In my wildly biased opinion, companies like Hindenburg are leeches that contribute nothing to the world.
While there may be some elements of truth behind their reports, I'd take it with a large helping of salt, given the main objective of this company.
If they weren't right often enough they would be ignored so they are incentivised to only publish when they think the odds are in their favor.
Ultimately they do good for the market, it sucks to be the people that invested before the reports land but chances are they protect more investors by outing fraud as soon as possible before it can get larger.
I disagree with this. This implies clear vision and we all know the very last thing a corporation will ever provide is clear vision. There is little difference a pump/dump and these people. Both are marketing ploys to allow them to make money.
That stock was sucking up investment that, rationally, should have instead been invested in other companies.
How about when a stock tanks because a report was wrong, or a report was specifically crafted to imply all kinds of things, just to tank the stock price. Im sure that would be an honest mistake, that they just happen to make millions from. Whoopsie. smh.
I get the relationship between negative facts and a healthier stock market, but is anyone here naive enough to believe humans play things like massive mountains of money, honestly? rofl..
GL with that.
That corporate leadership are always paragons of transparency and announce all details accurately, so that business-as-usual markets can correctly price the stock?
Corporate press releases are explicitly crafted to benefit the stock price.
If the content of a negative third party report is accurate, then its intent doesn't matter.
If corporate leadership has a rebuttal, they're welcome to share!
If the content of a third party report is inaccurate, then the company is welcome to sue for libel, I assume?
The opposite doesn't exist, generally, because humans are still involved.
Are you saying corporate PR isn't a thing? Or that quarterly earnings presentations aren't carefully written?
You say "reports" and "claiming" like there's any evidence that their claims aren't true.
Making extremely public claims like this and taking short positions is something that will easily get you successfully sued by the SEC and the companies you're reporting on...but only if your claims are false.
Can you point to a single example of any of their claims being proven false, or a successful lawsuit against them?
The only difference between an investigative journalist and a libelous liar is the truth - not in their methods or how they make their statements.
They seem more like exterminators than leeches to be honest.
Sunlight, as the saying goes, is the best disinfectant.
Not at Aldi.