Ok, I really despise these guys. All of these activist short sellers really irk me with their actions - they come out with these absurdly long documents (that are deliberately written in a way that it is so mind-numbing to read) and they're just never consistently right.
The reaction is the same with the stock selling off massively because the market sees the headline, only for it to later recover.
I truly believe that some of these guys are evil. This is not what short selling is about (to me). Chanos and Baldwin-United is an example of how it can be done properly in a "public" way.
If I were a short seller (which I'm not), I'd make the claims about the company very clearly, very directly and show the evidence. It can be done with less than 1000 words. But these guys won't do it that way... why?
Read through their bullet points - what's the MAIN claim they have? I can't work it out. Maybe it's all true, but I suspect many, many publicly listed companies are littered with similar problems.
The conclusion is just as wishy washy -
- All told, we believe Super Micro is a serial recidivist. It benefitted as an early mover but still faces significant accounting, governance and compliance issues and offers an inferior product and service now being eroded away by more credible competition.
My take - as of this moment, there is not enough evidence to suggest this is an Enron or Worldcom. It's probably not going to 0. If it gets cheap enough, I'll buy it.
(Of course, I haven't read the report. I'm a fast reader, but having read their previous stuff, I'm not even going to bother.) |
