41–50 of 430 posts
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
Everyday, at the same time, in the same place, play that instrumental DJ set and with a blank document write down whatever comes to you.
Let me know what you find.
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.
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…
where did you get 1% from, its a really good bounty system to clean up the markets and you get to be anonymous if you use a lawyer, the trick is to get the SEC to prioritize it. They are now inundated after some large payouts made the news in financial circles
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Astute observers and outsiders - doing the same thing prolific short sellers do - have received some of the biggest bounty payouts
The source is on the SEC’s bounty payout page
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
What I've noticed, casually, is that they often target companies or management with a pattern of fraud and abuse, and surprise they keep doing it.
VP of Sales gets slapped on the wrist for illegal tactics?
A few years later he goes on to be promoted to CEO and.... does the same thing!
Amazing.
Has anyone else publicly copied the Hindenburg investigation/financial model? It's not proprietary AFAIK.
Just because some company is accused shenanigans or breaking the law doesn't mean they won't try to litigate you out of existence.
Or that they don't have associates with baseball bats who might visit you in the night to discuss your "bad choices".
It takes some real minerals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off the top of my head the reporting about Block - CashApp was disgraceful and Hindenburg got sued for it. Not sure how that's going to play out with disbanding the "company."
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…
They should be. If doesn't matter how well everything is documented or how above-board the company is when the courts turn into kangaroo courts for a thoroughly corrupt administration. They're right to get out now while they still can.
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…
> 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.
Premiums are usually small, so you can make many multiples of paid premium
And since their business model is releasing the findings, which in turn makes the stock drop, they can time their short position very well and don't need to pay premiums for long
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…
People have this idea that short sellers are market manipulators who conspire to wipe out innocent day traders' life savings and trigger mass layoffs with the stroke of a pen (hence the term "financial terrorism," which is absolutely comical in its hyperbole but used with complete sincerity by the anti-short crowd), but like tines said, it's a risky business that requires lots of research that frequently goes nowhere…
They highlight inflated sales and financial irregularities like a chain of companies that engage in self-dealing, but are portrayed as independent to hide their real ownership, and so on.
If you believe what they say, your faith in the company is shaken because they're pulling a con job on you to invest in them and believe their story. If the SEC investigates that just supports the claim that it's a con.
If they don't investigate - for whatever reason - it doesn't mean that it's not a con and you won't lose all of your money believing it.
So a change in the regulatory environment is only one element.
For example, the Modhi/Adani thing is outside the reach of the SEC. And after watching a piece on it, apparently shorting it was amazingly tricky, and they had to go through some Singaporean markets to arrange a short position.