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

231–240 of 430 posts

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#231

Post by IshKebab »

eldavido wrote: post #143
Jimmc414 wrote: post #77

"just feeling like it" seems insufficient explanation for dismantling a successful organization rather than transitioning it they just completed their "pipeline of ideas" with "the last Ponzi cases" - seems like a surprisingly clean and abrupt end for an investigative organization the team members are "brilliant" and "family to me" but heis disbanding rather than transitioning leadership He mentions some team members…

It's 11 people. It's a band breaking up, not Microsoft choosing its fourth CEO.

I suspect he saw Hindenburg as "his" and didn't want to run it but also didn't want anyone else to.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#232

Post by manquer »

baq wrote: post #229
manquer wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lawsuits will take years by which time the company will either be gone or swimming in cash.

Lawyers have to paid now till then.

Companies settle much faster typically to reduce some of this costs, it ends up being cheaper.

Also many of these will be resolved through their arbitration clauses that would be present in the contracts. Arbitration is much faster and usually appeal proof

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#233

Post by kqr »

Galanwe wrote: post #210
kqr wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago cost structures for managing one's investment portfolios were also significantly higher than today! There's an even better alternative for someone willing to put in the leg work: (1) Figure out your investment horizon. For many people, this is way shorter than suggested by generic advice, which makes some diversification beyond "stonks go up" meaningful. (2) Figure out what costs you'll incur by rebal…

Agree with you 100%, I did the same simulations and found the same result. I would suggest a step beyond though, because rebalancing your portfolio is fun year 1-5, but not so fun year 5-20: have a look at e.g. Vanguard retirement target funds. Essentially, it's an ETF with a rebalancing rule included for a specific target date. For instance if you buy the target 2050 (your hypothetical retirement age), the ETF rebal…

This is one of those things where again, one will have to weigh the costs of both alternatives. A rebalancing ETF usually has higher costs (management fees, but possibly also internal trading costs that show up as performance beneath benchmark index), but of course, manually rebalancing also has a cost – the cost of one's time and effort!

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#234

Post by rockskon »

gmd63 wrote: post #126
barnabyjones wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind, fraud isn't necessarily a big deal for the shareholder, not all fraud is Enron-tier. For example, I fully believe they were right about Adani, but it was basically just skimming money off the top. If Adani is an embezzler, but also good and funneling bribes to get gov't contracts, then the overall effect on profits may just be breakeven or even positive. The losers would be the Indian citizenry. The com…

Some shareholders seek fraud as it has the potential for the highest short term returns. The sooner we exile those folks the better.

Some "investors" did "invest" in Ponzicoin after all.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#235

Post by WtfRuSerious »

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.…

I can think of at least one situation, like expiring options, that you wouldn't want to have happening during your "court frozen" period...

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#236

Post by WalterBright »

rokkamokka wrote: post #220
tminima wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to learn more about how to rebalance my portfolio. I started with ETFs and MFs and then bought some good stocks when they were low. But I have never rebalanced it. Would you be able to share some resources about it? Also, if possible, some pointers about your script.

Rebalancing is just selling the high performers and buying the low performers. In his example, you'd keep your "safe asset" allocation at say 15% - if your other stocks did well one year, you'd sell some and buy more "safe assets" so they again constitute 15% of your total value. If stocks tanked, you'd instead sell some "safe assets" and buy more stocks, again until your "safe assets" are back at 15% of total value.

> Rebalancing is just selling the high performers and buying the low performers.

Guaranteeing mediocre performance. Not my cup a tea.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#237

Post by manquer »

bruce511 wrote: post #178
manquer wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

CrowdStrike problems are also structural the incident timeline hardly seemed like a fat finger mistake, but series of fundamental poor practices a org in their position should not have. We only get to see the one newsworthy incident like the door blowing off the airplane.

The "cost of business" will catchup to them is the point, Unlike Intel or Boeing it is not duopoly business with little to no options for CrowdStrike's product. It is notoriously brutal for large organizations in tech to stay competitive over 20-30 years time horizon.

Most likely trajectory for a company in their position, their growth slows - this incident being a key contributor to that slow down, then stock starts to fall, it will eventually become attractive for a company to acquire them, perhaps rebrand the product and keep the customers and cash flows.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#238

Post by baq »

manquer wrote: post #232
baq wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawsuits will take years by which time the company will either be gone or swimming in cash.

Lawyers have to paid now till then. Companies settle much faster typically to reduce some of this costs, it ends up being cheaper. Also many of these will be resolved through their arbitration clauses that would be present in the contracts. Arbitration is much faster and usually appeal proof

Delta sued for what, $500M? These would have to be some expensive lawyers, even for lawyers.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#239

Post by graemep »

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.…

Doing nothing saves trading costs which are a major drag.

The standard advice for equities investors (at least in the UK) has been to invest in tracker funds for a very long time.

it is possible to beat the market. Many years ago I double my money in approx an year - but I invested heavily in I had been covering as a analyst (one of my previous careers) until immediately before. I am more cautious now.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#240

Post by ozim »

WalterBright wrote: post #236
rokkamokka wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rebalancing is just selling the high performers and buying the low performers. In his example, you'd keep your "safe asset" allocation at say 15% - if your other stocks did well one year, you'd sell some and buy more "safe assets" so they again constitute 15% of your total value. If stocks tanked, you'd instead sell some "safe assets" and buy more stocks, again until your "safe assets" are back at 15% of total value.

> Rebalancing is just selling the high performers and buying the low performers. Guaranteeing mediocre performance. Not my cup a tea.

Mediocre performance is better than your top performers dropping 30% or 60%.

I can point couple companies that suddenly dropped from $90 a share to below $10 and then they never got up “Just eat takeaway.com” between 2018 and 2022 it was looking like they would go to the moon. In 2022 you can see hell of a drop and it is not going back.

If you would sell parts of it before 2022 you would lock at least some of the gains.

But I think you know better when to switch companies ;)

Post reply on HN