Capital markets across the world need many more Hindenburgs, not fewer
Subscribe to enjoy similar stories. In 2017, Nathan Anderson established Hindenburg Research with a purpose as pointed as its name: to uncover corporate disasters of human making and hold them accountable. Over the years, Hindenburg became a lightning rod for controversy, dissecting companies and exposing everything from accounting fraud to undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Last week, much to the glee of many in the corporate world, Anderson announced that he was stepping away from the firm he built, citing the unrelenting pressure of the work. His departure feels symbolic—a reminder of how fragile the fight for corporate accountability can be when left to a few determined to wage these battles. Despite decades of financial regulation globally, we need more Hindenburgs, not fewer.
Businesses are the lifeblood of modern economies, but without checks and balances, they can also be their undoing. Regulators, while necessary, operate within the constraints of bureaucracy and politics. They are reactive, not proactive.
Investors, particularly large institutions, often find it easier to look the other way than confront the companies they bankroll. Governance, transparency and ethical behaviour are often hash-tagged with the brute force of influence and profits. Yes, Hindenburg profited many times from its reports.
The veracity of its claims has also been doubted. But still, short selling is legal. It operates within the same framework that lets us purchase and hold securities.
Yet, the practice is often vilified as though it’s nefarious. While short sellers like Hindenburg are not infallible, they contribute far more to market efficiency than they’re given credit for. By challenging valuations and exposing fraud, they prevent
. Read more on livemint.com
