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 fraudulent manner in finance creates is far-reaching and immeasurable. 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.
Hindenburg's reports were a true pleasure to read, and their track record proves their positive contribution to society. 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.
> I've ironically lost more money the more closely I've paid attention to my investments
Money Magazine a few years ago compared various investment strategies in stocks. The #2 best performing one was investing in the S&P 500. The #1 best performing strategy was the "dead man strategy".
The dead man strategy comes into play when the investor dies, and his estate gets frozen until it winds its way through the courts. It turns out that doing nothing with your stock investments is (statistically) the best strategy.
I know for a fact that when I do nothing with my stocks, they also perform better.
A few years ago cost structures for managing one's investment portfolios were also significantly higher than today!
There's an even better alternative for someone willing to put in the leg work:
(1) Figure out your investment horizon. For many people, this is way shorter than suggested by generic advice, which makes some diversification beyond "stonks go up" meaningful.
(2) Figure out what costs you'll incur by rebalancing etc.
(3) Write a short script that optimises the amount of activity in portfolio management that improves performance over your investment horizon, given your costs.
Unsurprisingly, the result can vary a lot between people. The result is most likely going to involve a very low level of activity, but the process of finding it out is very informative.
What I've found out (and this is replicated also by more authoritative people like Carver) is that for almost everyone, mixing in some 10--20 % of a safer asset like 10 year bonds and rebalancing yearly outperforms a pure equity portfolio over most realistic investment horizons.
Doing nothing saves trading costs which are a major drag.
The standard advice for equities investors (at least in the UK) has been to invest in tracker funds for a very long time.
it is possible to beat the market. Many years ago I double my money in approx an year - but I invested heavily in I had been covering as a analyst (one of my previous careers) until immediately before. I am more cautious now.
Just yesterday it was announced that Bitfinex will be returned the 95,000 bitcoin that were lost in a 2016 hack. These coins will be returned to the account holders which were affected by the hack.
At the time the bitcoins were lost, they were worth ~$575 each.
Today those returned tokens are worth close to $100,0000 each.
I doubt anyone who was affected by that hack realized they just got involuntarily forced into the best investment of their lives.
The conventional wisdom is to sell your profitable stocks, to "lock in your gains", and sell your losers to "cut your losses."
I call that "minimizing your gains" and "locking in your losses", and just hold instead. If I "locked in the gains" I would have missed out on 10x returns.
Of course, I did ride Enron all the way to zero (!), but it didn't matter. Think of it this way - buy 10 stocks. 3 go to zero. 6 have modest returns. 1 is a 10x winner, that more than makes up for the failures, and becomes the tentpole for your assets.
This reminds me of that Mythbusters episode in which they test what is the fastest strategy in a traffic jam or congestion - switching lanes or keeping your lane. IIRC the result was that it's the same, but zigzagging makes you feel it's faster
So invest in s&p 500 and do nothing, right? That's a good strategy for someone young, because it makes sense to be risk tolerant then. As you age you want more and more of your portfolio in bonds/cash, because you want the reduced fluctuation in purchasing power (i.e. comfort) that that brings you. These are the bare fundamentals of portfolio management.
How can I use the 'dead man strategy' if I've just started investing and don't own any stocks?
Because if I already need to have some stocks, than this being the #1 strategy feels like those advice that you get on the internet where if you want to be rich just get born into a wealthy family.
Statistically probably true, but not really doable. :/
I feel like you can only do the 'dead man strategy' when your already dead, since before that it's probably better to keep adding money into the portfolio.
This is the same for cryptocurrency. The people who lost accessa and subsequently regained it usually made more than those with ready access who sold earlier or played the market.
Keep in mind, fraud isn't necessarily a big deal for the shareholder, not all fraud is Enron-tier. For example, I fully believe they were right about Adani, but it was basically just skimming money off the top. If Adani is an embezzler, but also good and funneling bribes to get gov't contracts, then the overall effect on profits may just be breakeven or even positive. The losers would be the Indian citizenry. The company isn't doing so well now possibly due to a culture of corruption, but that kind of long-term culture analysis is hard for traders. But generally, fraud isn't severe enough to enough to endanger the company, it's just taking some money out of shareholders' pockets, but dispassionate traders don't usually sell out of retaliation.
True. Small frauds are common. I know people that have gotten away with pump-dumps. I know people that have raised obscene money for terrible ideas. I even helped close one customer while at one company, and then when I moved to another company, I had to meet the same buyer and he chewed me out in front of my rep because of the shady deal from my last company. And I even had a customer that kinda defrauded us! And when I was younger, I saw a lot of tiny behaviors that might be considered fraudulent if looked at from the angle of a transaction. I had to stop working for a while because it was destroying my soul. Nate says there was no danger or specific reason to close, but I very much doubt this.
zombie companies suck all the oxygen out of the room and away from productive companies, the victim is society and civilization at large and the damage is measured in lost exponential progress of unbound time axis, potentially millennia. Medical technology, longevity, scientific advances that we could have had but will not for another 10^N years - all retarded by malinvestment and misallocation. Theworldif.jpg
> 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?
You're not going crazy, they are. But even once things start falling apart, inertia alone can give the appearance of productive movement for years to come.
This is probably why when somebody looks to try to find the cause for e.g. the collapse of the Roman Empire there were a surprisingly large number of potentially serious issues all happening simultaneously.
The reason is that the empire probably collapsed decades before its fall and so the stupid decisions and actions all continued to pile up, seemingly without consequence. All until the inertia finally ran out and suddenly the entire house of cards came crashing down.
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.
It's not about pretending. Truth is the first casualty of war. If someone is trying to deceive you, they are actively exposing you to some kind of risk, usually for their own benefit, which is a hostile act.
> Which also means being careful of short selling.
There are a number of businesses I know are badly run and will eventually fail, but I cannot find a way to monetize that safely without knowing the timeline for failure.
> 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.
This sort of thing is part of my personal motivation for getting into business. Lying is so rampant, so universal, so quietly accepted by everyone in a position of even mild power in business that it's easy to take for granted that you simply cannot succeed without it. I wanted to know if that was actually true - so far, it doesn't seem to be. But I don't blame people for worrying that it might be. People in positions of high power almost universally suck, and "just copy whatever really successful people do" is far from the worst strategy one can use in life.
(As always, you should trust what a founder says publicly about their company approximately not at all. If you want the answer for yourself, you gotta do it yourself, because you only know if you're lying or not. But I have my answer, I think.)
I hear what you’re saying, but it feels a bit too cynical to expand it to all business. Did you tell your boss you’d finish some task today? If something comes up, as often does at work, and you don’t finish, did you lie? Predicting the future is hard even as soon as what will happen today, now do that for the next quarter or 4 quarters. Of course there are fraudsters out there, but I view most founders as rampant optimists instead of liars. And you kind of have to be an over top optimist to be founder.
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.
Buffet has this saying: "the stock market in the short term is a voting machine and in the long-term it's a weighing machine." I think a modern version of that is, in the short term the price is narrative and in the long-term it's accounting.
With Berkshire, Buffet figured out early, and firms like Hindenburg capitalized on the strategy of showing both sides of the story.
In basically every other era of investing since 1930, you would probably have benefitted from that approach. While I think you're right to set aside the prudence you were targeting in favor of a passive investment approach, I also think that once the Fed ZIRP era ends, the knowledge you amassed will again become useful.
I won't name names but a very popular so called "app growth king" launched recently and it's just full of dark patterns. Even going so far as giving out a "free month", when it's just a way for the user to lock into a yearly plan after a one month trial.
> 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?
Money grants you the power to influence others' lives. You take that from people illegally, and give it to yourself, you're creating an extreme negative effect on economic efficiency that should not be taken lightly and should be heavily discouraged.
Bill Hwang had settled insider trading charges a decade or so before he caused 30 billion dollars of liquidations after engaging in multiple forms of financial fraud. His insider trading punishment was likely lax and he committed crimes again, causing even more economic damage.
18 years in prison is nowhere near the amount of economic damage he caused. He amassed a net worth of 10-15 billion dollars. That's ten thousand average lifetimes worth of average American work. The punishment should reflect that. The expected value of fraud should be negative so that not even a degenerate gambler would consider it.
Can you explain your views as to why incentives to harm the economy massively via fraud to benefit yourself need to exist?
Even without fraud, the markets seem incredibly forgiving. For example, one would think that what Crowdstrike outage did to the airlines and businesses worldwide (and the levels of incompetence displayed) in 2024, would have destroyed the company. Instead, the stock has recovered nicely and it's business as usual. Or the massive security breaches - same outcome, it's as though nobody cares.
People don't invest because they think a company is competent. They invest because they are looking for a return.
The mistake CrowdStrike made will likely have little to no effect on their revenue. Since the stock dropped a bit (emotional investors getting out) it became a good value proposition, so people bought it cheap.
The reasons companies use CrowdStrike haven't gone away. Existing contracts can't just be terminated. By the time it comes up for renewal few will remember the incident, fewer still will care.
What you see as "levels of incompetence" others see as "made a mistake". You don't fire suppliers for a mistake- that's experience to them, and they're unlikely to make that mistake again anytime soon.
Plus of course, replacing anything like that at scale is a lot of work, expensive, and career-risky. Who, in the enterprise, is taking on that task? Who is advocating for it?
The market is forgiving because the outlook remains strong. The outlook remains strong because the business fundamentals remain strong.
Has anyone actually fired Crowdstrike over the incident? Heck, did Delta fire Crowdstrike?
I think the stock market is accurately realizing that it takes a lot of effort to fire a company embedded in your security infrastructure and that the incident probably won't change sales.
Not to take a position on those particular accusations but a problem with activist shorting in general is the people running the companies in question are often pissed of and aggressive and will try to take legal and PR action against the shorters.
That article says nothing that suggests Hindenburg is "part of the problem", only that they had received requests for information in line with an investigation.
> 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.
Can this precedent be extended to the money wasted with failed government projects? But maybe on lifetime taxes rather than lifetime earnings, to be fair.
That's not even close to comparable. You vote for elected officials to pass bills that are attempted and sometimes failed. And often failed projects produce things of value to society so I'm not sure how you would factor that in, for example if you'd like a refund on the Challenger explosion. You don't vote for criminals to take your money.
> I've ironically lost more money the more closely I've paid attention to my investments
Without insider knowlege market investments are pure gamble. The best you can do is to bet randomly. Once you deviate from random bets because you are mistakenly think you know something then your investments will underperform.
That isn't guaranteed, because if so you can always do the opposite of what you think and you will overperform. Even if you think you know something, you are, at best, still being random. Anything perceived decrease in return from taking actions is itself just chance (and confirmation bias), because otherwise you could inverse it.
> Hindenburg's reports were a true pleasure to read, and their track record proves their positive contribution to society. 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.
Short sellers taking positions and then putting out report and marketing to bring a company’s price down can also be perceived as market manipulation. It’s not about people being “self important” but conflict of interest and the incentive to lie or exaggerate for those short sellers.
For example months after Hindenburg’s report on Supermicro, the independent committee investigating alleged issues found nothing wrong (https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/2024120275/why-...). The company ultimately confirmed that no prior or current financial reporting would need to be stated. So that makes the allegations false, or at least exaggerated, right? And doesn’t that mean profiteering through short positions and allegations of bad accounting would be market manipulation?
> Short sellers taking positions and then putting out report and marketing to bring a company’s price down can also be perceived as market manipulation.
Sure, in the same sense that releasing a 10-K can be perceived as market manipulation. In fact, if we define "market manipulation" to mean anything that might affect the market, many things can be perceived as market manipulation!
The question I think is more important is, is it bad? Sharing investment information you believe to be true and material to investors seems good to me.
> 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. 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 Chanos was successful because the short portfolio functioned as a hedge that enabled a leveraged long position on broad indices. It's pretty hard make money net short when the market goes up for two straight decades.
3. The authorities don't have the resources nor the dogged inclination to hunt down fraudsters. The authorities can't and shouldn't base an exhaustive investigation on vaguely shifty CEO behavior. Short sellers can and do start their investigation based on gut feeling.
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.
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 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so short sellers will have to do.
And the betting markets like Polymarket are worse. They had bets as to whether the fires in LA would be contained by certain dates. You can imagine the perverse incentives that creates.
"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 are starting their own research firm but he "will have no personal involvement" That emphasis seems noteworthy
Claims there's "no particular threat" but takes pains to emphasize this multiple times
instead of maintaining the organization and training successors directly, he's planning to release videos and materials about their methods
No mention of the firm's financial position or client relationships
Not buying it, there's a story but it doesnt seem like he wants to tell it
And in that same vein it makes sense not to sell because if they ever see another great idea 5-10 years down the line I'd assume they might want to get back together under the same name and publish again. Selling would preclude them from doing that under the same name.
Short selling is extremely stressful and mindspace-heavy, especially if you're going with a global approach like these guys. It makes sense to exit once you've made your cheese.
Some of the team members clearly want to continue, and have his blessing in it. Still others want to get hired elsewhere too. All of these are normal. The Hindenburg name will carry them far.
Him open-sourcing them (for free) is so that others may continue the fight against unscrupulous market players. That's just his Principles.
What he's doing is the smart thing. The employees are likely worth a few millions and debt-free, while he has made enough to fund a small family office. The smart thing would be to leave the game, especially when as an outsider like him, you don't have the connects to fundraise (which is what most fundmanagers tend to spend most of their time on these days). IIRC even DeepFuckingValue did the same.
Honestly? That feels like a more genuine explanation. Business say they reasons for doing things, but I've not seen a high level decision maker that isn't eventually just "going with his gut."
Is this a decision to avoid litigation? I’ve seen people post analyses that disprove Hindenburg’s claims. And recently Supermicro’s independent auditors didn’t find the same issues Hindenburg claimed. Is it possible they’ve basically got rich from misleading attacks on stocks and are now shutting down to avoid something bad? Basically cashing out on their short positions?
EDIT: since I am rate limited, here’s my reply to the child comment from peepeepoopoo100
When EY resigned, it was because there was a long list of things that the independent review said needed investigating. But none of the issues had been actually investigated yet. Since then, my recollection is that there have been at least two independent reviews that have been fully completed and confirmed that the financial reporting of the company was accurate. And nothing had to be restated to the SEC, nor has the SEC asked for any changes.
Basically the big 4 auditor jumped off the ship, based on allegations and potential issues and nothing concrete, and they did not stick around to do the actual work they should’ve done. Instead of seeking answers, they made a vague accusation that the company might not be acting with integrity and ethics and left.
> And recently Supermicro’s independent auditors didn’t find the same issues Hindenburg claimed.
What are you on about? Their Big 4 auditor resigned and said that nobody should trust anything that the company's board says. Are you referring to the one (1) person they hired and paid to clear themselves of wrongdoing?
> 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 money is more important than the rule of law (even more so than usual), which might be bad news for a business like that.
>The coming political climate looks to be one where money is more important than the rule of law (even more so than usual), which might be bad news for a business like that.
I think this is the correct answer for explaining the timing of this announcement at least. It's one thing to use your media to fight your short sellers, it's another thing when you become the government and start fighting your shortsellers with the entire political and "judicial" apparatus in order to keep the market irrational. Or force it to accept the new reality.
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 about "oligarchs" was awkward and insincere.
Think this type of organization is a bit different. The very nature of their MO means it's only a matter of time before there is a big miss and you get sued into oblivion.
...so bowing out gracefully while ahead seems like a sound move
I'll just pipe in as a reply to your comment that, despite never having known this org until now (unfortunately for me, they seem cool as hell), the statement reads as a bit inexplicable.
The first connection my brain made was to the moderator of /r/IAMA who, thirteen years ago, in the midst of its massive success, randomly and unilaterally decided to shut it down [1] (although on a retrospective reading, I actually understand their reasoning more than Hindenbergs).
Wow, this made me really emotional. And even though I definitely did not expect a chill Bali DJ set as the motivational link, it also resonated with me in some way.
I can't think of a more honorable way to move through life. I liken the act of closing shop at this point for Hindenburg to the legend I know of Cincinnatus, the Roman emperor who did the job of emperoring and went back to his fields when it was done.
It also moves me how the team is described, as being from whatever background, but all moved by the same fire. I wish that I could be a part of something like that. What the hell am I doing with my life?
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
> P.S. If you are chasing something you think you want or need, or are doubting whether you are enough, take a minute and give this a listen. It had a big impact on me at a pivotal time.
He shared something that helped him at a pivotal time. Your expectations are your own. :)
And the highlighted comment on that video (because it's got a lot of upvotes) is "Who's here because of Hindenburg?"...
I suppose all the research work, that comment, and the 750+ thumbs-ups, and my cynical meta-comment all brought value to the world. But I'm only sure of one of those things.
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! :)
I was pretty amazed to see him link this particular Lee Burridge set from Bali. I’ve watched/listened to it many times over and it never fails to put me in a happier state of mind.
But if you're into it, Ben Boehmer in Cappadocia, The Blaze atop the Aguile Du Midi in the French Alps are a couple of the many gems in that same series of Cercle sets.
Cercle is a gift to the world. For anyone that didn't receive the gift yet - they're organizing great DJ sets in special locations. Multiple times I've put something to listen to, and found myself watching the whole show.
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.
Carvana stock didn’t seem to react much at all to that Jan 2 report (higher today than on Jan 1, even)? I wonder if, and possibly how much, Hindenburg lost on that trade.
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.
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
They interview people involved with these companies, then based on these interviews write report that is privately distributed and take out coordinated short positions.
That’s almost the definition of insider trading. Almost. Now afaik what they are doing is nominally above board, but they are walking a very fine line.
In less than a week a president will take power whose chief advisor has a really big grudge against short sellers.
I wouldn't say they were ahead at least in terms of reputation. They targeted India's Adani group and failed. The Supermicro "revelation" was also a damp squib. I suppose they made plenty of money with their short-selling though, so in that sense they are, perhaps, ahead enough.
Only failed Adani because they misunderstood how deep the Indian government would go to join in the cover-up, instead of actually investigating it.
The Big 4 auditor for Supermicro literally quit, citing concerns. It's the SEC's job to do the investigating (and it's failed badly and likely to fail more with the coming admin).
I'd really recommend Matt Levine's various columns on this. Here's one [0] - it's paywalled, but if you sub to the newsletter you get the full texts for free. Not sure if you can get historical ones, but I'm guessing he'll talk about it again in the next issue this or next week. I added the excerpt here [1] too. Very entertaining and informative take on most things finance.
Hindenburg Research and Muddy Waters are like heroes to me. It's one thing to have an opinion about corruption, another to maybe be a whistleblower or activist, but to take levered bets against corruption and win is next level.
Almost every time I see a dark pattern in tech I think there should be an opportunity to bet against it. Certain companies I can think of who appear to be faking their MAU numbers with "urgent notices" to login to obviously abandoned accounts, or who won't let you close an account even though there's no way to get the balance out to close it, both seem like opportunities. Still others, who appear to gamify their notifications to drive DAU numbers seem as bad as twitter's pre-musk bot problem.
part of the case for breaking up some of the platform companies is that they protect some shitty practices from the market by having a behemoth to bail out products that wouldn't survive on their own, and they create a huge barrier to market entry against desirable products.
the page seems to be hugged to death, but whatever the case, congratulations. they are, and should be an inspiration to others.
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 last year.
This is one of the reasons frauds go on so much longer than you'd expect - no one wants to hear the truth.
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 with limited upside and uncapped potential losses. The amount of times they and other short sellers publish damning evidence on a company only for the stock to shoot back as soon as the company releases a "nothing to see here" non-response really shows the difficulty in making money in the space (and how much people want to bury their heads in the sand).
Given the regulatory environment we are heading into, I expect short selling will become an even riskier business since the SEC isn't going to be prosecuting fraud anymore (or rather, they'll be doing even less than they are now), making it much easier to sic the lawyers on firms like Hindenburg. Even though this isn't their stated reason for bowing out, I wouldn't be surprised or hold it against them if it was a factor.
Matt Levine always has the good stuff, but he had commentary on a profile of Jim Chanos (the lesson not necessarily being specific to Chanos) that always sticks with me.
The profile that discussed the idea that the real sort of 'secret sauce' was that the combination of Chanos' main funds were like 190% long, and then 90% the short stuff he wan known for.
On its surface, nothing crazy for long/short funds, the notable part was that basically all the effort was on the short side, and the long side was implied to be very humdrum. And the short book had like negative returns over a long period.
It just struck me as a really elegant (if extreme) example of what uncorrelated returns can do if you do somehow have some edge over time.
And I'm not sure what Hindenburg's holistic picture is, but whether rightly or wrongly now I usually assume most of the kind of very public shorts operate similarly.
I was never really on board with the "short sellers are evil" train of thought, but I did believe, "oh these very public short sellers only short things, they just go around all the time thinking everything is awful".
And my assumption now is that they are like, kind of really theatric long/short funds.
Matt had some line like if you extremely good at something, you can get rich doing it, even if it loses money. As long as it's not correlated.
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 whistleblowers to align incentives. If your company is doing something sketchy, you get a payout by doing the right thing.
I’m not a lawyer but I think that mechanism works just as well if you’re an external reporter of fraud. SEC makes money and pays you for your diligent forensic auditing.
> 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.
> Shorting tends to be intrinsically harder because the market goes up over time and Americans are generally optimists.
... and the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
I remember once I tried shorting a stock, of a market leader in my area. I knew the field well enough to see that they were trying to fudge some numbers and their quarter was _not_ as good as they had claimed it to be.
But sadly the market didn't see this and the stock went up. E*Trade started pushing me to cover my positions, and eventually I ended up losing a 5-figure sum (nothing earth-shattering, but still a good chunk of my cash).
After I had bought it all back, slowly the market realized what I had seen and the stock dropped as I had expected. Unfortunately I did not have the deep pockets to stick around long enough; all I was left with was a hole in the wallet and a hard lesson learned.
They are planning to release their methodology. Buried in the article:
> Beyond my own desire for relief, it also feels selfish to keep the knowledge we’ve accumulated trapped within our small team. I have more than enough. In the past several years we’ve been flooded with thousands of messages from many of you asking how we do what we do, or whether you can join the team. I read them all and I’ve been trying to figure out how to respond in a way that can answer everyone—so over the next 6 months or so I plan to work on a series of materials and videos to open-source every aspect of our model and how we conduct our investigations.
What they do isn't anything new or revolutionary. Short sellers have existed ever since public markets have existed. See Muddy Waters Research, Citron Research, Kynikos Associates, Pershing Square (famous for their crusade against Herbalife), Gotham Research, all of the Big Short folks. And these are just the active ones.
You need to have a very thick skin, because the shorted will come at full force against you.
I have read somewhere (long ago forgot where) that the only country this can work is America; in other countries, he would need to be scared for his actual life. Adani, for example, is in bed with India government.
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.
I think there is a really nuanced check-and-balance system that has extreme visibility for the federal legal system:
- investigators need approval from a prosecutor to move forward with investigations, and ultimately have to present their evidence in sales calls to their boss/peers. It’s a lot of red tape.
- prosecutors have bosses and reputations to uphold, they don’t want to take on risk.
- judges act as a procedural review for the prosecutor and watchdog for civil liberties
- the defense is red teaming the prosecutor and investigators for fraud etc
- the appeals court acts as a second level review for everyone + original judge
There are many reasons for this but primarily its simply that it is a wealthy country with a functioning legal system. US courts are generally fair; if biased. This has changed with many recent rulings by the SCOTUS. But there exists a culture of generally respecting laws (and an apparatus to enforce those laws).
Usually big established companies that've been unfairly beaten down and financials don't have any red flags. I look at social chat/analyst chat also but mostly only to see if/how many people/bots are talking not really to see what they are saying.
For example, I hold oversized bags of Boeing, Pfizer, and Google right now (these are new-ish positions ~3-4m in)
If I'm wrong, I try to get out asap. If I'm right, I try to never sell.
What no one touches is that he used to unmask the devil and also let the regular folks (if they trust him) take short positions just like he did. Sort of Robin Hood with weak reference.
That's not how that works. They take out short positions and then release the info to profit off the drop when they announce. Announcing publically is how they make their profit, not them letting you in on it. Informational advantage is their entire strategy.
I mean that's the whole business of a short seller.
Take a big short position, then spread the bad news. Hopefully, it's true: the stock drops, and you make a mint. If you fail to spread the news, or you don't get the facts right, the stock goes up and you lose.
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.
Literally every time I shorted (our bought puts) I lost money. One particular short of Beyond Meat (via puts) I was right about eventually, just not in the timeframe needed. I knew Beyond Meat was BS but unable to sustain the losses as it kept climbing in a complete bubble.
Oh, that's a shame---at least from my perspective as a reader---but Nate seems to be quite ok, and I guess it makes sense to quit when you're "winning". As a victim of burnout, I wish I had that insight too.
At least we still have Coffeezilla and Data Colada!
"...Hindenburg Research specializes in forensic financial research.
...we believe the most impactful research results from uncovering hard-to-find information from atypical sources. In particular we often look for situations where companies may have any combination of:
...
• Undisclosed related-party transactions..."
I would love to see whether Bayesian inference can be applied to quantitatively establish when "there's a there there' in any given situation. When is the unlikelihood of a coincidence transcend beyond the level of background noise?
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.
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.
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.
'X has been happening for a long time' is an old tactic to hide bad things behind some undefined excuse of inevitability, and discourage any action. Corruption has been happening for a long time, but that doesn't mean it can't get much worse or, through our action, much better.
What does it even mean? What does it matter if it's been 'going on for a long time'?
Andrew Left of Citron got indicted last summer for securities fraud (shorting, settling to cash in in the gains, and lying that he's still short). My first reaction was are they bailing before someone starts sniffing around, but have to say either the author is a total sociopath or he's sincerely just ready for something else in his life. Which I can understand.
Everything had its positive and negative side. Hindenburg sure made some bold calls that led to unraveling some frauds & Ponzi. But they're also in it for money.
No point applying a moral coat of paint. He took on listed Adani in India but I respect those that take on mining mafia & exploiters of slave labour where there's no pot of gold if you win & end up dead in ditch if you don't.
It was easy target to pick - Soros had openly painted a target on his back and his entire ecosystem was working overtime. Reasons purely political - his perceived closeness to Modi who is hated more than Orban + Trump put together by the ecosystem.
It was laughable anyway as Adani was very rich even before Modi was known outside his own state. And that was exactly like all other tycoons in Asia - greasing palms that needed it. These businessmen know who's in power, who's likely to & who's there to stay.
Yeah wish him good health to enjoy his wealth. And let us enjoy the collateral damage caused to "frauds" he thought lucrative enough to pick.
No offence to Mr. Andserson but it reads a bit like someone has done an 'Inception' on him - subtly planted the seed of a train of thought that would lead him to disband his efforts, all the while believing it was his own idea.
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.
Starting next week, it's open season on suckers. It's going to be like the glory days of the Tel Aviv binary options scammers, who at one time were 40% of the Israeli finance sector and had good political connections.[1] Crypto deregulation is coming. No more CFPB enforcement! No more SEC enforcement!
There are still people who haven't lost money in crypto yet who can be targeted.
They're all little people. No one will help them.
Just pay off some influencers and start up your scam.[2]
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.
Hindenburg exposes hucksters and frauds. Hucksters and frauds have now taken over the highest office. He just sees the writing on the wall and needs to get out now.
There is a very fine line between investigative journalism and market manipulation. They treaded it pretty carefully so far, but were bound to slip up sooner or later. Especially now that they are prominent enough that HFT bots are instantly shorting every company they mention in new posts. Quitting while they are ahead is a good move.
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.
P.S. where did you see Block suing Hindenburg? The closest thing I can find is 'Block said it intended to “explore legal action” against Hindenburg, who sought to “deceive and confuse” Block investors to “profit from a declined stock price.”' which is just PR speak
After the details of the sources on the absurd hitjob they did on Super Micro came out recently, they should be deeply embarrassed.
The whole thing was basically just the claims of a disgruntled sales manager, of very dubious character, fluffed up to seem like there was some legion of internal whistleblowers.
Not to mention relying heavily on mixing in details of long settled previous issues at the company to lend credence to the dubiously evidenced current claims of malfeasance. Shameful profiteering on the part of Hindenburg there.
They should have nipped that report in the bud instead of sloshing it out the door.
Can you say more about the Supermicro “hit job”? Last thing I saw was E&Y resigning as their auditor which certainly suggests some potential accounting issues.
Yea the Adani report already had me skeptical but the Supermicro hit job, and the fact that multiple independent auditors haven’t found the same claimed problems in their accounting, has made Hindenburg look a lot more shady. This to me looks like an incompetent firm that profited from big short positions and potentially false reports, now closing shop so there’s no assets to claim in a lawsuit.
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 fraudulent manner in finance creates is far-reaching and immeasurable. 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.
Hindenburg's reports were a true pleasure to read, and their track record proves their positive contribution to society. 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.
> I've ironically lost more money the more closely I've paid attention to my investments
Money Magazine a few years ago compared various investment strategies in stocks. The #2 best performing one was investing in the S&P 500. The #1 best performing strategy was the "dead man strategy".
The dead man strategy comes into play when the investor dies, and his estate gets frozen until it winds its way through the courts. It turns out that doing nothing with your stock investments is (statistically) the best strategy.
I know for a fact that when I do nothing with my stocks, they also perform better.
A few years ago cost structures for managing one's investment portfolios were also significantly higher than today!
There's an even better alternative for someone willing to put in the leg work:
(1) Figure out your investment horizon. For many people, this is way shorter than suggested by generic advice, which makes some diversification beyond "stonks go up" meaningful.
(2) Figure out what costs you'll incur by rebalancing etc.
(3) Write a short script that optimises the amount of activity in portfolio management that improves performance over your investment horizon, given your costs.
Unsurprisingly, the result can vary a lot between people. The result is most likely going to involve a very low level of activity, but the process of finding it out is very informative.
What I've found out (and this is replicated also by more authoritative people like Carver) is that for almost everyone, mixing in some 10--20 % of a safer asset like 10 year bonds and rebalancing yearly outperforms a pure equity portfolio over most realistic investment horizons.
21 replies →
Doing nothing saves trading costs which are a major drag.
The standard advice for equities investors (at least in the UK) has been to invest in tracker funds for a very long time.
it is possible to beat the market. Many years ago I double my money in approx an year - but I invested heavily in I had been covering as a analyst (one of my previous careers) until immediately before. I am more cautious now.
30 replies →
Just yesterday it was announced that Bitfinex will be returned the 95,000 bitcoin that were lost in a 2016 hack. These coins will be returned to the account holders which were affected by the hack.
At the time the bitcoins were lost, they were worth ~$575 each.
Today those returned tokens are worth close to $100,0000 each.
I doubt anyone who was affected by that hack realized they just got involuntarily forced into the best investment of their lives.
5 replies →
This doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
Most of my investing is just in passive S&P index funds, but I do occasionally buy individual shares.
Sometimes I make decent money, sometimes I lose money…turns out I consistently do worse than the S&P long term.
I treat buying individual shares as yuppie gambling at this point. It can be fun, but it’s usually a bad strategy.
8 replies →
The conventional wisdom is to sell your profitable stocks, to "lock in your gains", and sell your losers to "cut your losses."
I call that "minimizing your gains" and "locking in your losses", and just hold instead. If I "locked in the gains" I would have missed out on 10x returns.
Of course, I did ride Enron all the way to zero (!), but it didn't matter. Think of it this way - buy 10 stocks. 3 go to zero. 6 have modest returns. 1 is a 10x winner, that more than makes up for the failures, and becomes the tentpole for your assets.
20 replies →
This reminds me of that Mythbusters episode in which they test what is the fastest strategy in a traffic jam or congestion - switching lanes or keeping your lane. IIRC the result was that it's the same, but zigzagging makes you feel it's faster
So invest in s&p 500 and do nothing, right? That's a good strategy for someone young, because it makes sense to be risk tolerant then. As you age you want more and more of your portfolio in bonds/cash, because you want the reduced fluctuation in purchasing power (i.e. comfort) that that brings you. These are the bare fundamentals of portfolio management.
Did they include the Monkeys?
"Most successful chimpanzee on Wall Street" - https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-succ...
How can I use the 'dead man strategy' if I've just started investing and don't own any stocks?
Because if I already need to have some stocks, than this being the #1 strategy feels like those advice that you get on the internet where if you want to be rich just get born into a wealthy family.
Statistically probably true, but not really doable. :/
I feel like you can only do the 'dead man strategy' when your already dead, since before that it's probably better to keep adding money into the portfolio.
This is the same for cryptocurrency. The people who lost accessa and subsequently regained it usually made more than those with ready access who sold earlier or played the market.
> turns out that doing nothing with your stock investments is (statistically) the best strategy
The only thing a small investor can control are fees. Minimising transactions minimises fees.
1 reply →
I can think of at least one situation, like expiring options, that you wouldn't want to have happening during your "court frozen" period...
3 replies →
P.S. I'm not a financial advisor. Make your own decisions.
Do you have a link to that article?
2 replies →
That's worked for me, for well over 30 years.
Keep in mind, fraud isn't necessarily a big deal for the shareholder, not all fraud is Enron-tier. For example, I fully believe they were right about Adani, but it was basically just skimming money off the top. If Adani is an embezzler, but also good and funneling bribes to get gov't contracts, then the overall effect on profits may just be breakeven or even positive. The losers would be the Indian citizenry. The company isn't doing so well now possibly due to a culture of corruption, but that kind of long-term culture analysis is hard for traders. But generally, fraud isn't severe enough to enough to endanger the company, it's just taking some money out of shareholders' pockets, but dispassionate traders don't usually sell out of retaliation.
True. Small frauds are common. I know people that have gotten away with pump-dumps. I know people that have raised obscene money for terrible ideas. I even helped close one customer while at one company, and then when I moved to another company, I had to meet the same buyer and he chewed me out in front of my rep because of the shady deal from my last company. And I even had a customer that kinda defrauded us! And when I was younger, I saw a lot of tiny behaviors that might be considered fraudulent if looked at from the angle of a transaction. I had to stop working for a while because it was destroying my soul. Nate says there was no danger or specific reason to close, but I very much doubt this.
zombie companies suck all the oxygen out of the room and away from productive companies, the victim is society and civilization at large and the damage is measured in lost exponential progress of unbound time axis, potentially millennia. Medical technology, longevity, scientific advances that we could have had but will not for another 10^N years - all retarded by malinvestment and misallocation. Theworldif.jpg
Some shareholders seek fraud as it has the potential for the highest short term returns. The sooner we exile those folks the better.
1 reply →
> 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?
You're not going crazy, they are. But even once things start falling apart, inertia alone can give the appearance of productive movement for years to come.
This is probably why when somebody looks to try to find the cause for e.g. the collapse of the Roman Empire there were a surprisingly large number of potentially serious issues all happening simultaneously.
The reason is that the empire probably collapsed decades before its fall and so the stupid decisions and actions all continued to pile up, seemingly without consequence. All until the inertia finally ran out and suddenly the entire house of cards came crashing down.
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
3 replies →
It's not about pretending. Truth is the first casualty of war. If someone is trying to deceive you, they are actively exposing you to some kind of risk, usually for their own benefit, which is a hostile act.
We've kicked the can down the road for a while, but no worries, we will pick it up soon and recycle it ;)
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.
> Which also means being careful of short selling.
There are a number of businesses I know are badly run and will eventually fail, but I cannot find a way to monetize that safely without knowing the timeline for failure.
8 replies →
> 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.
9 replies →
This sort of thing is part of my personal motivation for getting into business. Lying is so rampant, so universal, so quietly accepted by everyone in a position of even mild power in business that it's easy to take for granted that you simply cannot succeed without it. I wanted to know if that was actually true - so far, it doesn't seem to be. But I don't blame people for worrying that it might be. People in positions of high power almost universally suck, and "just copy whatever really successful people do" is far from the worst strategy one can use in life.
(As always, you should trust what a founder says publicly about their company approximately not at all. If you want the answer for yourself, you gotta do it yourself, because you only know if you're lying or not. But I have my answer, I think.)
I hear what you’re saying, but it feels a bit too cynical to expand it to all business. Did you tell your boss you’d finish some task today? If something comes up, as often does at work, and you don’t finish, did you lie? Predicting the future is hard even as soon as what will happen today, now do that for the next quarter or 4 quarters. Of course there are fraudsters out there, but I view most founders as rampant optimists instead of liars. And you kind of have to be an over top optimist to be founder.
1 reply →
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.
Buffet has this saying: "the stock market in the short term is a voting machine and in the long-term it's a weighing machine." I think a modern version of that is, in the short term the price is narrative and in the long-term it's accounting.
With Berkshire, Buffet figured out early, and firms like Hindenburg capitalized on the strategy of showing both sides of the story.
In basically every other era of investing since 1930, you would probably have benefitted from that approach. While I think you're right to set aside the prudence you were targeting in favor of a passive investment approach, I also think that once the Fed ZIRP era ends, the knowledge you amassed will again become useful.
I won't name names but a very popular so called "app growth king" launched recently and it's just full of dark patterns. Even going so far as giving out a "free month", when it's just a way for the user to lock into a yearly plan after a one month trial.
Isn’t that virtually every (mobile) subscription app in existence…?
> 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?
Money grants you the power to influence others' lives. You take that from people illegally, and give it to yourself, you're creating an extreme negative effect on economic efficiency that should not be taken lightly and should be heavily discouraged.
Bill Hwang had settled insider trading charges a decade or so before he caused 30 billion dollars of liquidations after engaging in multiple forms of financial fraud. His insider trading punishment was likely lax and he committed crimes again, causing even more economic damage.
18 years in prison is nowhere near the amount of economic damage he caused. He amassed a net worth of 10-15 billion dollars. That's ten thousand average lifetimes worth of average American work. The punishment should reflect that. The expected value of fraud should be negative so that not even a degenerate gambler would consider it.
Can you explain your views as to why incentives to harm the economy massively via fraud to benefit yourself need to exist?
6 replies →
Some people think it’s just a number but the reality on the ground is that money is literally lifetime.
Even without fraud, the markets seem incredibly forgiving. For example, one would think that what Crowdstrike outage did to the airlines and businesses worldwide (and the levels of incompetence displayed) in 2024, would have destroyed the company. Instead, the stock has recovered nicely and it's business as usual. Or the massive security breaches - same outcome, it's as though nobody cares.
People don't invest because they think a company is competent. They invest because they are looking for a return.
The mistake CrowdStrike made will likely have little to no effect on their revenue. Since the stock dropped a bit (emotional investors getting out) it became a good value proposition, so people bought it cheap.
The reasons companies use CrowdStrike haven't gone away. Existing contracts can't just be terminated. By the time it comes up for renewal few will remember the incident, fewer still will care.
What you see as "levels of incompetence" others see as "made a mistake". You don't fire suppliers for a mistake- that's experience to them, and they're unlikely to make that mistake again anytime soon.
Plus of course, replacing anything like that at scale is a lot of work, expensive, and career-risky. Who, in the enterprise, is taking on that task? Who is advocating for it?
The market is forgiving because the outlook remains strong. The outlook remains strong because the business fundamentals remain strong.
14 replies →
Has anyone actually fired Crowdstrike over the incident? Heck, did Delta fire Crowdstrike?
I think the stock market is accurately realizing that it takes a lot of effort to fire a company embedded in your security infrastructure and that the incident probably won't change sales.
Equifax should not be in business anymore
1 reply →
Here I was thinking Hindenberg was part of the problem and you seem to think the opposite?
To me they seemed like partners of shorting hedge funds (similar to CNBC) who just spit out bs articles so their hedgie friends can trade on it.
DOJ seems to agree with me?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2022/02/16/doj-...
There are more and better sources.
Not to take a position on those particular accusations but a problem with activist shorting in general is the people running the companies in question are often pissed of and aggressive and will try to take legal and PR action against the shorters.
That article says nothing that suggests Hindenburg is "part of the problem", only that they had received requests for information in line with an investigation.
> 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.
Can this precedent be extended to the money wasted with failed government projects? But maybe on lifetime taxes rather than lifetime earnings, to be fair.
That's not even close to comparable. You vote for elected officials to pass bills that are attempted and sometimes failed. And often failed projects produce things of value to society so I'm not sure how you would factor that in, for example if you'd like a refund on the Challenger explosion. You don't vote for criminals to take your money.
1 reply →
even if they were a beacon of truth, they were active market participant and would stand to benefit if the markets do react to their report.
how large businesses get away with things is true across markets and the precedence set let them be more fearless to keep committing them.
the reporting through the publication has an important place, but playing the market at the same time personally gets rid of any credibility.
> anyone acting in a fraudulent manner in finance
the system incentivises this behavior, no one is punishing the rich guys playing with our livelyhood
> I've ironically lost more money the more closely I've paid attention to my investments
Without insider knowlege market investments are pure gamble. The best you can do is to bet randomly. Once you deviate from random bets because you are mistakenly think you know something then your investments will underperform.
That isn't guaranteed, because if so you can always do the opposite of what you think and you will overperform. Even if you think you know something, you are, at best, still being random. Anything perceived decrease in return from taking actions is itself just chance (and confirmation bias), because otherwise you could inverse it.
1 reply →
> Hindenburg's reports were a true pleasure to read, and their track record proves their positive contribution to society. 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.
Short sellers taking positions and then putting out report and marketing to bring a company’s price down can also be perceived as market manipulation. It’s not about people being “self important” but conflict of interest and the incentive to lie or exaggerate for those short sellers.
For example months after Hindenburg’s report on Supermicro, the independent committee investigating alleged issues found nothing wrong (https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/2024120275/why-...). The company ultimately confirmed that no prior or current financial reporting would need to be stated. So that makes the allegations false, or at least exaggerated, right? And doesn’t that mean profiteering through short positions and allegations of bad accounting would be market manipulation?
> Short sellers taking positions and then putting out report and marketing to bring a company’s price down can also be perceived as market manipulation.
Sure, in the same sense that releasing a 10-K can be perceived as market manipulation. In fact, if we define "market manipulation" to mean anything that might affect the market, many things can be perceived as market manipulation!
The question I think is more important is, is it bad? Sharing investment information you believe to be true and material to investors seems good to me.
The first line of that article is
"New financial and accounting executives will be appointed, as recommended by the investigation committee"
I agree that harm is possible when short selling and lying about it.
2 replies →
> 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...
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 Chanos was successful because the short portfolio functioned as a hedge that enabled a leveraged long position on broad indices. It's pretty hard make money net short when the market goes up for two straight decades.
3. The authorities don't have the resources nor the dogged inclination to hunt down fraudsters. The authorities can't and shouldn't base an exhaustive investigation on vaguely shifty CEO behavior. Short sellers can and do start their investigation based on gut feeling.
9 replies →
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.
1 reply →
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 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so short sellers will have to do.
And the betting markets like Polymarket are worse. They had bets as to whether the fires in LA would be contained by certain dates. You can imagine the perverse incentives that creates.
1 reply →
"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 are starting their own research firm but he "will have no personal involvement" That emphasis seems noteworthy
Claims there's "no particular threat" but takes pains to emphasize this multiple times
instead of maintaining the organization and training successors directly, he's planning to release videos and materials about their methods
No mention of the firm's financial position or client relationships
Not buying it, there's a story but it doesnt seem like he wants to tell it
It's 11 people. It's a band breaking up, not Microsoft choosing its fourth CEO.
I suspect he saw Hindenburg as "his" and didn't want to run it but also didn't want anyone else to.
And in that same vein it makes sense not to sell because if they ever see another great idea 5-10 years down the line I'd assume they might want to get back together under the same name and publish again. Selling would preclude them from doing that under the same name.
And all the bespoke vibes and thoughts that go with that. Remove the people and what is there to sell?
1 reply →
and very fairly, talks about sharing all the knowledge further so that more such organisations can crop up
They have a well-known brand with a large audience and reputation.
1 reply →
Short selling is extremely stressful and mindspace-heavy, especially if you're going with a global approach like these guys. It makes sense to exit once you've made your cheese.
Some of the team members clearly want to continue, and have his blessing in it. Still others want to get hired elsewhere too. All of these are normal. The Hindenburg name will carry them far.
Him open-sourcing them (for free) is so that others may continue the fight against unscrupulous market players. That's just his Principles.
What he's doing is the smart thing. The employees are likely worth a few millions and debt-free, while he has made enough to fund a small family office. The smart thing would be to leave the game, especially when as an outsider like him, you don't have the connects to fundraise (which is what most fundmanagers tend to spend most of their time on these days). IIRC even DeepFuckingValue did the same.
Honestly? That feels like a more genuine explanation. Business say they reasons for doing things, but I've not seen a high level decision maker that isn't eventually just "going with his gut."
At least they're honest here.
[dead]
Even Buffet shutdown his first successful firm in 1969.
Being cautious is good.
It IS possible, that this person is doing it out of passion, rather than a typical idea of a job or firm.
TLDR: Within the realm of possibility, relatively unusual.
” relatively unusual.”
Hindenburg was anything but usual IMO so fits the picture.
There is a type of person who needs to re-invent themselves over and over.
Is this a decision to avoid litigation? I’ve seen people post analyses that disprove Hindenburg’s claims. And recently Supermicro’s independent auditors didn’t find the same issues Hindenburg claimed. Is it possible they’ve basically got rich from misleading attacks on stocks and are now shutting down to avoid something bad? Basically cashing out on their short positions?
EDIT: since I am rate limited, here’s my reply to the child comment from peepeepoopoo100
When EY resigned, it was because there was a long list of things that the independent review said needed investigating. But none of the issues had been actually investigated yet. Since then, my recollection is that there have been at least two independent reviews that have been fully completed and confirmed that the financial reporting of the company was accurate. And nothing had to be restated to the SEC, nor has the SEC asked for any changes.
Basically the big 4 auditor jumped off the ship, based on allegations and potential issues and nothing concrete, and they did not stick around to do the actual work they should’ve done. Instead of seeking answers, they made a vague accusation that the company might not be acting with integrity and ethics and left.
> And recently Supermicro’s independent auditors didn’t find the same issues Hindenburg claimed.
What are you on about? Their Big 4 auditor resigned and said that nobody should trust anything that the company's board says. Are you referring to the one (1) person they hired and paid to clear themselves of wrongdoing?
1 reply →
There’s a promise at the end, we’ll see if it’s kept.
> 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 money is more important than the rule of law (even more so than usual), which might be bad news for a business like that.
>The coming political climate looks to be one where money is more important than the rule of law (even more so than usual), which might be bad news for a business like that.
I think this is the correct answer for explaining the timing of this announcement at least. It's one thing to use your media to fight your short sellers, it's another thing when you become the government and start fighting your shortsellers with the entire political and "judicial" apparatus in order to keep the market irrational. Or force it to accept the new reality.
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 about "oligarchs" was awkward and insincere.
https://youtu.be/mBGNOSWkrAU?si=Y5dlAFi1hTtut4Xr
2 replies →
>successful organization
Think this type of organization is a bit different. The very nature of their MO means it's only a matter of time before there is a big miss and you get sued into oblivion.
...so bowing out gracefully while ahead seems like a sound move
[dead]
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.
I'll just pipe in as a reply to your comment that, despite never having known this org until now (unfortunately for me, they seem cool as hell), the statement reads as a bit inexplicable.
The first connection my brain made was to the moderator of /r/IAMA who, thirteen years ago, in the midst of its massive success, randomly and unilaterally decided to shut it down [1] (although on a retrospective reading, I actually understand their reasoning more than Hindenbergs).
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ju5cf/goodbye_iama_it...
I’ll always remember them for exposing the Nikola motors fraud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24436721
I think their two biggest breaks a Nikola and WeWork. Jesus I still remember the days after the WeWork short report dropped, crazy times.
Wow, this made me really emotional. And even though I definitely did not expect a chill Bali DJ set as the motivational link, it also resonated with me in some way.
I can't think of a more honorable way to move through life. I liken the act of closing shop at this point for Hindenburg to the legend I know of Cincinnatus, the Roman emperor who did the job of emperoring and went back to his fields when it was done.
It also moves me how the team is described, as being from whatever background, but all moved by the same fire. I wish that I could be a part of something like that. What the hell am I doing with my life?
Being pedantic here, but Cincinnatus was never Emperor. He was, though, twice given "Dictator" powers by the Roman Senate during the Republican era.
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
> P.S. If you are chasing something you think you want or need, or are doubting whether you are enough, take a minute and give this a listen. It had a big impact on me at a pivotal time.
He shared something that helped him at a pivotal time. Your expectations are your own. :)
The right music at the right time can be transformative.
9 replies →
Ha I guess that's fair. Were you expecting a DJ set?
1 reply →
And the highlighted comment on that video (because it's got a lot of upvotes) is "Who's here because of Hindenburg?"...
I suppose all the research work, that comment, and the 750+ thumbs-ups, and my cynical meta-comment all brought value to the world. But I'm only sure of one of those things.
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! :)
Ok, I listened to half of the set and it's not my style. This is what I like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_LcVqqHSY8
I actually skimmed through looking for when the inspirational talk starts.
I had the same idea. Maybe it's a subtle message?
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.
I was pretty amazed to see him link this particular Lee Burridge set from Bali. I’ve watched/listened to it many times over and it never fails to put me in a happier state of mind.
But if you're into it, Ben Boehmer in Cappadocia, The Blaze atop the Aguile Du Midi in the French Alps are a couple of the many gems in that same series of Cercle sets.
Cercle is a gift to the world. For anyone that didn't receive the gift yet - they're organizing great DJ sets in special locations. Multiple times I've put something to listen to, and found myself watching the whole show.
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
He only uses that one when he's getting short squeezed
the psychedelics are implied
It might just be the music... but there is also a Q&A at the end of the video.
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.
They are short sellers, were you expecting roided out pro-wrestlers with tats and wild hair or something?
Absolutely, it's well known that Jane Street and other major traders draw heavily on the former WWW stable for their short staffing.
>exposing some of the better kept secrets of some of the worst people and companies
Some of the worst could be the most likely to make you an offer you can't refuse . . .
They published about Carvana 13 days ago and now are disbanding... https://hindenburgresearch.com/carvana/
Carvana stock didn’t seem to react much at all to that Jan 2 report (higher today than on Jan 1, even)? I wonder if, and possibly how much, Hindenburg lost on that trade.
It seemed to very positively react to the shutdown though
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
7 replies →
They interview people involved with these companies, then based on these interviews write report that is privately distributed and take out coordinated short positions.
That’s almost the definition of insider trading. Almost. Now afaik what they are doing is nominally above board, but they are walking a very fine line.
In less than a week a president will take power whose chief advisor has a really big grudge against short sellers.
Getting out now is on point for Hindenburg.
I wouldn't say they were ahead at least in terms of reputation. They targeted India's Adani group and failed. The Supermicro "revelation" was also a damp squib. I suppose they made plenty of money with their short-selling though, so in that sense they are, perhaps, ahead enough.
Supermicro stock is down 40% from the publishing of the report, hardly a damp squib.
Looks like the jury is still out on Adani.
Only failed Adani because they misunderstood how deep the Indian government would go to join in the cover-up, instead of actually investigating it.
The Big 4 auditor for Supermicro literally quit, citing concerns. It's the SEC's job to do the investigating (and it's failed badly and likely to fail more with the coming admin).
3 replies →
Can someone give me the context please? I’ve never heard of this organisation before. What do they do and what are they known for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_Research
I'd really recommend Matt Levine's various columns on this. Here's one [0] - it's paywalled, but if you sub to the newsletter you get the full texts for free. Not sure if you can get historical ones, but I'm guessing he'll talk about it again in the next issue this or next week. I added the excerpt here [1] too. Very entertaining and informative take on most things finance.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-07-02/people... [1] https://telegra.ph/Hindenburg-01-16
Hindenburg Research and Muddy Waters are like heroes to me. It's one thing to have an opinion about corruption, another to maybe be a whistleblower or activist, but to take levered bets against corruption and win is next level.
Almost every time I see a dark pattern in tech I think there should be an opportunity to bet against it. Certain companies I can think of who appear to be faking their MAU numbers with "urgent notices" to login to obviously abandoned accounts, or who won't let you close an account even though there's no way to get the balance out to close it, both seem like opportunities. Still others, who appear to gamify their notifications to drive DAU numbers seem as bad as twitter's pre-musk bot problem.
part of the case for breaking up some of the platform companies is that they protect some shitty practices from the market by having a behemoth to bail out products that wouldn't survive on their own, and they create a huge barrier to market entry against desirable products.
the page seems to be hugged to death, but whatever the case, congratulations. they are, and should be an inspiration to others.
Stone cold assassins indeed. We need more people like him.
For anyone needing an introduction to Hindenburg Research: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/01/nathan-anderson-hind...
Has anyone else publicly copied the Hindenburg investigation/financial model? It's not proprietary AFAIK.
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 last year.
This is one of the reasons frauds go on so much longer than you'd expect - no one wants to hear the truth.
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 with limited upside and uncapped potential losses. The amount of times they and other short sellers publish damning evidence on a company only for the stock to shoot back as soon as the company releases a "nothing to see here" non-response really shows the difficulty in making money in the space (and how much people want to bury their heads in the sand).
Given the regulatory environment we are heading into, I expect short selling will become an even riskier business since the SEC isn't going to be prosecuting fraud anymore (or rather, they'll be doing even less than they are now), making it much easier to sic the lawyers on firms like Hindenburg. Even though this isn't their stated reason for bowing out, I wouldn't be surprised or hold it against them if it was a factor.
2 replies →
Matt Levine always has the good stuff, but he had commentary on a profile of Jim Chanos (the lesson not necessarily being specific to Chanos) that always sticks with me. The profile that discussed the idea that the real sort of 'secret sauce' was that the combination of Chanos' main funds were like 190% long, and then 90% the short stuff he wan known for.
On its surface, nothing crazy for long/short funds, the notable part was that basically all the effort was on the short side, and the long side was implied to be very humdrum. And the short book had like negative returns over a long period. It just struck me as a really elegant (if extreme) example of what uncorrelated returns can do if you do somehow have some edge over time.
And I'm not sure what Hindenburg's holistic picture is, but whether rightly or wrongly now I usually assume most of the kind of very public shorts operate similarly. I was never really on board with the "short sellers are evil" train of thought, but I did believe, "oh these very public short sellers only short things, they just go around all the time thinking everything is awful". And my assumption now is that they are like, kind of really theatric long/short funds.
Matt had some line like if you extremely good at something, you can get rich doing it, even if it loses money. As long as it's not correlated.
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 whistleblowers to align incentives. If your company is doing something sketchy, you get a payout by doing the right thing.
I’m not a lawyer but I think that mechanism works just as well if you’re an external reporter of fraud. SEC makes money and pays you for your diligent forensic auditing.
5 replies →
> 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.
16 replies →
> Shorting tends to be intrinsically harder because the market goes up over time and Americans are generally optimists.
... and the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
I remember once I tried shorting a stock, of a market leader in my area. I knew the field well enough to see that they were trying to fudge some numbers and their quarter was _not_ as good as they had claimed it to be.
But sadly the market didn't see this and the stock went up. E*Trade started pushing me to cover my positions, and eventually I ended up losing a 5-figure sum (nothing earth-shattering, but still a good chunk of my cash).
After I had bought it all back, slowly the market realized what I had seen and the stock dropped as I had expected. Unfortunately I did not have the deep pockets to stick around long enough; all I was left with was a hole in the wallet and a hard lesson learned.
1 reply →
They are planning to release their methodology. Buried in the article:
> Beyond my own desire for relief, it also feels selfish to keep the knowledge we’ve accumulated trapped within our small team. I have more than enough. In the past several years we’ve been flooded with thousands of messages from many of you asking how we do what we do, or whether you can join the team. I read them all and I’ve been trying to figure out how to respond in a way that can answer everyone—so over the next 6 months or so I plan to work on a series of materials and videos to open-source every aspect of our model and how we conduct our investigations.
Aside from the obvious risk of short selling is the tornado of lawsuits and threats that arise from targeting shady companies.
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.
What they do isn't anything new or revolutionary. Short sellers have existed ever since public markets have existed. See Muddy Waters Research, Citron Research, Kynikos Associates, Pershing Square (famous for their crusade against Herbalife), Gotham Research, all of the Big Short folks. And these are just the active ones.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/is-h...
There's quite a lot of short sellers that publish their research.
You need to have a very thick skin, because the shorted will come at full force against you.
I have read somewhere (long ago forgot where) that the only country this can work is America; in other countries, he would need to be scared for his actual life. Adani, for example, is in bed with India government.
Yes:
https://hntrbrk.com/about-us/
Take a look at Scorpion Capital.
Who were pretty much right about Ginkgo Bioworks (DNA)
Muddy Waters has been around for a while and had some high profile hits.
I believe Andrew Left and Citron Research were the first.
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.
I think there is a really nuanced check-and-balance system that has extreme visibility for the federal legal system:
- investigators need approval from a prosecutor to move forward with investigations, and ultimately have to present their evidence in sales calls to their boss/peers. It’s a lot of red tape.
- prosecutors have bosses and reputations to uphold, they don’t want to take on risk.
- judges act as a procedural review for the prosecutor and watchdog for civil liberties
- the defense is red teaming the prosecutor and investigators for fraud etc
- the appeals court acts as a second level review for everyone + original judge
- it’s all public so journalists can poke around.
which is all good, because it is better to let 9 guilty men free, than to wrongfully imprison 1 innocent.
There are many reasons for this but primarily its simply that it is a wealthy country with a functioning legal system. US courts are generally fair; if biased. This has changed with many recent rulings by the SCOTUS. But there exists a culture of generally respecting laws (and an apparatus to enforce those laws).
> I doubt they would have been able to do this work if they were based out of any other country
Here's a British one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroy_Research
There were a _number_ of British and German ones involved in the whole Wirecard mess.
Hindenburg's probably the world's most prominent, but there's nothing about the model that inherently requires being in the US.
And those German short-sellers (and to a lesser extent their British counterparts) were aggressively bullied by their local government market regulators https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/germanys-long-lon...
I have lost literally hundreds of thousands of $ trying to short obvious frauds and scams.
I have made all that back and more by instead going long things that are cheap + growing.
Being a bear pays off 1% of the time, and the act of trying to time it actually changes the window so just be an optimist and get rich.
Very true. If you have the fundamentals right, but the timing wrong, you're still "wrong", because you're broke.
What information sources do you use to find the cheap + growing things?
Usually big established companies that've been unfairly beaten down and financials don't have any red flags. I look at social chat/analyst chat also but mostly only to see if/how many people/bots are talking not really to see what they are saying.
For example, I hold oversized bags of Boeing, Pfizer, and Google right now (these are new-ish positions ~3-4m in)
If I'm wrong, I try to get out asap. If I'm right, I try to never sell.
What no one touches is that he used to unmask the devil and also let the regular folks (if they trust him) take short positions just like he did. Sort of Robin Hood with weak reference.
That's not how that works. They take out short positions and then release the info to profit off the drop when they announce. Announcing publically is how they make their profit, not them letting you in on it. Informational advantage is their entire strategy.
Apropos user name ;)
Damn thats clever.
I mean that's the whole business of a short seller.
Take a big short position, then spread the bad news. Hopefully, it's true: the stock drops, and you make a mint. If you fail to spread the news, or you don't get the facts right, the stock goes up and you lose.
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.
Literally every time I shorted (our bought puts) I lost money. One particular short of Beyond Meat (via puts) I was right about eventually, just not in the timeframe needed. I knew Beyond Meat was BS but unable to sustain the losses as it kept climbing in a complete bubble.
Oh, that's a shame---at least from my perspective as a reader---but Nate seems to be quite ok, and I guess it makes sense to quit when you're "winning". As a victim of burnout, I wish I had that insight too.
At least we still have Coffeezilla and Data Colada!
From their About page
"...Hindenburg Research specializes in forensic financial research.
...we believe the most impactful research results from uncovering hard-to-find information from atypical sources. In particular we often look for situations where companies may have any combination of: ... • Undisclosed related-party transactions..."
I would love to see whether Bayesian inference can be applied to quantitatively establish when "there's a there there' in any given situation. When is the unlikelihood of a coincidence transcend beyond the level of background noise?
https://hindenburgresearch.com/about-us/
I'm so confused – I thought these guys were the absolute best in blowing the whistle on scammy corporations.
There were - nothing in the article counters that.
nobody needs forever companies. I don't know why people aspire to do that.
just create strike teams: incorporate, capitalize, execute, distribute capital, unincorporate
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.
I missed that news. Could you pay some links to the DOJ and SEC investigations into Hindenburg?
Hindenburg Research shorts going strong!
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.
No. Shorting can damage reputations which don't bounce back or if it choose a particularly bad spot for a company it could sink it.
wow! I've always thought of them as some ruthless finance people with huge egos. This piece made me think differently. Very moving read!
Fraud and deception are common. Just consider Tesla for instance.
It seems to me that you have no idea what the word fraud means. It’s a legal term. It has nothing to do with whether you like or agree with something.
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 McCrum and the other Alphaville writers at the FT.
I think trump has been publicly against the idea of allow short selling
> 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.
'X has been happening for a long time' is an old tactic to hide bad things behind some undefined excuse of inevitability, and discourage any action. Corruption has been happening for a long time, but that doesn't mean it can't get much worse or, through our action, much better.
What does it even mean? What does it matter if it's been 'going on for a long time'?
1 reply →
Thank you for all the great work. Big respect.
Hindenburg goes down in flames?
Long > short.
Andrew Left of Citron got indicted last summer for securities fraud (shorting, settling to cash in in the gains, and lying that he's still short). My first reaction was are they bailing before someone starts sniffing around, but have to say either the author is a total sociopath or he's sincerely just ready for something else in his life. Which I can understand.
Everything had its positive and negative side. Hindenburg sure made some bold calls that led to unraveling some frauds & Ponzi. But they're also in it for money.
No point applying a moral coat of paint. He took on listed Adani in India but I respect those that take on mining mafia & exploiters of slave labour where there's no pot of gold if you win & end up dead in ditch if you don't.
It was easy target to pick - Soros had openly painted a target on his back and his entire ecosystem was working overtime. Reasons purely political - his perceived closeness to Modi who is hated more than Orban + Trump put together by the ecosystem.
It was laughable anyway as Adani was very rich even before Modi was known outside his own state. And that was exactly like all other tycoons in Asia - greasing palms that needed it. These businessmen know who's in power, who's likely to & who's there to stay.
Yeah wish him good health to enjoy his wealth. And let us enjoy the collateral damage caused to "frauds" he thought lucrative enough to pick.
No offence to Mr. Andserson but it reads a bit like someone has done an 'Inception' on him - subtly planted the seed of a train of thought that would lead him to disband his efforts, all the while believing it was his own idea.
Is he now just absurdly wealthy from the short positions?
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.
Um, yes.
Starting next week, it's open season on suckers. It's going to be like the glory days of the Tel Aviv binary options scammers, who at one time were 40% of the Israeli finance sector and had good political connections.[1] Crypto deregulation is coming. No more CFPB enforcement! No more SEC enforcement!
There are still people who haven't lost money in crypto yet who can be targeted. They're all little people. No one will help them. Just pay off some influencers and start up your scam.[2]
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/binary-options-fraud/
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/memecoins/
2 replies →
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.
Hindenburg exposes hucksters and frauds. Hucksters and frauds have now taken over the highest office. He just sees the writing on the wall and needs to get out now.
There is a very fine line between investigative journalism and market manipulation. They treaded it pretty carefully so far, but were bound to slip up sooner or later. Especially now that they are prominent enough that HFT bots are instantly shorting every company they mention in new posts. Quitting while they are ahead is a good move.
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 you see Block suing Hindenburg? The closest thing I can find is 'Block said it intended to “explore legal action” against Hindenburg, who sought to “deceive and confuse” Block investors to “profit from a declined stock price.”' which is just PR speak
7 replies →
Would that really be a factor? It's hard to call it slander when you agree to pay the fine.
[dead]
[flagged]
Good.
After the details of the sources on the absurd hitjob they did on Super Micro came out recently, they should be deeply embarrassed.
The whole thing was basically just the claims of a disgruntled sales manager, of very dubious character, fluffed up to seem like there was some legion of internal whistleblowers.
Not to mention relying heavily on mixing in details of long settled previous issues at the company to lend credence to the dubiously evidenced current claims of malfeasance. Shameful profiteering on the part of Hindenburg there.
They should have nipped that report in the bud instead of sloshing it out the door.
Can you say more about the Supermicro “hit job”? Last thing I saw was E&Y resigning as their auditor which certainly suggests some potential accounting issues.
Yea the Adani report already had me skeptical but the Supermicro hit job, and the fact that multiple independent auditors haven’t found the same claimed problems in their accounting, has made Hindenburg look a lot more shady. This to me looks like an incompetent firm that profited from big short positions and potentially false reports, now closing shop so there’s no assets to claim in a lawsuit.
Adani Group which was charged in November by the SEC for bribery?
https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/adani-group-shares-p...
2 replies →
It is interesting that their 'About' page mentions a lot of their work but no mention of Adani - which would have arguably been their biggest.