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

81–90 of 430 posts

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#81

Post by lvl155 »

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…

This is a common thing among investment professionals especially in areas where you need strong domain knowledge such as biotech. Your conviction can become stronger the more you learn and collect supporting data. Conviction is a dangerous thing. This also extends to what’s broadly happening today in increasingly data-rich environment because we make data-dependent decisions.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#82

Post by [deleted] »

jfengel wrote: post #72
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…

The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. The market will tolerate infinite BS for arbitrary periods of time. Which also means being careful of short selling. It can put you at unlimited risk even if you are absolutely right.

[deleted]

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#83

Post by jonstewart »

tart-lemonade wrote: post #18
steveBK123 wrote: post #5

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…

SEC Commissioners turn over slowly. It is not quite as independent as Fed, but more independent than most agencies.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#84

Post by mschuster91 »

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…

> 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 in the first place, such as a criminal shooting up the road bus of a German soccer team to profit from falling stock prices [1]. Especially in the era of anything being credibly fake-able with widely available AI tools, short-selling can look to criminals as a very profitable way to make money.

Also, short-selling incentivizes large stock holders to be lazy and not do their jobs. Imagine a huge ass pension fund - they can (and do) make money as the counterparty in short-selling deals. Some see this as a necessary part of stocktrading life (because it provides liquidity), but personally I think that it removes incentives for the pension fund managers to do their job and audit the stock they hold for their shareholders in turn themselves.

Besides: enforcing securities code and auditing companies should not be the job of vigilantes. I applaud the efforts of ethical short sellers, but in an ideal world, that job would be done by the authorities.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschlag_auf_den_Mannschaftsbu...

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#85

Post by Craighead »

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…

[dead]

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#86

Post by dinp »

The impact this organization had was incredible. I doubt they would have been able to do this work if they were based out of any other country, which makes me wonder how the US legal system, regulators and law enforcement in general are not extremely corrupt. What reasons or incentives make the system work in the US? Of course there are many instances of corruption and injustice, but in comparison to almost any other country, it seems to work surprisingly well.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#87

Post by maronato »

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…

I got the same impression.

I assume they have a good reason to have done it this way and I hope everyone on their team is safe.

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#89

Post by twic »

NickC25 wrote: post #33
handfuloflight wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but the price of the put is much less than the price of the stock, and the price of the put is the denominator.

Right now, Walmart is at $91.34, and you can buy a put at $88 expiring on 24th January for $0.18 [1]. If you buy one, and the stock goes to zero by then, you spent $0.18 and gained $88, a 488x return. January 2026 at $86.67 is $5.35 - a mere 16x return.

[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/wmt/option-cha...

Re: I have made the decision to disband Hindenburg Research

#90

Post by Spivak »

mschuster91 wrote: post #84
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…

> 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 it (mostly) noise to long term investors which are the ones we typically care about.
Post reply on HN