Live data from Hacker News

I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

hindenburgresearch.com

31–40 of 430 posts

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#31
post #30

Getting out while they are ahead is a smart move, especially considering multiple governments have started to take a closer look at their shorting tactics.

Their "shorting tactics" ? You mean doing extensive well sourced research that convinces other people that their position is correct?

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#32
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

I was fully expecting [1] but then I just listened for a while and honestly, I get it.

I can't explain, but yeah.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxGRhd_iWuE

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#33
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shorting tends to be intrinsically harder because the market goes up over time and Americans are generally optimists Also, with shorting the best you can do is double your money (if the stock goes to 0), while you can lose an unlimited amount (as there’s no cap on a rising stock); whereas with going long, you can only lose all your money (again, if it goes to 0), but you can gain an unlimited amount.

See put options.

The song remains the same - the stock can only go to zero. The upside of a put is effectively capped at (strike price minus stock price) * 100. Going long via shares or calls is unlimited.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#35
post #30

Getting out while they are ahead is a smart move, especially considering multiple governments have started to take a closer look at their shorting tactics.

Their "shorting tactics" ? You mean doing extensive well sourced research that convinces other people that their position is correct?

I'm assuming when he says "governments taking a look at" he means like the Indian government and it's more of a Mafia-type "taking a look at" than a serious inquiry with any actual merit. A strongarm type thing

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#36

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…

> In an upcoming age of oligarchy

oligarchy has been going on for a long time, regardless of political affiliations.

to see why i say this, look at (no relation) https://quiverquant.com , and you'll see professional politicians with sub $180k salaries worth tens of millions of dollars, for just one example.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a hard business to make money in. Shorting tends to be intrinsically harder because the market goes up over time and Americans are generally optimists. Plus the last 2 years we've seen 20+% market moves upwards. Despite it being a necessity for functioning markets, when you are short, seemingly everyone is against you - business management, regulators, media, etc. Not surprised to see them bow out. Chanos did so…

I’d wager a big part of how they make money is as SEC whistleblowers. It’s not as huge of money as shorting is - but it’s typically a single digit percentage of the recovered fines. Considering these guys nailed a company that defrauded people of $3 BILLION dollars, they’d net $30 mil from turning that company in even if the payout is only 1%. The SEC has a policy of paying out part of recovered fines as bounties to…

Do you have any evidence/links that discuss this? I'd be surprised that they'd get any whistleblower fees, because they themselves aren't actually the whistleblower. E.g. a whistleblower usually refers to actual insiders with private knowledge that then "blow the whistle". In Hindenburg's case, they basically just did research anyone is capable of doing (although in many cases, after they became known, they did have whistleblowers reach out to them).

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#40
post #12

For myself at least that was a wild behind the curtain reveal; for a group that's had such a profound impact exposing some of the better kept secrets of some of the worst people and companies, Nate presents himself and his associates as surprisingly ordinary day to day types armed with grit and determination.

In my experience, people tend to grossly overestimate the scale of publicly known organisations; the more publicly known, the vaster and more faceless people imagine it to be.
Post reply on HN