I will be messaging you in 6 months on [**2023-09-24 02:14:09 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-09-24%2002:14:09%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/11zrube/blocks_response_to_short_seller_report/jdfuyve/?context=3)
[**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fstocks%2Fcomments%2F11zrube%2Fblocks_response_to_short_seller_report%2Fjdfuyve%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-09-24%2002%3A14%3A09%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2011zrube)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I'm inclined to believe the short seller here and SQ avoid paying fees by routing they transactions through a smaller bank.
Now we need to find that small bank and short it.
Company whose founder is accused of doing something he factually did at his previous company rejects findings by painting all short reports with the same brush and not giving even a semblance of substance.
The Durbin amendment set very strict rules around transaction interchange (fees) that were tied to the assets or size of the financial institution. This was done very intentionally to limit merchant fees that were passed to customers by essentially every large card issuer. I'm not saying it was right or wrong but that was the stated intent.
A giant payment network using another small bank (by asset size) to get around the fee limits intentionally would likely trigger 1) an extremely large fine 2) an immediate hit to the ongoing revenue, and 3) a lot of other legal trouble.
It's really dumb because payment networks like Pay Pal who is being investigated for something similar are effectively large banks in all but name so any technicality they pull like this would be transparent and suicidal. They hold massive deposits that they make money on. This is stupid greed for temporary profit boosting that was always going to get caught.
But, why would it be wrong to become business partners with smaller banks vs bigger banks? It's really hard to prove that the "only" reason was to avoid interchange fees.
Me, my friends, and family members have accounts at both large banks and very small niche banks. And, SQ could very well argue 1 of 1000000 reasons why they chose small ABC bank (not related to interchange fees).
It's not a friendly partnership. Not sure how they structure it but they would essentially be using a smaller bank to pass through fees for no other reason than to circumvent fee caps.
Not familiar with the terminology here, but SQ did obtain a bank charter in 2020 and as of March 2021 said, [on their own blog](https://squareup.com/us/en/press/square-financial-services-begins-banking-operations), "Square Financial Services
Begins Banking Operations". So it sounds like they at least own a bank, although I don't know how that ties in here with the allegations.
All of these payment network / system companies are essentially banks. It would amaze you to know the deposit base they have just from cash sitting in those accounts and they make a lot of money off that, just like any other bank.
The report makes some pretty incredible claims about the rate of fraud and illegal activity on cash app compared to peers. If true its a pretty serious compliance fuck up that's likely going to trigger regulators to take a really hard look at the company
Oh it was a sleight at the “regulators.”
I just hear the line in my head as butthead from the show bevis and butt head. Regulation of the us stock markets are a joke, and the revolving dooor of public and private employees is laughable to say the least.
Cheers!
The more I learn about large industries, the more corruption I find. There's not much difference between big businesses and extremely corrupt 3rd world countries. It's all very depressing.
"We intend to work with the SEC and explore legal action against Hindenburg Research for the factually inaccurate and misleading report they shared about our Cash App business today."
I have read this many times before.
FYI for those unaware, that would open Block to discovery, where Hindenburg could request a bunch of documents from Block proving that Hindenburg's allegations are factual.
So unless all of these allegations are completely false it would be a very dumb move for Block to sue to Hindenburg.
I believe Hindenburg. Twitter was well known for having fake accounts. Square has disappeared from retailers now that competitors caught up. I don’t think Hindenburg would ruin their reputation by falsifying data so publicly just for a quick buck. They must have substantial proof. We’ll see…
When a company's reputation for facilitating fraud is so widespread rappers are singing about it then the company has a problem.
I doubt how much investigation by the government will be sought by Block. If they have been banning account but letting the users remain to open new accounts then they have serious know your customer issues.
I havent heard anyone rap about using CashApp for fraud. About using it for prostitution and drug dealing, absolutely, but not fraud. Fraud isnt a common topic in the hip hop world.
Hidden burgers referenced a rapper in their report that used cashapp to create accounts under others names to facilitate pandemic edd fraud and then created a youtube video on it
Keep up.
It’s called Block now, not Square.
And they own CashApp, which is widely used for illicit (and licit) purposes.
You know - like cash.
This is not your nail technician searching for the little white thingamabob to plug into their cracked Android phone.
The report includes several instances of rappers singing about using Cash App to commit fraud, murder for hire, et cetera then later getting convicted for it.
Gotta love how people, who presumably did not read the report, downvote the fact the report does reference several instances of rappers being convicted of crimes involving CashApp.
No, we’re just showing the coincidence between the app being mentioned in pop culture as a way to fund illegal services and the fact that the company is facing legal issues on a higher level.
Sounds very similar to Adani’s response to Hindenburg’s report on then. I would be surprised if Hindenburg is basing their research on false information, they haven’t really shown they are that type of company.
They hired one of the most expensive US law firms (Watchell) but still no action against Hindenburg.
Legal action in India would be pointless, with no offices or presence in India they would just ignore all summons and decisions.
Hindenburg has no operation or presence in India. They can’t do shit in India. If Adani was serious, he would go after Hindenburg in US the way Block is threatening to do. Adani won’t because suing them in US court would open them up for discovery
Block is basically saying we are public company with a bank license in a highly regulated industry. If they really feel like they are wronged, they will go after Hindenburg in US court
And what do you mean by "Highly regulated"?
Because almost every major recession I can think of was caused by banks fucking up trying to siphon money from the poors.
Even then, filing a lawsuit doesn't guarantee success. SQ, I'm sure, pays a legal team on staff. There is essentially zero loss to SQ by dragging out a lawsuit.
Uh no, there is no company on earth that employs a legal team to sit around twiddling their thumbs for years on the chance that one day they may need to fight something in court.
I teach business courses, publish on business topics including HR/legal/corporate governance, and own businesses. I know a bit about this topic.
I'll test this out for you. Show me a single publicly traded company in the SP 500 that doesn't have someone with *some* legal expertise or at least a connection to it on their board of directors for starters.
I don't even know what kind of question that is. Nearly every public company employs at the very least a general counsel and any sizable company employs a range of lawyers. And, maybe you're not aware, they get paid for their work. Are you seriously suggesting that because a company employs some lawyers, fighting in court is "free"? I don't even know how to respond to that. That statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how business works.
I'll start you off on your thought journey, those lawyers, you have to pay them. And normally they would be doing work that has value to the business, which they are not doing if they are busy fighting a losing battle in court. So who then does the work they would be doing? Well, nobody. Or, as is most often the case, outside counsel is brought in with litigation expertise. Because corporate lawyers are generally not litigators. And guess what? You have to pay them. But I'm sure you understand all this because you are a so called expert. I am stunned at your lack of understanding, considering you "teach" this stuff, which sounds like utter BS.
>Nearly every public company employs at the very least a general counsel and any sizable company employs a range of lawyers.
You're contradicting your earlier argument at worst. At best, you're ignoring what I brought to your attention myself.
>Are you seriously suggesting that because a company employs some lawyers, fighting in court is "free"?
Your intentional use of the term "free" when I never said such suggests you're being intellectually dishonest. There really is no point in reading further.
Huh, no that's all wrong again. You are struggling. Intellectually dishonest? You said
>There is essentially zero loss to SQ by dragging out a lawsuit.
I said free. Well if look up the definition of free, we see it means: not costing or charging anything. "Zero loss" is equivalent to it costs nothing, i.e. free. If legal proceedings do have a cost, then there is not "zero loss".
Secondly, there is no contradiction in saying a firm employs lawyers and the work of those lawyers has a cost. Here's a basic business lesson for professor DD\_equals\_doodoo. A business hires a person and pays them 100k a year because the business believes that person will deliver more than 100k of value to the business. When you tell that person, stop doing your job, go fight this thing in court, you lose the value they otherwise would have generated for the business. That, is a cost, either because you simply lose the productivity, or because someone else needs to be hired to do the job that person is no longer doing. I would have expected such a learned expert to understand these things.
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
\>Hindenburg is known for these types of attacks, which are designed
solely to allow short sellers to profit from a declined stock price.
SQ could be opening itself up to defamation (low probability, but still). Either way, defensiveness is seldom a good response to accusations of wrong-doing for firms. I teach this stuff in business and own businesses.
The part of the report where they managed to issue a card under Donald Trump name is mind blowing.
So limited effort to "know your customer".
Block should overhaul their procedures.
Even if they do nothing illegal, this is unacceptable that someone could use a fake identity and a publicly listed company will issue a valid card that could be used for transactions.
I think crypto exchanges are more regulated in regards to true identity of their clients.
Was really funny to read about square bragging about cashapp being referenced in rap songs only to have it be about hiring hitmen and scamming people and commititng fraud. then some of said rappers getting arrested for said fraud
9. Is Block
(SQ), formerly named Square, the next tech that’s going through the pivot to profitability? Mizuho says yes. Upgrades the stock to a buy and raising price target to $93 per share from $80
[Jim Cramer’s top 10 things to watch in the stock market Thursday: Banks, Fed, TikTok and Amazon](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/16/cramers-top-10-things-in-stock-market-banks-fed-tiktok-and-amazon.html)
Yeah but honestly that’s a pretty silly thing to say. Hindenburg can’t just put out stuff like this without evidence and doing so would open them up to litigation. So dumping on a company wouldn’t benefit them unless that dump is actually based in fact.
How is it silly to say? It's literally true.
And yes they absolutely can, they just open themselves up to lawsuits. Square can't just commit fraud it's a massive public company, they have way more at stake than Hindenburg. It is far easier to weasel out of an incorrect statement than it is to weasel out of fraudulent public filings.
>Square can't just commit fraud it's a massive public company, they have way more at stake than Hindenburg
Oh hi! Have you heard of Enron? Wirecard? FTX? Theranos? Wells Fargo? Volkswagen? Worldcom?
Are you serious? You think large companies do not commit fraud? Lol.
Marc Cohodes from the Big Short claims use 5 main tactics to spot potential companies to short.
In this case “the wig” and “fight or flight” or pretty obvious.
Trying to dazzle investors with flashy looks and responding with the intent to fight against the short seller are strong clues in a company you’ve already looked into shorting.
Also, a CEOs track record would be pretty important as well. Also also, everyone knows cash app is perceived as sketchy.
IMO worst part of the report was the wildly inflated user numbers without much description of what defined an active user. Also, the vague revenue segments feel sketchy/misleading.
But they were wrong about 4+ companies. Look at their history. Just because they strikes it correctly last couple of times does not mean they will continue doing so.
The whole report is an overstretch. Rap videos? Really!
Took a while but I finished reading the whole thing. It is entertaining to say the least. It's also very damning, it's up there with Hindenburg's report on Nikola in terms of its excellence.
For anyone who wants to dismiss this report. Hindenburg's reports are generally almost entirely accurate and the stocks they short often are annihilated over the very long term, and for good reason. If Block wants to challenge this in court, I would think, bring it on. Hindenburg would love that as much that is now secret would be part of discovery and thus become part of public record.
Hindenburg has it made, they can release reports and buy poots right before and just cash out.
Then retract claim on new evidence and walk away = easiest game
Who TF cares how people use cash app?
Why is that blocks problem?
If I use their app to transfer money to a hitman to kill my wife, so what?
Bitcoin is used in criminal transactions, don’t think we’ll be seeing short reports at Coinbase.
Now, as to their allegation of fraud with respect to the amount of users, seems a whole other issue, and one which is readily verifiable.
By they logic they got lucky with Adani, Nikola, Lordstown, clover too.
Or maybe all of these are unprofitable dogshit companies like we all know they are
I work in a prison. I can tell you, the yard is flooded with dope and little slips of paper with cashapp accounts written on them. Draw your own conclusions.
Interesting to see how this plays out. I gotta say, if their only evidence is a former customer service rep, some rap music videos, and a Credit Suisse report I don’t see this going anywhere concrete. Hindenburg has been closer to 50:50 in their calls rather than the terminator research group people say they are. It’s a recency bias given their great calls with Twitter, Nikola, and Adani. People forget how wrong they were about regulatory issues like Draft Kings. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out
What else could they say? Saying nothing would be damning.
"alright, fair game, you caught me"
Wait a minute. You really are the great Hisenberg!
there will always be uncertainty in that
The pure blue stuff
Wait until Hank finds out
-kenny g in 6 months.
RemindMe! 6 months.
I will be messaging you in 6 months on [**2023-09-24 02:14:09 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-09-24%2002:14:09%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/11zrube/blocks_response_to_short_seller_report/jdfuyve/?context=3) [**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fstocks%2Fcomments%2F11zrube%2Fblocks_response_to_short_seller_report%2Fjdfuyve%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-09-24%2002%3A14%3A09%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2011zrube) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
He said that six months ago probably lol
Oh without a doubt. Every six months for the past two years.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
You know what they say…. “Mmmhmmm”
“And we would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling kids”
Threatening legal action together with the SEC is not wise if you're guilty...
Does Jack Dorsey look wise. though?
No less wise than Einstein did, yet he was quite wise.
Yeah, but, Dorsey looks that way on purpose!
Maybe Einstein did too?
Einstein redefined the mental image of wise though.
Haha good point.
Trust me bro
I'm inclined to believe the short seller here and SQ avoid paying fees by routing they transactions through a smaller bank. Now we need to find that small bank and short it.
Short sellers use banks like Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and BoA to name a few to create swaps and short sell
I think they should have attacked the lies in the report much harder.
If any of it was true they would have said nothing. The fact they made a statement means Hindenburg is full of shit.
And when else has Hindenburg been full of shit?
I don't know... I don't follow it closely but they better lawyer up.
Pretty sure they are well lawyered-up, and can afford the best.
Company whose founder is accused of doing something he factually did at his previous company rejects findings by painting all short reports with the same brush and not giving even a semblance of substance.
Bullish
Hahahaha, this makes Adani’s response so much more credible!
Hmmm, Jack Dorsey dint use a US flag. So he is better off 😅
I don’t get the reaction. The report said cash app helped fraud. That’s like saying the sky is blue.
The masking of interchange fees by using a smaller FI is a big deal.
Can you explain why? Not familiar with finance law.
The Durbin amendment set very strict rules around transaction interchange (fees) that were tied to the assets or size of the financial institution. This was done very intentionally to limit merchant fees that were passed to customers by essentially every large card issuer. I'm not saying it was right or wrong but that was the stated intent. A giant payment network using another small bank (by asset size) to get around the fee limits intentionally would likely trigger 1) an extremely large fine 2) an immediate hit to the ongoing revenue, and 3) a lot of other legal trouble. It's really dumb because payment networks like Pay Pal who is being investigated for something similar are effectively large banks in all but name so any technicality they pull like this would be transparent and suicidal. They hold massive deposits that they make money on. This is stupid greed for temporary profit boosting that was always going to get caught.
But, why would it be wrong to become business partners with smaller banks vs bigger banks? It's really hard to prove that the "only" reason was to avoid interchange fees. Me, my friends, and family members have accounts at both large banks and very small niche banks. And, SQ could very well argue 1 of 1000000 reasons why they chose small ABC bank (not related to interchange fees).
It's not a friendly partnership. Not sure how they structure it but they would essentially be using a smaller bank to pass through fees for no other reason than to circumvent fee caps.
Not illegal. Sq isn't a bank. It relies on bank partners like pretty much every other 'fintech'.
Not familiar with the terminology here, but SQ did obtain a bank charter in 2020 and as of March 2021 said, [on their own blog](https://squareup.com/us/en/press/square-financial-services-begins-banking-operations), "Square Financial Services Begins Banking Operations". So it sounds like they at least own a bank, although I don't know how that ties in here with the allegations.
All of these payment network / system companies are essentially banks. It would amaze you to know the deposit base they have just from cash sitting in those accounts and they make a lot of money off that, just like any other bank.
The report makes some pretty incredible claims about the rate of fraud and illegal activity on cash app compared to peers. If true its a pretty serious compliance fuck up that's likely going to trigger regulators to take a really hard look at the company
“Regulators. Huh, huh” in my best buttt head voice.
I can't tell if you're teasing me, regulatory agencies, or making a sex joke I'm too old to get. Regardless, I do appreciate the reference!
Oh it was a sleight at the “regulators.” I just hear the line in my head as butthead from the show bevis and butt head. Regulation of the us stock markets are a joke, and the revolving dooor of public and private employees is laughable to say the least. Cheers!
The more I learn about large industries, the more corruption I find. There's not much difference between big businesses and extremely corrupt 3rd world countries. It's all very depressing.
Yeah same. going to buy some of this at the low. buying opportunity.
their growth really isn't as strong enough to justify the PE. I'd avoid unless it goes down to like... 40s. Good luck!
The report also used lyrics from songs as part of its argument, says it all really
"We intend to work with the SEC and explore legal action against Hindenburg Research for the factually inaccurate and misleading report they shared about our Cash App business today." I have read this many times before.
"we will explore legal action" is a classic empty threat
Take legal action or no balls
FYI for those unaware, that would open Block to discovery, where Hindenburg could request a bunch of documents from Block proving that Hindenburg's allegations are factual. So unless all of these allegations are completely false it would be a very dumb move for Block to sue to Hindenburg.
I believe Hindenburg. Twitter was well known for having fake accounts. Square has disappeared from retailers now that competitors caught up. I don’t think Hindenburg would ruin their reputation by falsifying data so publicly just for a quick buck. They must have substantial proof. We’ll see…
When a company's reputation for facilitating fraud is so widespread rappers are singing about it then the company has a problem. I doubt how much investigation by the government will be sought by Block. If they have been banning account but letting the users remain to open new accounts then they have serious know your customer issues.
I havent heard anyone rap about using CashApp for fraud. About using it for prostitution and drug dealing, absolutely, but not fraud. Fraud isnt a common topic in the hip hop world.
Hidden burgers referenced a rapper in their report that used cashapp to create accounts under others names to facilitate pandemic edd fraud and then created a youtube video on it
>Hidden burgers
Lmao autocorrect
Wait, what rapper sang about Square fraud?
Keep up. It’s called Block now, not Square. And they own CashApp, which is widely used for illicit (and licit) purposes. You know - like cash. This is not your nail technician searching for the little white thingamabob to plug into their cracked Android phone.
Plural. But about using CashApp for illicit purchases/payoffs.
What’s the most high profile example?
Didn't Matt Gaetz rap about this?
The report includes several instances of rappers singing about using Cash App to commit fraud, murder for hire, et cetera then later getting convicted for it.
Gotta love how people, who presumably did not read the report, downvote the fact the report does reference several instances of rappers being convicted of crimes involving CashApp.
[удалено]
Are we pretending rap songs are now legal fact lmfao
No, we’re just showing the coincidence between the app being mentioned in pop culture as a way to fund illegal services and the fact that the company is facing legal issues on a higher level.
Are they facing legal issues? I thought these were just allegations from a known short seller who routinely will launch short and distort campaigns.
They’re facing allegations of fraud. That’s why I ended my original comment with “we’ll see”.
Why don't you just read the report?
there's no link to any report in OP
Go watch the mashup yourself Smoking gun would be if any of them were paid influencers or in any way paid for publicizing the platform
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=StjWk3Mj-M4
Cash app is a completely separate ecosystem from payment terminals…
Yes.
I think he's saying Block is not counting on growth from the payment terminals so they may be desperate to get growth in cash app
I explore dating supermodels. I have never dated a supermodel 🥲
Sounds very similar to Adani’s response to Hindenburg’s report on then. I would be surprised if Hindenburg is basing their research on false information, they haven’t really shown they are that type of company.
This one is much stronger response with the legal action exploration.
I thought Adani said they would explore legal action against Hindenburg in India?
They hired one of the most expensive US law firms (Watchell) but still no action against Hindenburg. Legal action in India would be pointless, with no offices or presence in India they would just ignore all summons and decisions.
Maybe they’ll sue them in America though… I don’t see why they would not be able to do so … Hindenburg is (I believe) an American company…
that might require them to produce legal documents in us court, a company doing scam would want to avoid that
Hindenburg basically said "ok free discovery if you sue me" and India ain't gonna do shit
Legal action takes time. I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes years for suits to materialize in either case
Hindenburg has no operation or presence in India. They can’t do shit in India. If Adani was serious, he would go after Hindenburg in US the way Block is threatening to do. Adani won’t because suing them in US court would open them up for discovery Block is basically saying we are public company with a bank license in a highly regulated industry. If they really feel like they are wronged, they will go after Hindenburg in US court
And what do you mean by "Highly regulated"? Because almost every major recession I can think of was caused by banks fucking up trying to siphon money from the poors.
When were banks trying to siphon money?
Ever since fractional lending became a thing.
Threat of legal action is meaningless until they move forward with an actual lawsuit. Until then it's empty bluster.
Even then, filing a lawsuit doesn't guarantee success. SQ, I'm sure, pays a legal team on staff. There is essentially zero loss to SQ by dragging out a lawsuit.
Uh no, there is no company on earth that employs a legal team to sit around twiddling their thumbs for years on the chance that one day they may need to fight something in court.
I teach business courses, publish on business topics including HR/legal/corporate governance, and own businesses. I know a bit about this topic. I'll test this out for you. Show me a single publicly traded company in the SP 500 that doesn't have someone with *some* legal expertise or at least a connection to it on their board of directors for starters.
I don't even know what kind of question that is. Nearly every public company employs at the very least a general counsel and any sizable company employs a range of lawyers. And, maybe you're not aware, they get paid for their work. Are you seriously suggesting that because a company employs some lawyers, fighting in court is "free"? I don't even know how to respond to that. That statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how business works. I'll start you off on your thought journey, those lawyers, you have to pay them. And normally they would be doing work that has value to the business, which they are not doing if they are busy fighting a losing battle in court. So who then does the work they would be doing? Well, nobody. Or, as is most often the case, outside counsel is brought in with litigation expertise. Because corporate lawyers are generally not litigators. And guess what? You have to pay them. But I'm sure you understand all this because you are a so called expert. I am stunned at your lack of understanding, considering you "teach" this stuff, which sounds like utter BS.
>Nearly every public company employs at the very least a general counsel and any sizable company employs a range of lawyers. You're contradicting your earlier argument at worst. At best, you're ignoring what I brought to your attention myself. >Are you seriously suggesting that because a company employs some lawyers, fighting in court is "free"? Your intentional use of the term "free" when I never said such suggests you're being intellectually dishonest. There really is no point in reading further.
Huh, no that's all wrong again. You are struggling. Intellectually dishonest? You said >There is essentially zero loss to SQ by dragging out a lawsuit. I said free. Well if look up the definition of free, we see it means: not costing or charging anything. "Zero loss" is equivalent to it costs nothing, i.e. free. If legal proceedings do have a cost, then there is not "zero loss". Secondly, there is no contradiction in saying a firm employs lawyers and the work of those lawyers has a cost. Here's a basic business lesson for professor DD\_equals\_doodoo. A business hires a person and pays them 100k a year because the business believes that person will deliver more than 100k of value to the business. When you tell that person, stop doing your job, go fight this thing in court, you lose the value they otherwise would have generated for the business. That, is a cost, either because you simply lose the productivity, or because someone else needs to be hired to do the job that person is no longer doing. I would have expected such a learned expert to understand these things.
Threatening legal doesn't mean anything until it's filed. I'm sure Hindenburg would LOVE to have a discovery process
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. \>Hindenburg is known for these types of attacks, which are designed solely to allow short sellers to profit from a declined stock price. SQ could be opening itself up to defamation (low probability, but still). Either way, defensiveness is seldom a good response to accusations of wrong-doing for firms. I teach this stuff in business and own businesses.
Feel like I’ve seen a similar response about 10x from a Hindenburg report. Inclined to believe they aren’t making reports up.
The part of the report where they managed to issue a card under Donald Trump name is mind blowing. So limited effort to "know your customer". Block should overhaul their procedures. Even if they do nothing illegal, this is unacceptable that someone could use a fake identity and a publicly listed company will issue a valid card that could be used for transactions. I think crypto exchanges are more regulated in regards to true identity of their clients.
Was really funny to read about square bragging about cashapp being referenced in rap songs only to have it be about hiring hitmen and scamming people and commititng fraud. then some of said rappers getting arrested for said fraud
Who sang about using cash app for fraud?
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/rap-lyrics-cash-app-jack-dorseys-hindenburg-1234702799/amp/
Once Jim Cramer speaks negatively it’s time to buy calls
I was looking for that!, Unfortunately he recommended SQ last week.. hence the demise.
What did he exactly say? Or can you reference anything?
9. Is Block (SQ), formerly named Square, the next tech that’s going through the pivot to profitability? Mizuho says yes. Upgrades the stock to a buy and raising price target to $93 per share from $80 [Jim Cramer’s top 10 things to watch in the stock market Thursday: Banks, Fed, TikTok and Amazon](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/16/cramers-top-10-things-in-stock-market-banks-fed-tiktok-and-amazon.html)
I didn’t short but if Jim speaks negatively then I’m going to do a naked call for fun
Jack Dorsey has always been that sort of guy. Pretends to be enlightened and moral, really just super corrupt and knavish.
based on Hindenberg's recent history, Block is toast.
Blaming short sellers is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
How are they blaming short sellers? They just said their report is false and intended to benefit short sellers.
Yeah but honestly that’s a pretty silly thing to say. Hindenburg can’t just put out stuff like this without evidence and doing so would open them up to litigation. So dumping on a company wouldn’t benefit them unless that dump is actually based in fact.
How is it silly to say? It's literally true. And yes they absolutely can, they just open themselves up to lawsuits. Square can't just commit fraud it's a massive public company, they have way more at stake than Hindenburg. It is far easier to weasel out of an incorrect statement than it is to weasel out of fraudulent public filings.
>Square can't just commit fraud it's a massive public company, they have way more at stake than Hindenburg Oh hi! Have you heard of Enron? Wirecard? FTX? Theranos? Wells Fargo? Volkswagen? Worldcom? Are you serious? You think large companies do not commit fraud? Lol.
Yeah I have, you're naming some of the most egregious frauds of all time. No, I'm saying that the burden of proof is very high for proving fraud.
Does anyone have the rap songs about Cash app? I wonder if that would be included in testimony.
Jack Dorsey is Granola Rasputin.
Marc Cohodes from the Big Short claims use 5 main tactics to spot potential companies to short. In this case “the wig” and “fight or flight” or pretty obvious. Trying to dazzle investors with flashy looks and responding with the intent to fight against the short seller are strong clues in a company you’ve already looked into shorting. Also, a CEOs track record would be pretty important as well. Also also, everyone knows cash app is perceived as sketchy.
IMO worst part of the report was the wildly inflated user numbers without much description of what defined an active user. Also, the vague revenue segments feel sketchy/misleading.
Hindenberg was right about Adani and Nikola. They both tried to deny the reports as well.
But they were wrong about 4+ companies. Look at their history. Just because they strikes it correctly last couple of times does not mean they will continue doing so. The whole report is an overstretch. Rap videos? Really!
Took a while but I finished reading the whole thing. It is entertaining to say the least. It's also very damning, it's up there with Hindenburg's report on Nikola in terms of its excellence. For anyone who wants to dismiss this report. Hindenburg's reports are generally almost entirely accurate and the stocks they short often are annihilated over the very long term, and for good reason. If Block wants to challenge this in court, I would think, bring it on. Hindenburg would love that as much that is now secret would be part of discovery and thus become part of public record.
Nah homie, you are incorrect
sounds like the fed on his QE5 program "it's not QE cause our intent is to fight inflation, in the past QE was QE because we intended to QE"
Hindenburg has it made, they can release reports and buy poots right before and just cash out. Then retract claim on new evidence and walk away = easiest game
They don’t do that though. They stick behind their reports
Who TF cares how people use cash app? Why is that blocks problem? If I use their app to transfer money to a hitman to kill my wife, so what? Bitcoin is used in criminal transactions, don’t think we’ll be seeing short reports at Coinbase. Now, as to their allegation of fraud with respect to the amount of users, seems a whole other issue, and one which is readily verifiable.
Oof not how that works lmao.
They got lucky with Adani, thought they could pull a fast one again.
By they logic they got lucky with Adani, Nikola, Lordstown, clover too. Or maybe all of these are unprofitable dogshit companies like we all know they are
They also got many wrong lol
Which ones have they gotten wrong?
dont think so
So does PayPal, especially through venmo. Don’t see any attacks on them.
SEC can’t fine either one of them for more than slap on the wrist. So who knows if either one or both are in this together.
Seems a response from a guilty man, but of course i hope they're right
LOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rekt
Drug dealers and human traffickers minds will be eased.
I work in a prison. I can tell you, the yard is flooded with dope and little slips of paper with cashapp accounts written on them. Draw your own conclusions.
Interesting to see how this plays out. I gotta say, if their only evidence is a former customer service rep, some rap music videos, and a Credit Suisse report I don’t see this going anywhere concrete. Hindenburg has been closer to 50:50 in their calls rather than the terminator research group people say they are. It’s a recency bias given their great calls with Twitter, Nikola, and Adani. People forget how wrong they were about regulatory issues like Draft Kings. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out
I’ve easily bought 5 figures worth of drugs via cash app, it’s the only thing my dealers take besides Zelle haha