3 ms·

See Citron Research (http://citronresearch.com/ http://citronresearch.com/) and Muddy Waters Research (http://www.muddywatersresearch.com/ http://www.muddywater

See Citron Research (http://citronresearch.com/ http://citronresearch.com/) and Muddy Waters Research (http://www.muddywatersresearch.com/ http://www.muddywatersresearch.com/). There's a whole cottage industry of research companies trying to expose frauds in Chinese companies, not always necessarily altruistically (usually a huge short position is accumulated prior to the publishing of their public report). Interesting to see Anonymous get into the game, wonder what they gonna fund with their profit.

look_lookatme 15y ago
Is it possible companies like these or established funds are supplying the Anonymous movement with material support in order to feed off the somewhat outsized publicity Anon gets when they release something like this?
- TDL 15y ago
  If you are referring to the research firms (Muddy Waters & Citron) they are already well established in the investment community and probably would no benefit that much from teaming up with people w/in Anon. Citron has been around for almost a decade now (formerly stocklemon.com.) It's always possible that some small or mid-sized fund could be involved.
lusr 15y ago
What I find interesting here is that while I could get behind research published by an established firm with known directors, researchers, etc., it's much more difficult to know what to do with this "Anon" report because for all I know it could be a scheme itself (same as you described, accumulate a short position before releasing false negative information). "Anon", by definition, has no identity, although I suppose the site "AnonAnalytics" will form a brand and reputation over time that may prove meaningful.
- celticninja 15y ago
  Interestingly in this case they address that fact, quite clearly stating that the reader should assume that "certain contributors... As well as their members, partners, affiliates, colleagues, employees... Have a short position in the stock of Huabao. Not something I would normally expect to see in an analysis of this nature. However it is in line with the anon brand to make people fully aware if the full implications of the report. Also the level of professionalism in this goes way beyond anything anon has previously produced. After all not many anon events require international flights and a 3 day trek to fInd a factory in Botswana.
fennecfoxen 15y ago
A mild tangent here. There's a school of thought that insider trading can be a good thing, because insiders with knowledge can profit by making large stock trades to bring a company's stock price in line with reality, and revealing to the world that they (an informed insider) think that the stock is overpriced (or underpriced). Any prospective investors can then use this information to make informed decisions about the purchase or sale of the stock. So, as you reference altruism - altruism is nice, but - in the absence of fraud - profit is a really nice incentive. (The main economic reason insider trading is illegal is that, in reality, this creates some horrible conflict-of-interest breach-of-fiduciary-duty scenarios. The main reason people want it to be illegal seems to be a sense that the stock market is a game and that everyone should be playing by the same "rules" so that they can't make a profit unless someone else can use a profit. Not that this encourages efficient markets in and of itself...)

look_lookatme 15y ago

Is it possible companies like these or established funds are supplying the Anonymous movement with material support in order to feed off the somewhat outsized publicity Anon gets when they release something like this?

TDL 15y ago
If you are referring to the research firms (Muddy Waters & Citron) they are already well established in the investment community and probably would no benefit that much from teaming up with people w/in Anon. Citron has been around for almost a decade now (formerly stocklemon.com.) It's always possible that some small or mid-sized fund could be involved.

lusr 15y ago

What I find interesting here is that while I could get behind research published by an established firm with known directors, researchers, etc., it's much more difficult to know what to do with this "Anon" report because for all I know it could be a scheme itself (same as you described, accumulate a short position before releasing false negative information). "Anon", by definition, has no identity, although I suppose the site "AnonAnalytics" will form a brand and reputation over time that may prove meaningful.

celticninja 15y ago
Interestingly in this case they address that fact, quite clearly stating that the reader should assume that "certain contributors... As well as their members, partners, affiliates, colleagues, employees... Have a short position in the stock of Huabao. Not something I would normally expect to see in an analysis of this nature. However it is in line with the anon brand to make people fully aware if the full implications of the report. Also the level of professionalism in this goes way beyond anything anon has previously produced. After all not many anon events require international flights and a 3 day trek to fInd a factory in Botswana.

fennecfoxen 15y ago

A mild tangent here. There's a school of thought that insider trading can be a good thing, because insiders with knowledge can profit by making large stock trades to bring a company's stock price in line with reality, and revealing to the world that they (an informed insider) think that the stock is overpriced (or underpriced). Any prospective investors can then use this information to make informed decisions about the purchase or sale of the stock. So, as you reference altruism - altruism is nice, but - in the absence of fraud - profit is a really nice incentive. (The main economic reason insider trading is illegal is that, in reality, this creates some horrible conflict-of-interest breach-of-fiduciary-duty scenarios. The main reason people want it to be illegal seems to be a sense that the stock market is a game and that everyone should be playing by the same "rules" so that they can't make a profit unless someone else can use a profit. Not that this encourages efficient markets in and of itself...)