Comment by Jimmc414
3 days ago
"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?
Short sellers are built on their reputation, and Hindenburg has a lot of that. Even if you fired the people, you'd keep the name.
That said, it would be wrong to automatically assume that they try to maximize gains; at this point, it's likely most of the team has enough money to retire, and at that point, making even more might not be their primary goal.
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.
Like a band.
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?
i've heard of EY cowardly doing the same thing to other companies. it is even mentioned in "the hard thing about hard things" iirc.
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
I said nothing about it being 'new' though, did I?
1 reply →
>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...