381–390 of 430 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which means that your cost is market maker's spreads instead of fees. Still a cost to you.
Nope, this is one of the counterintuitive things about people paying RH for order flow. Market makers can offer tighter spreads when they know it’s a pool of dumb money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I highly doubt market makers are in the business of betting against retail traders. I suspect they're in the business of collecting the spread on lots of small trades that they can assume are largely random.
What you described is how you bet against retail traders. The bet is that they have no edge so it’s safe to run tight spreads and nice pure market making algos that assume random behavior at volume.
But yes, the market maker doesn't run the risk of trading with someone with knowledge and a lot of capital to apply it.
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…
Truly perverse incentives such as one the one you linked aside I think it's mostly fine. Naked short selling is already illegal and the deck is heavily stacked against short sellers to begin with. A position betting on growth is by far and away the safest investment, the market directly incentivizes "irrationality" on the side of prices not going down, and it's infeasible to hold a short position for very long making…
Well, the thing is, with AI being widely available the threat model explodes as the difficulty goes down drastically - imagine someone deepfaking a video of a C-level executive being involved in illegal or "extreme" sexual acts; we already have "nudifier" apps, the steps to cross for the mentioned scenario aren't that large. The number of potential threat actors explodes as the group is now "everyone with a smartphone", and it also explodes as the likelihood of getting caught (and sentenced to decades in jail, if not death) for shooting someone in public is significantly higher than getting caught "leaking" a faked video which at worst risks you a year or two for defamation.
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t short selling only harm bad companies? If a strong company comes under selling pressure from shorts, then it can buy its own stock back at a discount.
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's funny, because your comment made me go back and click the link. If it was some motivational speech, I wasn't interested (that's why I didn't click initially). But I actually listen to instrumental DJ sets and Cercle is one of my favorite YouTube channels. So thanks! :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It can put you at unlimited risk even if you are absolutely right. The risk is in borrowing, not short selling. How many momo jockies out there think about the "unlimited risk" from buying Tesla on margin? In that case, you're shorting USD, but no one talks about that because it always will be fashionable to short USD. Just like it always will be fashionable to short JPY, for carry and more. Until it's not.
Short selling has unbounded downside. If you borrow $1,000 to short sell TSLA and then it soars you might end up losing $100,000. If you borrow $1,000 to buy TSLA your downside is limited—you can’t possibly lose more than $1,000.
Tether provides a good illustration of the principle I mentioned-- which I concede is a bit theoretical in the case of USD:
Tether is supposed to trade at $1 and gets press when it trades below. But, sometimes it also trades above, at $1.01, $1.02 and even perhaps $1.03. So, if you sold a lot of it thinking trading higher was impossible, you can be surprised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The amount of deceit put out into the world and gobbled up, on purpose, in business is obscene and seriously depressing. In business, politics, everything. It almost seems like everyone is quietly agreeing that "if we pretend the pesky truth doesn't exist for long enough, we can literally change reality to be what we want". I feel like I'm going crazy. There's no way that's how things can work for long, right?
By all accounts it was like this at the end in the USSR too: infinite nepotism, no accountability, crashing standard of living near the median, deaths of despair attached to crazy levels of dangerous substance use. This is what happens when bad people capture the levers of power. https://youtu.be/IUJMyTJ9gyI
I'm so confused – I thought these guys were the absolute best in blowing the whistle on scammy corporations.
No, it was being investigated by the DOJ and SEC for fraud and scheming just like its sister company Citron and Andrew Left, which has been indicted. So Nate has decided to shutdown before he gets subpoenas to preserve the records.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Hindenburg is scared of being sued, otherwise they wouldn't have been in the business in the first place. Their investigations are extremely thorough, with everything fully documented, mostly from public records, for the specific purpose that if/when they show up in court, they can be confident of the basis of their findings. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/adani-group-threate... P.S. where did…
How do you explain their report on Supermicro? It seems nothing was wrong there after all. From https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/2024120275/why-... > the committee confirmed previously stated findings that there was "no evidence of fraud or misconduct on the part of management or the board of directors."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In May 2022, Hindenburg took a short position in Twitter, Inc. following the announcement of its acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. After Musk's attempted termination of the deal, Hindenburg took a significant long position on Twitter, betting against Musk on the acquisition to close. Something about that individual coming to power along with the other oligarchs? The coming political climate looks to be one where…
The statement by Nate Anderson does not contain any explicit or implicit connection to Elon Musk, Donald Trump, or the political climate. It's disappointing that you believe "money in power" is a new phenomenon uniquely exemplified by Elon's burgeoning interest in politics. Cuomo's monologue during the DNC about the falseness of "grass roots political power" in the United States is right on the mark. Biden's warning…