[nohuck13]

It's also an activist short seller. They make money by publishing negative research reports on companies they've shorted. It's a valuable service.

The disclaimer amounts to "we're not insider trading and we really believe this stuff" many different ways. Insider trading is illegal so they are scrupulously careful to stay away from MNPI (and want you to know that). Really believing this stuff is important because if they turn out to be wrong, it's sort of ok to be honestly wrong, it's not okay to be knowingly wrong and put out the report anyway to manipulate the stock.

And so paragraphs and paragraphs of

>"Reports are based on generally available information, field research, inferences and deductions"

We're not insider trading

>"Our opinions are held in good faith, and we have based them upon publicly available facts and evidence"

We really believe this stuff, also we're really not insider trading.

> "We conducted research and analysis based on public information in a manner that any person could have done if they had been interested in doing so."

Did we mention we're not insider trading?

[nova22033]

Hindenburg published a report about Super Micro and their information/analysis turned out to be right.

How is this insider trading? Do they have access to material non-public information?

[nohuck13]

You seem to think I'm arguing that they are insider trading. I'm not arguing that!

[kyleee]

Well perhaps if these companies didn’t all have skeletons in their closets, they may be able to avoid the bad press, lawsuits, stock prices issues, etc. That is probably the best way to avoid all this

[nohuck13]

Agree, that's why it's a valuable service to make it hard to have skeletons.

[Ekaros]

Now is it investment advice? Isn't that the other side what they say they are not?