Insights Article
Get the latest insights and updates delivered to your inbox.
On January 15, 2025, Nate Anderson posted a brief note on the Hindenburg Research website announcing that he was disbanding the firm. There was no external threat, no health crisis, no legal judgment. Anderson simply said the intensity had become all-encompassing—that he often woke from dreams because he had thought of an investigative thread to pull—and that, after seven years, he was done.¹
The market reaction was immediate and telling. Adani Group shares surged. Super Micro Computer rallied. The stocks of companies that Hindenburg had targeted or was rumored to be investigating climbed as though a predator had been removed from the ecosystem.² Which, in a very real sense, it had.
Hindenburg Research was not merely a hedge fund that happened to publish research reports. It was, by the time of its closure, one of the most consequential fraud detection mechanisms operating in global capital markets. Anderson credited the firm's work with contributing to nearly 100 individuals being charged civilly or criminally, including billionaires and oligarchs, over the course of its existence.³ Its reports on Nikola Corporation led directly to the founder's conviction on wire and securities fraud charges and, ultimately, the company's bankruptcy filing in February 2025.⁴ Its investigation of Lordstown Motors prompted SEC charges and a $25 million settlement.⁵ Its exposé of Adani Group triggered parliamentary investigations, credit downgrades, and billions of dollars in market capitalization losses across one of India's most powerful conglomerates.⁶
And now it is gone. It did not fail. It simply ceased to exist, because the person running it decided that the personal cost of doing the work had become unsustainable.
Hindenburg's closure is not an isolated event. It is the most visible data point in a structural decline that has been underway for years—a decline that is systematically dismantling one of the most effective, if least appreciated, mechanisms of investor protection in American capital markets: the activist short seller.
Get the latest insights delivered to your inbox.
The numbers are stark. According to Breakout Point, a data analytics firm that tracks short-selling activity, the number of active activist short-selling firms declined from 62 in 2020 to 42 in 2024—a 32 percent contraction in four years.⁷ Hindenburg's closure reduced that figure further. And the firms that remain are operating in an environment of escalating legal risk, regulatory hostility, and cultural stigma that would have been difficult to imagine a decade ago.
Jim Chanos, widely regarded as the most accomplished short seller in the history of American finance—the man who identified Enron's fraud before anyone else—closed his flagship Kynikos Associates fund in 2024 after years of losses driven in part by his short positions against Tesla.⁸ Andrew Left, founder of Citron Research, was criminally indicted by the Department of Justice in July 2024 on one count of engaging in a securities fraud scheme, 17 counts of securities fraud, and one count of making false statements to federal investigators.⁹ His trial is scheduled for March 2026.¹⁰ Carson Block, founder of Muddy Waters Capital, endured a multi-year DOJ and SEC investigation that was dropped without charges—but only after years of legal expense and operational disruption.¹¹
The investigations themselves, regardless of their outcomes, have sent a powerful signal to anyone considering entering or remaining in the activist short-selling business: the government is watching, the costs of defending yourself are enormous, and the personal risks are existential. As Block observed after Hindenburg's closure, most short sellers leave the business after experiencing a reversal of fortune; Anderson was unusual in that he left while ahead.¹²
The result is an ecosystem that is contracting at precisely the moment when the conditions that produce corporate fraud—elevated valuations, speculative capital flows, relaxed regulatory postures, and increasing financial statement complexity—are most pronounced.
The notion that short sellers serve as an informal fraud detection mechanism is not a matter of opinion. It is one of the most robust findings in modern financial economics.
In their landmark 2010 study published in the Journal of Finance, Jonathan Karpoff of the University of Washington and Xiaoxia Lou of the University of Delaware analyzed short-selling activity around 474 firms that were subject to SEC enforcement actions for financial misrepresentation between 1988 and 2005. Their findings were striking: abnormal short interest increased steadily in the 19 months preceding the public revelation of financial misconduct, with the buildup concentrated in cases where the misconduct was most severe.¹³ Short selling was associated with a faster time to discovery of the fraud and a dampening of the share price inflation that occurs when firms misstate their earnings. The authors concluded that short sellers "anticipate the eventual discovery and severity of financial misconduct" and "convey external benefits, helping to uncover misconduct and keeping prices closer to fundamental values."¹³
Fang, Huang, and Karpoff, in a 2016 study in the Journal of Finance, used the SEC's Regulation SHO pilot program—which arbitrarily relaxed short-sale price tests for one-third of the Russell 3000 index—to demonstrate that the prospect of increased short selling reduced earnings management and increased the probability that pre-existing fraud would be detected.¹⁴ The disciplinary mechanism works through two channels: short sellers' ability to identify and profit from the detection of misrepresentation creates a direct incentive to investigate, and the threat of that investigation creates an indirect deterrent against committing the fraud in the first place.
The external governance function of short selling has been documented across multiple dimensions of corporate misconduct. Massa, Zhang, and Zhang (2015) demonstrated that short-selling constraints are associated with higher levels of earnings management.¹⁵ Grullon, Michenaud, and Weston (2015) found that the relaxation of short-selling constraints had real effects on corporate behavior, with increased short-selling activity causally affecting stock prices and, in turn, influencing corporate financing and investment decisions.¹⁶ And Dyck, Morse, and Zingales, in their influential 2010 study on who detects corporate fraud, found that fraud detection does not rely primarily on standard corporate governance actors—auditors detected only 14 percent of cases, and the SEC just 6 percent—but rather on a range of actors including employees, media, and industry regulators. Notably, the study found that short sellers and financial analysts were among the fastest to identify misconduct, with a median detection time of just 9.1 months, and that parties with monetary incentives played a disproportionately important role in surfacing fraud.¹⁷
The SEC itself has recognized this function. The Commission's own research staff has found that the benefits of short selling "are not trivial," estimating that short selling accounts for as much as 49 percent of all listed equity share volume—a figure that reflects not predatory speculation but fundamental market infrastructure.¹⁸ The SEC's whistleblower program, established under the Dodd-Frank Act, has paid nearly $300 million to activist short sellers and other outside tipsters since its creation—more than a third of all awards and approximately 40 percent of total funds disbursed, according to a 2024 report by University of Kansas Law School professor Alexander Platt.¹⁹
In other words, activist short sellers have been among the most effective—and most cost-efficient—fraud detection mechanisms available to investors. They bear their own research costs. They risk their own capital. They face unlimited potential losses if they are wrong. And when they are right, the information they produce benefits every investor in the market, not just themselves.
The forces arrayed against activist short sellers are not accidental. They are the product of deliberate policy choices, political dynamics, and cultural shifts that have collectively made the practice of investigative short selling more dangerous, more expensive, and less sustainable than at any point in the past two decades.
The political dimension is the most overt. President Trump and Elon Musk have both been vocal critics of short sellers. When shares of Trump Media & Technology Group declined in 2024, Trump publicly blamed "naked short sellers."²⁰ Musk has spent years publicly taunting short sellers of Tesla, including sending red boxer shorts to Greenlight Capital's David Einhorn as a taunt.²⁰ These are not merely rhetorical gestures. They reflect a political environment in which short selling has been recast from a legitimate market function into an adversarial act—and in which the regulatory apparatus is being directed accordingly.
The regulatory pressure has been substantial. The Department of Justice launched a wide-ranging investigation into relationships between hedge funds and activist short-selling researchers that rattled the industry for more than three years, seeking information on dozens of money managers and transactions involving more than 50 stocks.²¹ The criminal indictment of Andrew Left—whatever its merits as an individual case—sent a chilling signal to the broader community. As Fahmi Quadir, founder of short-only hedge fund Safkhet Capital, observed at Stanford in 2024: enforcement against fraud itself remains anemic even as enforcement against the people who identify fraud has intensified.²²
The SEC's adoption of Rule 13f-2 and Form SHO, which took effect in 2025, imposes new monthly reporting requirements on institutional investment managers holding short positions exceeding $10 million or 2.5 percent of a company's outstanding shares.²³ The stated purpose is transparency. The practical effect is to increase the cost and operational burden of maintaining short positions—and to create a public data set that can be used by other market participants to identify and target short sellers through coordinated buying campaigns, as the meme-stock episodes of 2021 demonstrated with devastating clarity.²⁴
The GameStop episode was itself a watershed. When retail investors, coordinating through Reddit's WallStreetBets forum, drove GameStop's share price from approximately $20 to nearly $500 in January 2021, the resulting short squeeze inflicted billions of dollars in losses on hedge funds holding short positions.²⁵ The episode was widely celebrated as a populist victory over Wall Street elites. What received less attention was its structural consequence: it demonstrated that maintaining short positions in a social-media-driven market carries a category of risk—coordinated, irrational buying pressure sustained by viral momentum rather than fundamentals—that no risk model had contemplated and no hedging strategy could fully mitigate. Multiple hedge funds reduced or eliminated their short-selling activities in direct response.²⁵
The cumulative effect of these forces—political hostility, regulatory burden, legal exposure, and the risk of coordinated short squeezes—has been to make activist short selling economically irrational for all but the most committed and well-capitalized practitioners. The activity has not been banned. It has simply been rendered unsustainable for most of the people who used to do it.
The most effective way to understand what the decline of activist short selling means for investors is to examine the cases where short sellers identified fraud that no one else caught—and to ask who will perform that function now that the short sellers are disappearing.
Nikola Corporation. In September 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging that Nikola was "an intricate fraud built on dozens of lies," including the claim that the company had staged a video of a prototype truck by rolling it down a hill to create the appearance that it was operating under its own power.⁴ The stock dropped 40 percent. An SEC investigation followed. Founder Trevor Milton resigned, was charged, and was ultimately convicted of wire and securities fraud.⁴ In February 2025, Nikola filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.⁴ Before Hindenburg's report, Nikola had a market capitalization exceeding $20 billion, had entered into a partnership with General Motors, and had attracted investment from major institutional allocators. The auditors did not catch it. The analysts did not catch it. The SEC did not catch it. A short seller with a small team and a website caught it.
Enron. Jim Chanos identified the fundamental problems in Enron's financial statements in late 2000, months before the company's collapse became public knowledge.²⁶ His analysis focused on the discrepancy between Enron's reported earnings and its actual cash flows—a forensic observation that the company's auditor, Arthur Andersen, had either missed or ignored for years. Chanos's short position and his willingness to discuss his thesis publicly contributed to the chain of events that ultimately exposed one of the largest corporate frauds in American history.²⁶
Wirecard. The collapse of Wirecard, the German payments processor, in 2020 was preceded by years of short-selling activity and investigative reporting. Short sellers had flagged irregularities in Wirecard's financial statements long before German regulators—who responded to the short-selling reports not by investigating Wirecard but by banning short sales of its stock and filing criminal complaints against the journalists and short sellers who had raised the alarms.²⁷ When the fraud was finally confirmed—€1.9 billion in reported cash balances simply did not exist—the regulatory response was widely condemned as having protected the perpetrators and punished the investigators.²⁷
In each of these cases, the short seller was the first—and for a critical period, the only—market participant willing to bear the financial, legal, and reputational costs of publicly challenging a company's narrative. The question is not whether such cases will arise in the future. They will. The question is who will be positioned to identify them.
The decline of activist short selling creates what might be called a "detection gap"—a structural reduction in the market's capacity to identify and surface corporate fraud before it metastasizes into the catastrophic failures that destroy investor capital.
This gap cannot be filled by the traditional gatekeepers. The PCAOB's own inspection data shows elevated audit deficiency rates, particularly among mid-tier firms.²⁸ The SEC's enforcement capacity, as we have discussed in prior Insights, faces budgetary and political constraints.²⁹ Sell-side analysts, whose compensation is tied to the investment banking relationships of their employers, have structural disincentives to publish negative research on current or prospective clients.³⁰ Proxy advisory firms are under regulatory pressure.³¹ And the academic research is unambiguous: these traditional monitors have historically been less effective at detecting corporate fraud than parties with direct financial incentives to find it.¹⁷
The result is a market in which the primary external mechanism for identifying financial misrepresentation—the profit-motivated investigator who risks capital to surface uncomfortable truths—is being systematically dismantled. What remains is a system that relies overwhelmingly on internal controls, auditor diligence, and regulatory oversight, all of which the historical record demonstrates are necessary but insufficient.
Consider the implications in the context of the current market environment. Equity valuations are elevated. SPAC and IPO activity, while moderated from 2021 peaks, continues to introduce companies into public markets with limited operating histories and aggressive financial projections. The use of non-GAAP metrics, as we have previously documented, has reached levels that the SEC's own enforcement officials have described as a "fraud risk factor."³² Goodwill balances on U.S. corporate balance sheets exceed $5.6 trillion.³³ And the restatement data suggests that accounting errors are increasingly being classified at lower severity tiers to avoid triggering accountability mechanisms.³⁴
Every one of these conditions represents an opportunity for short sellers to perform their investigative function. And in every one of these areas, there are now fewer short sellers doing the work.
Get the latest insights delivered to your inbox.
For institutional investors deploying capital on the basis of public company financial statements, the decline of activist short selling is not a peripheral development. It is a material change in the informational environment in which investment decisions are made.
When activist short sellers were more numerous and more active, they served as a de facto early warning system. Their research reports, filed 13F disclosures, and public commentary provided a stream of negative information that could be evaluated, verified, and incorporated into investment models. Even investors who never traded on a short seller's thesis benefited from the information it produced—because that information was reflected in prices, scrutinized by other analysts, and frequently picked up by regulators.
That information stream is now diminishing. And the institutional investors who benefited from it passively must now decide whether to compensate for its absence actively.
The first and most important adjustment is a renewed commitment to independent forensic analysis. In a market where the external supply of negative research is contracting, the internal capacity to identify financial statement anomalies must expand. This means not merely reviewing audited financials but interrogating them: comparing reported results against cash flows, testing management's assumptions against observable market data, triangulating segment-level disclosures against industry benchmarks, and treating the absence of impairment charges, restatements, and adverse disclosures not as evidence of health but as signals warranting independent verification.
The second adjustment is to monitor the residual short-selling community with greater attention. The activists who remain—Muddy Waters, Safkhet Capital, Spruce Point Capital, and a handful of others—are operating under extreme pressure, and their research reports carry correspondingly greater signal value. When one of the remaining activist short sellers publishes a report on a company held in an institutional portfolio, the appropriate response is not to dismiss it as adversarial but to evaluate it forensically: are the factual claims verifiable? Are the accounting arguments technically sound? Does the thesis explain patterns in the financial data that the investment team had observed but not investigated?
The third adjustment involves auditor scrutiny. In the absence of short sellers serving as an external check on audit quality, institutional investors must take a more active role in evaluating the competence and independence of the firms auditing their portfolio companies. The PCAOB publishes inspection reports that identify specific audit deficiencies. These reports are publicly available and increasingly accessible in machine-readable formats.²⁸ Investors who are not incorporating auditor quality metrics into their research processes are, in our view, accepting a risk that the market's diminished fraud-detection capacity makes materially more dangerous.
The fourth adjustment is engagement with corporate governance. Short sellers' most important function was not the act of selling stock short. It was the act of producing and disseminating negative information about companies that had structural incentives to suppress it. In the absence of that external pressure, institutional investors must generate equivalent pressure from within: through direct engagement with audit committees, through informed proxy voting, and through the willingness to ask management the uncomfortable questions that a short seller would have asked publicly.
The decline of activist short selling is not a story about hedge fund closures. It is a story about the erosion of a market mechanism that has, for decades, served as one of the most effective—and most cost-efficient—tools of investor protection in the American financial system.
Short sellers did not perform this function out of altruism. They performed it because the market rewarded them for being right about things that companies wanted to keep hidden. The incentive structure was elegant: the profit motive aligned the short seller's private interest with the investing public's collective interest in accurate financial reporting. When a short seller identified a fraud and the stock price declined, every investor in the market received the benefit of more accurate pricing—and the executives who had perpetrated the fraud faced consequences they could not suppress through internal channels.
That mechanism is now weakened. The firms that conducted investigative short-selling research are fewer. The regulatory environment has made the practice more costly and more legally perilous. The political environment has transformed short sellers from market participants into political targets. And the cultural legacy of the meme-stock era has cast the short seller not as an investigator but as a villain—an adversary to be defeated through coordinated buying rather than evaluated on the merits of the research.
What remains is a market that is, in the aggregate, less equipped to detect financial misconduct before it produces catastrophic losses. The auditors are stretched. The regulators are constrained. The analysts are conflicted. And the short sellers—the one group of market participants whose economic survival depended on identifying what was wrong, not on maintaining relationships with the companies they covered—are disappearing.
For institutional investors, this is not an abstract policy concern. It is a risk factor. It means that the next Enron, the next Wirecard, the next Nikola will take longer to surface and will destroy more capital before it does. It means that the informational advantage once provided for free by the activist short-selling ecosystem must now be built internally, at the investor's own expense, or accepted as a gap in the analytical framework.
The companies that commit fraud are not going to stop because the short sellers are gone. They are going to do more of it, with less fear of detection, for longer. The only question is whether the investors who bear the losses will recognize what has changed—and adjust their defenses accordingly—before the next fraud goes undetected for a decade rather than a year.
The short sellers were never popular. They were never comfortable allies. But they were effective. And the market that is taking shape without them is one in which the balance of power has shifted—quietly, but decisively—toward the people with the most to hide.
Get the latest insights delivered to your inbox.
Referenced Sources:
[1] Anderson, N., "A Personal Note From Our Founder," Hindenburg Research (January 15, 2025).
[2] The Network Journal, "Hindenburg Research Shuts Down After 7 Years of Impact" (January 2025), noting Adani Group shares surged following the announcement of Hindenburg's closure.
[3] Anderson, N., supra note 1 (crediting the firm's work with contributing to "nearly 100 individuals being charged civilly or criminally, including billionaires and oligarchs").
[4] Hindenburg Research, "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (September 10, 2020). See also Wikipedia, "Hindenburg Research" (last updated January 2026), documenting that Trevor Milton was convicted of wire and securities fraud and that Nikola Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on February 19, 2025.
[5] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, "SEC Charges Lordstown Motors Corp. with Misleading Investors About Demand for Its Flagship Vehicle" (2021), resulting in a $25 million settlement. See also TechCrunch, "Hindenburg Research, a short seller that targeted tech and EV companies, is closing up shop" (January 15, 2025).
[6] Hindenburg Research, "Adani Group: How The World's 3rd Richest Man Is Pulling The Largest Con In Corporate History" (January 24, 2023). See also Al Jazeera, "Muckraking financial firm Hindenburg Research to disband, founder says" (January 16, 2025).
[7] Yahoo Finance, "Hindenburg Research shutting down highlights 'wear and tear' of activist short-selling" (January 25, 2025), citing Breakout Point data showing 42 active short-seller firms in 2024, down from 62 in 2020.
[8] Institutional Investor, "Can Short Selling Survive Trump 2.0?" (2025), noting that Chanos shut down his Kynikos hedge fund in 2024 after years of losses, including his bets against Tesla.
[9] U.S. Department of Justice, "Activist Short Seller Charged for $16M Stock Market Manipulation Scheme," Press Release (July 25, 2024). See also U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, "Andrew Left, and Citron Capital, LLC," Litigation Release No. 26056 (July 26, 2024), alleging a $20 million multi-year fraud scheme.
[10] U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, United States v. Andrew Left, noting trial continued to March 17, 2026.
[11] Institutional Investor, "Can Short Selling Survive Trump 2.0?" supra note 8, noting Block received a close-out letter from the SEC indicating the investigation was closed without charges.
[12] Yahoo Finance, supra note 7, quoting Block: "He's basically going out on top. Most people when they leave short selling, it's after they've experienced a reversal of fortune."
[13] Karpoff, J.M. & Lou, X., "Short Sellers and Financial Misconduct," Journal of Finance, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp. 1879–1913 (October 2010). Using the Karpoff-Lee-Martin database of 632 SEC enforcement actions for financial misrepresentation initiated from 1988 through 2005, the study analyzed the 474 firms for which short interest data were available and found abnormal short interest increasing steadily in the 19 months preceding public revelation, with buildup concentrated in cases of severe misconduct.
[14] Fang, V.W., Huang, A.H. & Karpoff, J.M., "Short Selling and Earnings Management: A Controlled Experiment," Journal of Finance, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 1251–1294 (June 2016). Using the SEC's Regulation SHO pilot program, which arbitrarily exempted one-third of the Russell 3000 index from short-sale price tests during 2005–2007, the study found that pilot firms exhibited lower discretionary accruals, a reduced likelihood of marginally beating earnings targets, and an increased probability that pre-existing fraud would be detected.
[15] Massa, M., Zhang, B. & Zhang, H., "The Invisible Hand of Short Selling: Does Short Selling Discipline Earnings Management?" Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 1701–1736 (2015).
[16] Grullon, G., Michenaud, S. & Weston, J.P., "The Real Effects of Short-Selling Constraints," Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 1737–1767 (2015).
[17] Dyck, A., Morse, A. & Zingales, L., "Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?" Journal of Finance, Vol. 65, No. 6, pp. 2213–2253 (December 2010). Studying all reported fraud cases in large U.S. companies between 1996 and 2004, the authors found that auditors detected only 14 percent of cases and the SEC just 6 percent; employees (19%), media (14%), and industry regulators (16%) were more important monitors. Short sellers and financial analysts were the fastest detectors, with a median time to discovery of 9.1 months from the beginning of the fraud. Monetary incentives were found to help explain the effectiveness of certain actors, including employee whistleblowers.
[18] Managed Funds Association, "An Introduction to Short Selling" (updated April 2025), citing SEC staff findings that the benefits of short selling "are not trivial" and estimating short selling accounts for as much as 49 percent of listed equity share volume.
[19] Platt, A., University of Kansas School of Law, 2024 report on SEC Whistleblower Program, as cited in Institutional Investor, "Can Short Selling Survive Trump 2.0?" supra note 8, estimating activist short sellers and other outside tipsters received nearly $300 million—approximately 40 percent of total funds disbursed—since the program's creation.
[20] Institutional Investor, "Can Short Selling Survive Trump 2.0?" supra note 8, documenting Trump's public attribution of Trump Media & Technology Group stock declines to "naked short sellers" and Musk's history of taunting short sellers, including sending red boxer shorts to David Einhorn.
[21] Fortune, "Short-seller Andrew Left accused of illegal trades and bragging that it was like taking 'candy from a baby'" (July 26, 2024), noting that the cases against Left "stem from a wide-ranging US effort to examine relationships between hedge funds and skeptical researchers" that had "rattled the industry for three years" and sought information on "dozens of money managers and activists, as well as transactions involving more than 50 stocks."
[22] Quadir, F., remarks at Stanford Graduate School of Business, Corporations and Society Initiative event (February 2, 2024): "Nothing is going to change if there isn't enforcement. We need to have some high-profile cases where people go to jail."
[23] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Rule 13f-2 and Form SHO, Final Rule, Release No. 34-98738 (effective January 2, 2024; compliance date 2025), requiring institutional investment managers to report short positions exceeding $10 million or 2.5 percent of outstanding shares on a monthly basis.
[24] Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal LLP, "SEC Adopts New Disclosure Rule Aimed at Increasing Short-Selling Transparency" (May 2024), noting that "there may also be increased risks from short squeezes as other investors may be able to identify stocks with concentrated short positions."
[25] See, e.g., CNBC, "Short sellers help stocks find their true values and expose fraud, despite the hate they receive" (February 23, 2021), discussing the GameStop short squeeze and its impact on hedge fund short-selling activity.
[26] Bethany McLean & Peter Elkind, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron (Portfolio, 2003), documenting Chanos's identification of Enron's accounting irregularities in late 2000, months before the company's public collapse.
[27] Dan McCrum, Money Men: A Hot Startup, A Billion Dollar Fraud, A Fight for the Truth (2022), documenting the Wirecard fraud and the German regulatory response of banning short sales and pursuing criminal complaints against short sellers and journalists rather than investigating the company.
[28] Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Staff Spotlight: Significant Improvements Across Largest Firms, Alongside Inspection Results in Record Time (March 31, 2025). See also Buxton Helmsley, "Who Watches the Watchmen? The Fight Over America's Audit Oversight—and Why Investors Should Be Paying Attention," Insights (February 15, 2026).
[29] Buxton Helmsley, "Who Watches the Watchmen?" supra note 28.
[30] See generally Lin, H. & McNichols, M., "Underwriting Relationships, Analysts' Earnings Forecasts and Investment Recommendations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 101–127 (1998), documenting systematic optimism bias in sell-side research attributable to investment banking relationships.
[31] See The White House, Executive Order, "Protecting American Investors from Foreign-Owned and Politically-Motivated Proxy Advisors" (December 11, 2025). See also Buxton Helmsley, "New Rules of Engagement: What the SEC's Rule 14a-8 Shift and the Proxy Advisor Executive Order Mean for Institutional Investors," Insights (February 12, 2026).
[32] See Buxton Helmsley, "The Non-GAAP Illusion: How Adjusted Earnings Obscure Corporate Reality—and What Institutional Investors Should Do About It," Insights (February 23, 2026), citing former SEC Chief Accountant in the Division of Enforcement Howard Scheck's characterization of non-GAAP metrics as a "fraud risk factor."
[33] See Buxton Helmsley, "The $5.6 Trillion Blind Spot: Goodwill, ASC 350, and the Accounting Standard That Stopped Working," Insights (March 3, 2026).
[34] See Buxton Helmsley, "The Vanishing Restatement: How America's New Clawback Rules Created a Perverse Incentive to Bury Accounting Errors—and What Institutional Investors Must Do About It," Insights (February 26, 2026).
This article is published by Buxton Helmsley USA, Inc. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, a solicitation, or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. The views expressed are those of Buxton Helmsley and are based on publicly available information as of the date of publication. Investors should conduct their own due diligence and consult with qualified professionals before making investment decisions.
Insights and updates delivered directly to your inbox.