>That was the fastest downvote I have ever received.

Because your comment is nonsensical.

First of all, they claim no position in the stock. Even if you don't believe it, they did research on a company, decided the business looks bad. Do you expect them to be long the stock? Do you think they randomly chose this company to "bring down"?

Where are all the people upset about situations where banks like Morgan Stanley, who have Tesla for a client and own huge portions of ARKK (which in turn owns many Tesla shares) put out ridiculous reports claiming Tesla Insurance is more valuable than Geico, Tesla "parts" is bigger than VW and Tesla autonomy is worth billions, in order to juice the stock upward?

The bias is unbelievable.

Being a short seller in itself does not mean Hindenburg's reports are likely false, anymore than say, a news agency that exists to publish investigative journalism. If anyone has more information about their past track record, that would be great.

It's not really possible to have a productive discussion about a reflexive, unsubstantiated claim that the source article is lying.

But are they wrong in this case? They weren't wrong about Nikola.

Short sell researchers aren't new. Their business model is to raise awareness to possible fraud for profit. They've had hits, recently for example, Luckin Coffee, and Nikola. I would assume anyone participating in the markets also knows to take what they say with a grain of salt.

Your claim that they have a position in this case was incorrect, because you can't be bothered to read what you're commenting on, and that's probably why you're downvoted.

It doesn’t make them wrong.