Comment by blackeyeblitzar

> 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?

ImPostingOnHN 3 days ago

> 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.

Reply View 0 replies

gmd63 3 days ago

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.

Reply View 2 replies

blackeyeblitzar 3 days ago

That’s because several people (and also EY, their auditor at the time) resigned in the wake of that report. Probably under pressure and lots of stress but also because of all the things that the initial independent investigation suggested needed to be reviewed. But now multiple investigations have completed those reviews and found nothing. And Supermicro has to fill vacant positions.
EDIT: since I am rate limited, here’s my reply to the child comment by gmd63
> Why would an investigation committee need to recommend that a company fill vacant financial and accounting executive positions? What you're saying makes no sense.
There are many reasons this can make sense. In this case, the most likely reason is that the allegations called into question the integrity of the executives and the board. New executives would be hired and approved by the same group, and it would look strange for them to do that while under investigation. The most important finding from the investigation is neither management (executives) nor the board acted improperly, which led to them making the recommendation.

Reply View | 1 reply
- gmd63 3 days ago
  
  Why would an investigation committee need to recommend that a company fill vacant financial and accounting executive positions? What you're saying makes no sense.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies