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

281–290 of 430 posts

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#281

Post by AdamN »

wil421 wrote: post #275
graemep wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not what I meant, but capital gains are another issue, but I am not in the US. In the UK we pay a 0.5% tax on ever transaction and often around £10 per transaction, so its quite substantial. I should probably have said costs, not fees. How much are total costs in the US? If you trade frequently even low costs add up. If its 0.1% and you trade monthly it ends up being 1.2% over the course of an year.

All the major US brokers started doing free trades for stocks and etfs. For Vanguard, most of the index expense ratios are really low, like %.05 percent, but that’s not a trading fee.

Even for paid transactions that typically give better pricing (IBKR Pro), the prices are extremely cheap.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#282

Post by graemep »

matwood wrote: post #263
graemep wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not what I meant, but capital gains are another issue, but I am not in the US. In the UK we pay a 0.5% tax on ever transaction and often around £10 per transaction, so its quite substantial. I should probably have said costs, not fees. How much are total costs in the US? If you trade frequently even low costs add up. If its 0.1% and you trade monthly it ends up being 1.2% over the course of an year.

10+/trade is going back to the early 2000s for the US. Now it's effectively 0 for most common trades. Here is Schwab for example: https://www.schwab.com/pricing If someone is a big options trader they can probably find a better per contract price out there.

How do they profit? There must be a cost somewhere? Another reply mentioned spreads - still a cost (you lose money when you trade).

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#283

Post by tveita »

salynchnew wrote: post #13
soniman wrote: post #7

38 seems young to quit. Is there another story here?

Given the number of ultrarich and powerful people that already hate the Hindenberg folks... my guess would be that there is some calculus here about the incoming U.S. presidential administration's enmity towards whistleblowers and their prior statements about changing libel laws in the U.S.

Musk famously hates short sellers, the Trump Social CEO has done the "blame the short sellers" bit, Eric Trump is hyping crypto coins, Trump himself is eager to take credit whenever the market goes up... I think it's almost guaranteed that they'll target short sellers specifically at some point. They're a easy target to blame, and divert attention from the the fact that they are actually fleecing investors right at this moment.

Soon the only crime will be exposing fraud.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#284

Post by 4ndrewl »

wil421 wrote: post #275
graemep wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not what I meant, but capital gains are another issue, but I am not in the US. In the UK we pay a 0.5% tax on ever transaction and often around £10 per transaction, so its quite substantial. I should probably have said costs, not fees. How much are total costs in the US? If you trade frequently even low costs add up. If its 0.1% and you trade monthly it ends up being 1.2% over the course of an year.

All the major US brokers started doing free trades for stocks and etfs. For Vanguard, most of the index expense ratios are really low, like %.05 percent, but that’s not a trading fee.

How do they make money from you as a customer?

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#285

Post by attila-lendvai »

gmd63 wrote: post #105
mschuster91 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many self-important people online are quick to pounce on short sellers as being evil, and that will forever be a serious red flag to me thanks in no small part to Nate Anderson and the folks at Hindenburg Research. Credible arguments can be made however that short-selling itself, especially naked short selling, is an unethical thing to do as the pure possibility of short-selling makes some forms of crime possible i…

I completely agree about the dangers and am disgusted by the story you shared and others like it. In an ideal world nobody would commit a crime. Sadly we're far from an ideal world, and the US authorities in my experience are not well funded enough to adequately cover the ground they're responsible for. We also have a populace that voted for a felon who hates the IRS and has cronies who have floated dismantling the C…

no amount of funding can compensate for inappropriately aligned incentives.

the ability to spend other people's money will always be the breeding ground of corruption (which includes not doing your job while accepting the salary).

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#286

Post by gizmo »

lucianbr wrote: post #254
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…

> The authorities can't and shouldn't base an exhaustive investigation on vaguely shifty CEO behavior. Moral hazard. We are in this thread, where many people complain about the irrationality of the market, of bad choices having no ill effects, and at the same time it is argued that authorities should prioritize and only investigate and prosecute large cases where the ROI is good. I think the ethical landscape created…

I broadly agree, except I think the greater moral hazard is in failing to prosecute the plain-as-day cases of fraud (regardless of size). I'm not arguing in favor of abandoning rules but given limited resources you have to prioritize somehow, and every prosecution strategy has significant externalities like those you touched on.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#287

Post by olibhel »

alwinaugustin wrote: post #195

I believe Hindenburg Research's most notable expose was on Adani, yet he’s still standing strong. Perhaps the closure could somehow be tied to Trump’s comeback—just a thought. That said, corporate fraud is an endless cycle, and their work might inspire countless others to pursue similar research and investment ventures.

Adani is still standing because my countrymen have become delusional and government is in bed with Adani.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#288

Post by throw10920 »

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…

> Punishment for financial crimes should be calculated based on the average lifetime earnings of a citizen -- if your victims are folks earning at or below the average wage, and you've scammed 100 lifetimes worth of average earnings, it's as if you've murdered 100 people.

This seems like utilitarian ethics. I don't subscribe to these. I'd say most people don't either. So why "should" we calculate punishments for crimes this way if we don't use the same ethical framework as you?

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#289

Post by matwood »

graemep wrote: post #282
matwood wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10+/trade is going back to the early 2000s for the US. Now it's effectively 0 for most common trades. Here is Schwab for example: https://www.schwab.com/pricing If someone is a big options trader they can probably find a better per contract price out there.

How do they profit? There must be a cost somewhere? Another reply mentioned spreads - still a cost (you lose money when you trade).

AUM, managing high wealth clients, running their own funds with expense ratios (also some of the lowest in the industry), uninvested cash, etc... Retail trading is commoditized now.

Anyone who really cares about spreads will be using limit orders. Otherwise you're talking about pennies on highly liquid shares.

The fact that we're even discussing the possible spread differences between market makers shows just how commoditized retail trading has become.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#290

Post by globular-toast »

bihla wrote: post #14

Did he... link the wrong URL at the end of the post? I thought for sure it was going to be some sort of heartfelt speech, or motivational message, or something. But it's an instrumental DJ set which seems totally out of left field

It might just be the music... but there is also a Q&A at the end of the video.
Post reply on HN