal system, regulators and law enforcement in general are not extremely corrupt. What reasons or incentives make the system work in the US? Of course there are many instances of corruption and injustice, but in comparison to almost any other…

I think there is a really nuanced check-and-balance system that has extreme visibility for the federal legal system: - investigators need approval from a prosecutor to move forward with investigations, and ultimately have to present their evidence in sales calls to their boss/peers. It’s a lot of red tape. - prosecutors have bosses and reputations to uphold, they don’t want to take on risk. - judges act as a procedur…

which is all good, because it is better to let 9 guilty men free, than to wrongfully imprison 1 innocent.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#173

Post by WalterBright »

chii wrote: post #166
WalterBright wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conventional wisdom is to sell your profitable stocks, to "lock in your gains", and sell your losers to "cut your losses." I call that "minimizing your gains" and "locking in your losses", and just hold instead. If I "locked in the gains" I would have missed out on 10x returns. Of course, I did ride Enron all the way to zero (!), but it didn't matter. Think of it this way - buy 10 stocks. 3 go to zero. 6 have mod…

> 1 is a 10x winner out of 10 stocks, 1 being a 10x winner is an absolutely rarity and the fact that you would manage to pick it is pure luck tbh.

QQQ is up 5x in 10 years. Being an ETF, that means many of its components must be 10x.

I suppose it's dependent on your time horizon. MSFT is up around 10x since Nadella took over. It's more common over 20 years, obviously.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#174

Post by bruce511 »

chii wrote: post #168
bruce511 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't invest because they think a company is competent. They invest because they are looking for a return. The mistake CrowdStrike made will likely have little to no effect on their revenue. Since the stock dropped a bit (emotional investors getting out) it became a good value proposition, so people bought it cheap. The reasons companies use CrowdStrike haven't gone away. Existing contracts can't just be termi…

There was a case of food contamination in a fast food joint (can't remember which, let's say it was burger king). The stock fell as a result, but recovered relatively quick afterwards - you would've made bank buying it low. The thing is, individual, one off events usually don't break a company, but the stock falls temporarially as a result of some people expecting it to. Of course, it's possible that one event breaks…

Exactly. There's news every day. It takes a lot of bad news to break a company.

And frankly unless it's criminal (Enron, Theranos etc) it's not a big deal. An oil spill here, a data leak there, these are not things that affect customer behavior.

The market is only interested in results. It doesn't care about the news. Those stock dips you see are uneducated emotional investors making bad decisions for the wrong reasons.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#175

Post by JumpCrisscross »

WalterBright wrote: post #147
gmd63 wrote: post #59

I've ironically lost more money the more closely I've paid attention to my investments because I was naively confident in the market's ability (or as I've come to suspect, willingness) to react to evidence of fraud. The amount of deceit put out into the world and gobbled up, on purpose, in business is obscene and seriously depressing. The magnitude of damage to psyches and thus economies that anyone acting in a fraud…

> I've ironically lost more money the more closely I've paid attention to my investments Money Magazine a few years ago compared various investment strategies in stocks. The #2 best performing one was investing in the S&P 500. The #1 best performing strategy was the "dead man strategy". The dead man strategy comes into play when the investor dies, and his estate gets frozen until it winds its way through the courts.…

> turns out that doing nothing with your stock investments is (statistically) the best strategy

The only thing a small investor can control are fees. Minimising transactions minimises fees.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#176

Post by silisili »

WalterBright wrote: post #173
chii wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1 is a 10x winner out of 10 stocks, 1 being a 10x winner is an absolutely rarity and the fact that you would manage to pick it is pure luck tbh.

QQQ is up 5x in 10 years. Being an ETF, that means many of its components must be 10x. I suppose it's dependent on your time horizon. MSFT is up around 10x since Nadella took over. It's more common over 20 years, obviously.

The other neat thing about ETFs is that there are so many similar, you can effectively use them for TLH to help offset future gains.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#177

Post by WalterBright »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #175
WalterBright wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've ironically lost more money the more closely I've paid attention to my investments Money Magazine a few years ago compared various investment strategies in stocks. The #2 best performing one was investing in the S&P 500. The #1 best performing strategy was the "dead man strategy". The dead man strategy comes into play when the investor dies, and his estate gets frozen until it winds its way through the courts.…

> turns out that doing nothing with your stock investments is (statistically) the best strategy The only thing a small investor can control are fees. Minimising transactions minimises fees.

You also get heavily taxed for the short term gains.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#178

Post by bruce511 »

manquer wrote: post #167
bruce511 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't invest because they think a company is competent. They invest because they are looking for a return. The mistake CrowdStrike made will likely have little to no effect on their revenue. Since the stock dropped a bit (emotional investors getting out) it became a good value proposition, so people bought it cheap. The reasons companies use CrowdStrike haven't gone away. Existing contracts can't just be termi…

There are consequences, with significant financial impact, not necessarily world ending for them. There are already lawsuits filed around this incident. If a court sides with the customers or if CrowdStrike settles them, it will not be cheap. Even if they don't end up loosing or settling, the lawyers will not be cheap with so many suits , I don't think there is a major class action, every contract is unique after all…

There will absolutely be consequences. And that'll cost real money.

But that is just a 'cost of doing business'. And ultimately will just work it's way into the price.

Intel and Boeing are not "one off mistakes". The root problems there are structural, cultural and fundamental.

If CrowdStrike have more issues this year, then that'll have an impact because it suggests there's a root problem. But a single bad rollout is just a bad rollout.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#180

Post by lokar »

julianpye wrote: post #23

In an upcoming age of oligarchy, regulation will be adapted to suit business owners. As an example, it seems that Gautam Adani is friendly with Trump. What will be the impact on the SEC? What are future scenarios of fraud enabled by weaker regulations? But this is a regretable, but wise move. Love the fact that he linked a DJ set. Godspeed, Hindenburg folks! I started to really appreciate your work, when I read Dan M…

I think trump has been publicly against the idea of allow short selling
Post reply on HN