With Nasdaq spiking to all-time-highs and with FartCoin trading at a $500 million market cap, Bloomberg is out with yet another article attempting to demonize short sellers. As part of a broader article, the crack research team at Bloomberg uncovered that in 2020 an investor shared a really good lead with us. And during our research process, we even talked with them about the idea – how scandalous! We routinely get leads from all walks of life; including industry experts, analysts, investors, etc. Throughout our history, we independently vet any lead and always have full editorial control. The company in question, FaceDrive, was a very tight-float, hard-to-borrow, tiny short; but as those who follow us know, we like pursuing these ‘total fraud' cases, even when difficult to monetize. (In many cases we have written about companies we have not traded on or have not even been public.) Our research on FaceDrive involved an extensive in-house investigation which I largely undertook personally, and the company was later charged by Canadian regulators with fraud based on the findings we uncovered. The stock dropped ~95% in roughly a year before the company eventually went defunct. We didn't get paid a dime by any third-party on the project. So yes, as isn't a surprise to anyone actually in the investing world, investors DO communicate and discuss ideas from time to time. When short sellers do it, it’s of course a big, dark conspiracy. The Bloomberg article rather insanely adds, "the notion that short sellers may exchange research has long irked CEOs and sympathetic policymakers", as if policymakers should single out short sellers to somehow criminalize their basic communication. Sharing research about companies and investments has been the backbone of investing since the beginning of markets. It’s what all financial media and buyside research is based on. I continue to find it fascinating how much ink media outlets spill painting the generally mundane aspects of short research as dark and shady. Shorts don’t just talk to sources like every other investor or even every journalist on earth. No, instead they have “secret talks”. Shorts don’t have passive investors like every other mutual fund or hedge fund on earth. No, instead they have “mystery backers”. As a short-seller I didn't just eat breakfast this morning, no – I secretly wolfed down an egg and cheese sandwich in the shadows. Media should of course feel free to nitpick on any aspect of short research that they want, but my only hope is that they dedicate at least SOME of their resources to actually exposing the corporate fraud we spend our time researching and writing about – though that might threaten their access to those precious CEO and industry-insider sources that drive the 24/7 coverage cycle. Until then (if that day ever comes) shorts will continue to be the primary market participants exposing corporate wrongdoing.

read for free here:

“A historically absurd number of Trump-only bullet ballots or undervote ballots. In 2024 in the 43 non-swing states, bullet ballots make up a nominal >1%.   In the seven swing states the numbers are so high to be unbelievable, unprecedented & demanding of further investigation.”