4 ms·

I'm slightly fascinated by this document. It's so shoddy and the language used does indeed read like it's written by high school kids, or perhaps the mind behin

I'm slightly fascinated by this document. It's so shoddy and the language used does indeed read like it's written by high school kids, or perhaps the mind behind the time cube. And yet it's 183 pages. Why go to such great lengths to produce a document that it's very hard to take seriously?

jacquesm 4y ago
Because if you throw a lot of shit at a wall something may stick.
- drcongo 4y ago
  But, couldn't you throw a lot of shit and make it actually look professional?
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That would require a lot of effort and then it no longer would look like shit which may not help in the plausible deniability department, and to make it look like shit also has the same effect as the spelling errors and weird salutations in those scam emails: it filters for extreme gullibility. You are clearly not the intended audience.
    - drcongo 4y ago
      No idea why you got downvoted here, I thought it was an insightful answer.
AlanYx 4y ago
They're trying to manage their legal risk here, that's why the document (after the first 25 or so pages) is almost entirely presented as quotations or specific references to research interviews they've conducted, rather than a narrative presentation. Without a solid factual matrix, making accusations of serious wrongdoing (e.g., fictious revenue via sham transactions with a related party) would put them at risk of defamation claims. That's also why they're throwing in the kitchen sink; there has to be enough damaging information in the document that's factually correct to make it fruitless for IONQ to pursue litigation against them.
blitzar 4y ago
Welcome to the world of consulting and finance. You know all those 1st/2nd/3rd year big firm employees that you hear grinding away for 16 hours on presentations and papers, being degraded by senior managers pushing them constantly? This is what they produce - quantity over quality. This is what their managers think the client wants - they are paying by the hour afterall, got to give them a big pile or work.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  Short sellers like these are usually small, single digit headcount operations. If anything, the dubious quality of the document reflects exactly that. And those big firm employees are usually very good at making good looking presentations and documents, though I agree that they are usually devoid of substance. So I'm not sure they are behind this shoddy looking document to be honest.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    They outsource a lot of this stuff now - brokers, banks etc. The fund itself doesnt give a shit about pages >2 and just really care about the conclusion. You can only have two of; fast, accurate and magnificent prose.

jacquesm 4y ago

Because if you throw a lot of shit at a wall something may stick.

drcongo 4y ago
But, couldn't you throw a lot of shit and make it actually look professional?
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That would require a lot of effort and then it no longer would look like shit which may not help in the plausible deniability department, and to make it look like shit also has the same effect as the spelling errors and weird salutations in those scam emails: it filters for extreme gullibility. You are clearly not the intended audience.
  - drcongo 4y ago
    No idea why you got downvoted here, I thought it was an insightful answer.

AlanYx 4y ago

They're trying to manage their legal risk here, that's why the document (after the first 25 or so pages) is almost entirely presented as quotations or specific references to research interviews they've conducted, rather than a narrative presentation. Without a solid factual matrix, making accusations of serious wrongdoing (e.g., fictious revenue via sham transactions with a related party) would put them at risk of defamation claims. That's also why they're throwing in the kitchen sink; there has to be enough damaging information in the document that's factually correct to make it fruitless for IONQ to pursue litigation against them.

blitzar 4y ago

Welcome to the world of consulting and finance. You know all those 1st/2nd/3rd year big firm employees that you hear grinding away for 16 hours on presentations and papers, being degraded by senior managers pushing them constantly? This is what they produce - quantity over quality. This is what their managers think the client wants - they are paying by the hour afterall, got to give them a big pile or work.

mardifoufs 4y ago
Short sellers like these are usually small, single digit headcount operations. If anything, the dubious quality of the document reflects exactly that. And those big firm employees are usually very good at making good looking presentations and documents, though I agree that they are usually devoid of substance. So I'm not sure they are behind this shoddy looking document to be honest.
- blitzar 4y ago
  They outsource a lot of this stuff now - brokers, banks etc. The fund itself doesnt give a shit about pages >2 and just really care about the conclusion. You can only have two of; fast, accurate and magnificent prose.