5 ms·

I really appreciate the short sellers in market actually. They balance the excess positivity in the market. if I work for or own shares of a public company, I

by msoad 6y ago

I really appreciate the short sellers in market actually. They balance the excess positivity in the market. if I work for or own shares of a public company, I love those guys to look into the company I work for. If they find out that my employer is cooking the books, they have done a massive service for me.

giarc 6y ago
Chamath also made a good point on the All In Podcast yesterday. He said shorting allows people to have market neurtal portfolios.
gridder 6y ago
This is a false dichotomy, DD can be done well by longs as well as shorts.
- msoad 6y ago
  if you're long, why would you publish a negative research?
  - hervature 6y ago
    You wouldn’t. If you are long, then you publish overly positive statements. Exactly what Chamath did. By saying you did due diligence and found nothing wrong. Or that everyone at the company are outstanding individuals. Now Clover Health being investing by the DOJ but Chamath presumably profited by the increased prices. This is the exact vile behavior that the hedge funds and “Wall St” is constantly accused of.
  - gridder 6y ago
    DD is done before investing, for both longs and shorts. I don’t get your point.
mrzimmerman 6y ago
I think the contention is that places that are shorting stock AND writing articles about how badly run the shorted company is have a conflict of interest which damages the credibility of their reporting. I think it's fair to say the same thing of overly positive reports about a specific company coming from an institution that holds normal stock in that same company. It would probably be ideal if reports came from people who don't have a direct financial stake in the success or failure of the company they're writing about. However, I'll grant that the world doesn't often let us work with ideals for a lot of very valid reasons (retirement accounts, for instance).
- ffggvv 6y ago
  people do the opposite all the time? buy a stock and then write articles or go on tv saying how great the company is, even if it could be a fraud as long as they disclose the position i don’t see the issue
- gruez 6y ago
  >I think the contention is that places that are shorting stock AND writing articles about how badly run the shorted company is have a conflict of interest which damages the credibility of their reporting [...]. It would probably be ideal if reports came from people who don't have a direct financial stake in the success or failure of the company they're writing about Not really, because then you run into the opposite problem: "experts" making random predictions without putting their money where their mouth is. In a sea of "experts", who do you trust?
  - esyir 6y ago
    The catch here is that this then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it? Report from Well known institution gains credence regardless of quality. This drives down prices not because they were correct, but because of their influence..

by msoad 6y ago

giarc 6y ago

Chamath also made a good point on the All In Podcast yesterday. He said shorting allows people to have market neurtal portfolios.

gridder 6y ago

This is a false dichotomy, DD can be done well by longs as well as shorts.

msoad 6y ago
if you're long, why would you publish a negative research?
- hervature 6y ago
  You wouldn’t. If you are long, then you publish overly positive statements. Exactly what Chamath did. By saying you did due diligence and found nothing wrong. Or that everyone at the company are outstanding individuals. Now Clover Health being investing by the DOJ but Chamath presumably profited by the increased prices. This is the exact vile behavior that the hedge funds and “Wall St” is constantly accused of.
- gridder 6y ago
  DD is done before investing, for both longs and shorts. I don’t get your point.

mrzimmerman 6y ago

I think the contention is that places that are shorting stock AND writing articles about how badly run the shorted company is have a conflict of interest which damages the credibility of their reporting. I think it's fair to say the same thing of overly positive reports about a specific company coming from an institution that holds normal stock in that same company. It would probably be ideal if reports came from people who don't have a direct financial stake in the success or failure of the company they're writing about. However, I'll grant that the world doesn't often let us work with ideals for a lot of very valid reasons (retirement accounts, for instance).

ffggvv 6y ago
people do the opposite all the time? buy a stock and then write articles or go on tv saying how great the company is, even if it could be a fraud as long as they disclose the position i don’t see the issue
gruez 6y ago
>I think the contention is that places that are shorting stock AND writing articles about how badly run the shorted company is have a conflict of interest which damages the credibility of their reporting [...]. It would probably be ideal if reports came from people who don't have a direct financial stake in the success or failure of the company they're writing about Not really, because then you run into the opposite problem: "experts" making random predictions without putting their money where their mouth is. In a sea of "experts", who do you trust?
- esyir 6y ago
  The catch here is that this then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it? Report from Well known institution gains credence regardless of quality. This drives down prices not because they were correct, but because of their influence..