Talk:Naked short selling/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Comment

Would anyone like me to fax them my Endovasc 'cert' that I was defrauded into purchasing by 'famed attorney John O'Quinn and those such as James Dale Davidson who ran the scam in part from a Charles Schwab account in 2002 ? I believe that account that helped defraud me of 100% of my investment may have been the Schwab LOM of Bermuda account.I am greatly disappointed that the SEC has allowed this fraud to get so out of control it has even grown since 2002.Now it is being used to promote scammy Nasdaq companies and management as well as OTCBB penny stocks.It is apparently so lucrative and I believe Beltway connected that those running the fraud can enlist politicians such as Senator Bennett of Utah to make the fraud appear a legitmate concern.

If you read my statement on Reg 'Sho' of 2003 you will see I told te SEC I am not in favor of 'naked shorting'per se but even less so people hiding behind false identities and making false claims about it harming what are erssentially illegaL PUMP AND OPS THE sec DOES NOTHING ABOUT.I still believe James Dale Davidson who created 'NAANSS' or National Association Against Naked Short Selling' is behind NCANS.A google search 'schwab lom' or 'attorney o'quinn' or 'naanss ncans' or 'attorney brent baker' or 'james angel georgetown ' plus my nake will give you much to read about this fraud.I will add a link here to my indymedia article 'Charles Schwab Share Money Laundering'that has a link to a pdf file showing that Endovasc placed 'up to 30 million shares'! into one Schwab acount in mid 2002 all the while claiming in pr that a real 'reverse split' was occuring.I had over half a million shares reduced to little more than 10 thousand shares but in theory that would have reduced all shares to under 3 million.In fact Davidson's Agora Inc.promoted Endovasc and over one million shares were 'traded' per day in late 2002.This was not the only massive pump and dump fraudulently disguised as 'naked shorting'.

If you read attorney O'Quinn's statement in a late 2002 pr he claims Schwab,Refco,and Ameritrade naked shorted Endovasc.Why did Schwab not say something and defend and protect me their defrauded account holder ? Because while Endovasc was not 'naked shorted' Schwab did provide an account as I explained above for Endovasc and insiders to the fraud to dump shares from.So I speak from direct experience as a DEFRAUDED INVESTOR WHO WANTS THE TRUTH.EVEN THE SEC'S ATTORNEY BRENT BAKER HAS AIDED THE FRAUD PROTECTED DAVIDSON AND IS NOW EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AS AN ATTORNEY FOR OVERSTOCK.COM AND PATRICK BYRNE WHO NOW USES THE SCAM TO PROBABLY MASK HIS OWN MANIPULATION OF OSTK SHARES.

Also why not mention the CMKX pump dump fraud being investigated by SEC for false claim of being 'naked shorted' ? Or USXP.In fact the SEC is either incompetent or corrupt to have allowed so many penny stocks scams to dump millions or billions of shares on a defrauded public and then falsely blame it on 'naked shorting'.I noted the author of the scammy naked shorting site has erroneously claimed Pet Quarters as an example of victim of naked shorting. If this is so then why has 'famed attorney O'Quinn' who has been promoting the fraudulent lie while never winning one at least won that one ? Because Pet Quarters management signed a deal with the very person they accused and he got super discount shares to dump on public and Pet Quarters management got cash for all those shares that were dumped.Also why does your your wikipedia site not mention any examples of penny scam companies that are at least being investigated for fraudulent naked shorting claim ?

Sincerely Tony Ryals

• We have a saying for people who sit and whine endlessly without contributing anything productive - {{sofixit}}. Seriously, get over to Naked short selling/Workshop and make it better. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Ryals would be welcome making contributions AFTER discussing them first here please.--Mantanmoreland 01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV violations

The above is essentially an argument for what is occurring constantly on this page, which is the removal of material, such as recent comments by officials of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and NASD, that are adverse to the "anti-naked-shorting" point of view. This constant vandalism needs to be addressed.--Mantanmoreland 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have put in a request for semi-protection of the page, which will prevent anonymous editors from reverting to their POV-laden version. There appear to be several IP addresses reverting to this version over the past 2 days, either recruited from outside or a single user with a dynamic address. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection - discussion of dispute

I believe that the current version of the page is preferable to the version which has been re-dumped in by anonymous editors several times over the past few days. Their version appears to suffer from a great deal of WP:NPOV violations and does not present the information in a fair way at all - the thesis appears to be "Naked short selling is bad" which is never something we want to see in a Wikipedia article. As with Hitler, it is better to present the facts and allow the reader to discover that this adds up to a bad thing if that is indeed the case. I invite any of our anonymous doppelgangers to engage in the discussion here to try to come up with a consensus regarding this page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree and see no problem whatseover with the current version, which presents a balanced POV and is not a one-sided rant such as has been repeatedly dumped by the anonymous editors.--Mantanmoreland 22:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'll leave a note on all of the anon talk pages who have contributed their version in the last 24 hours or so that they should come participate in this discussion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree very emphatically. There does need to be a title 'Naked Short Selling' (only because that's the accepted name for the practice) and it needs to be completely rewritten. There is NO balance whatsoever with the current version. It's a one-sided piece that presents naked short selling from the viewpoint of those engaged in the 'illegal' practice. User:Mantanmoreland et al are doing all they can to suppress the fact the the problem exists, calling it a figment of imagination or a valid counter to a pump and dump. Sorry; but train robbery did occur, and it was not a valid counter to the way the railroads were run. If you think naked shorting doesn't happen, and that shares are never sold and not delivered, try out for size http://www.rgm.com/shortselling.html. If you want a more recognizable link, try http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1126706,00.html titled "HOW HEDGE FUNDS TIED TO EMBATTLED BROKER REFCO USED "NAKED SHORT SELLING" TO PLUNDER SMALL COMPANIES". [User:bovinepoor] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.96.70.230 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please comment on specific places in the current article where we can improve. I don't see it as a one-sided piece at all and am curious as to your point of view. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a significant (and so far very productive!) discussion of the page protection taking place at my talk page and User talk:Riverrunrun. Other interested parties may chime in here or there. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a back and forth over personalities, except to say that I'm not trying to "suppress any facts" and I don't think the other editors were trying to do so either. I don't think this kind of comment personally attacking and questioning motives contributes to the discussion. --Mantanmoreland 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I think you'll find we've moved past/around that. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh (sound of head smacking forward) yes I see. I thought that was a discussion of a different dispute.--Mantanmoreland 03:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

May I make one suggestion, however? Might it be possible to have one central place for discussion of this issue? This dispersal of the subject is confusing, at least to the easily confused such as me. --Mantanmoreland 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

---

The problem is that the current version minimizes the "naked shorting is bad" argument; thus, it is not neutral. A neutral treatment would acknowledge that the SEC publishes a list of securities experiencing an abnormal number of "failures to deliver" without explanation. A neutral treatment would acknowledge that naked short selling is a well-known and well-documented means of manipulating the price of a security. It is self-evident; if you can find a broker-dealer willing to short-sell a stock without demanding a borrow, why not short-sell a stock into oblivion?

The current article is a clear violation of the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, as it disregards the fact that naked short-selling has been used to artificially depress the price of numerous stocks, thus it should be re-written. I believe I can draft a balanced view of the issue, if anyone is interested. The current article is too biased to serve as a starting point.

Thanks erudite

From User talk:ESkog and User talk:Riverrunrun

I am copying the conversation we have had on our user talk pages to this central location so that more people may participate in the discussion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Naked Short Selling (Riverrunrun)

Your "Naked Short Selling" page is definitely biased in favor of the naked short seller. It is not neutral!

I have tried to replace it with factual information to no avail. A poster named ESKOG (you?) has entered a message to me that I am in violation of the "neutral" policy of Wikopedia. Either the author is not adequately knowledgeable regarding naked short selling or he is intentionally placing untruthful and biased information on this page.

I sincerely hope that this person is not an official moderator who controls this page. If this is an example of neutrality, it is blatantly hypocritical. Please let me know how to correct erroneous and biased information on this "Naked Short Selling" page.Riverrunrun 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply (ESkog)

First, please keep in mind that we can't have a conversation if your username/IP changes every time you edit. If you could stick to this username for the duration, that would be helpful.

I am not an "official moderator" of Wikipedia; in truth, no one really is. We are all editors trying to work together to create the best encyclopedia possible. Among our guiding principles are a neutral point of view policy and a committment to citing sources whenever possible. I, along with other editors, felt that the version you continued to reinsert was extremely biased with a thesis that "naked short selling is bad." The article is not supposed to be making such an argument; it should only be outlining what it is and a discussion of major literature surrounding the subject. The page has been protected as a result of our edit war, and you are welcome to engage in the discussion on the page's talk page. Our goal is to create a neutral version of the page that stands up to consensus.

Here are some problems I had with your version of the page:

1. "it is generally accepted... [as] simple fraud" in the opening paragraph is clearly not true, and also uses weasel words in lieu of citing a source.
2. The word "apologists" applied to those who argue it is not illegal is a very judgmental word.
3. General phrasing - "It is difficult to argue with a straight face" - "Another canard that is floated by apologists" - "There is no controversy" - fly in the face of maintaining a neutral point of view.
4. The Argument/Fact structure used in the Controversy section is not encyclopedic in the slightest, and is more correctly structured for an argumentative essay. That is not what Wikipedia is about.

I hope these comments help, and feel free to engage in the discussion on the Talk:Naked short selling page. If you have any other questions about the process, my Talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Counter Reply to Naked Short Selling (Riverrunrun)

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully we can have a constructive dialog with truth as the goal.

I have been investing in the stock market for over 30 years and have seen all sorts of schemes to bilk the unsuspecting small investor out of his money. I don't know how much experience you have had with such actions, but, by the tone of you comments, I would guess very little.

You have mentioned several "problems" with removed version of this page. My version attempts to rectify the inaccuracies in the protected version.

You state that this version was "extremely biased with a thesis that 'naked short selling is bad'". I suggest that you look at the SEC ACT of 1933 and 1934. Illegal Sale of an Unregistered Securty has always been forbidden, by Sections 5 and 6 of the Securities Act of 1933, and by provisions of the Securities Act of 1934. It is illegal. In light of this, how do you construe that "naked short selling is bad" is biased? It is nothing more than taking someone's money and not delivering anything in return. That's why they call it FTD (Fails To Deliver), i.e., no shares are ever delivered to the buyer. This is a crime. Crime is bad.

Using this illegal ploy, a hedge fund can, with broker complicity, sell unlimited shares on the open market and drive a target stock issue down dramatically, even to zero. I am not talking about penny stocks either. Believe me, this really is happening to the tune of billions of dollars per day of lost retail investments. Last year I lost over $500,00.00 due to this type of criminal action. The stock involved had over 200% of company issued shares being traded. Now, obiously, not all of these shares were legitimate.

This IS fraud! You say that there is no evidence of this happening. The SEC, DTC and NASD will not allow the true numbers of FTD shares to be given out. Even using the FOIA will not bring forth the numbers. Do you honestly think this is OK?

If you want to remain "neutral", then allow the current version of this page to give facts and not erroneous propaganda in favor of naked short selling. Facts are not argueable. Distortion of same is.

Since the mid 1990's, the SEC has been aware of naked short selling and failed to adequately respond to investor and company complaints alike. In recent years the FBI, SEC, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have conducted investigations into naked short selling and followed these sales through money laundering schemes used by criminal elements. Those elements jeopardize our Homeland Security. Unbelievably, the practice of naked short selling still continues to this day regardless of where the profits are going.

Brokerage firms make their money not by representing their clients, the average investor. They make their money by trading stock. It's that simple. And no one trades more stock that the hedge funds. Between the two of them, they have created some of the wealthiest individuals in America, lining their own pockets with outrageous salaries, unbelievable commissions, and massive bonuses that most Americans can only dream about. And they do it in a stock market where the average investor is still struggling to recoup even a fraction of the losses sustained in the market meltdown of 2000.

They do it by selling stock. It doesn't even matter whether that stock is real or imagined, just as long as the shares keep flowing. It doesn't matter whether the shares are delivered or not, just as long as the "customer" keeps paying the commissions for the shares that flow in a neverending stream from one hand to another. Counterfeit or real, as long as the brokerage firms collect their fees, they'll continue to buy and sell, sell and buy.

As I said previously, you are being hypocritical if you think that the wording of the protected version of this page is "neutral". It is showing the true bias or lack of knowledge of the author. This biased diatribe hurts the small investor, our economy and, by money laundering, our national security. Be informed before taking a stand on neutrality. Learn and advocate the facts. Otherwise you are definitely become part of the problem. Riverrunrun 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply #2 (ESkog)

Alright, I'll gladly admit that you are much more knowledgeable about this specific subject than I am. But "taking a stand for neutrality" is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, and it's not going away anytime soon. With good sources (which it appears you have), we can build an article that is structured in a neutral tone which still presents all the facts. See Murder for a good example of a page about a clearly defined crime - there isn't really a section where we come out and argue that murder is bad, even though we all can agree that it is. We do state why/how/where it is illegal, as well as some famous examples of it. This might be a good model for us to start building the new page. While the page is protected you could create a page such as Naked short selling/temp where we could collaborate on the wording and presentation of the information. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Something important is missing from this article, namely the answer to the question "How is Naked short-selling different from other kinds of short-selling?" Anyone? DJ Clayworth 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Re the "Counterreply": If we ever get to a point at which we are discussing the merits of the emtry, I would like to see the exchange remain calm and without personal attacks ("hypocrisy") or assertions of intellectual hegemony on the basis of asserted "expertise." The "Counterreply" is essentially an aggressive assertion of opinion and appears to be crafted to project the position of pressure-group dogma. --Mantanmoreland 18:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns Regarding Pressure Group Tactics

I think it is a mistake to concede to any user an advantage because of purported experience in the subject matter and assertion of purported "facts." Whether an article is neutral or not is immediately evident regardless of the subject matter. I am disturbed by some of the conclusory comments that I see in this discussion as well as a general effort to overdramatize.

However, before we get into the substance of discussion I want to raise an issue that I find troubling. During the editing there was an insistent text dumping replacing what was, to myself and others, a balanced version which one that struck several of us as entirely one-sided. It should be noted that my own interest in this matter is entirely academic, as I am not employed by the securities industry and am not a "short seller" or a "naked short seller."

Going back in the History I see the presence of a user "bobobrien," which is the name of the principal spokesperson for the anti-naked short-selling cause, Bob O'Brien. In an entry yesterday in Mr. Obrien's website Sanity Check, which appears to be the principal venue for anti-naked shorting sentiment, Mr. O'Brien severely criticized the current page and went on to say as follows:

"Bob O'Brien wrote a different assessment, which explains what the practice is, and describes the various arguments (false) which are associated with the apologists for the practice. You can see it in the new Wikipedia section. It was deleted very quickly, which raises the question, 'Who has such an interest in a one-sided, biased and patently false entry being the prevailing wisdom on Wikipedia?' Anyone that feels that this needs to be corrected should contact Wikipedia and find out how they got taken on this one."

Aside from an understandable lack of appreciation of Wikipedia procedures, the above troubles me as I do not think that Wikipedia entries should be written and then injected forcibly by leaders of pressure groups and their friends.

Therefore I think special care should be taken, given the fact that a pressure group has taken a special interest, in seeing to it that this entry remain neutral. Mr. O'Brien's viewpoint is just that -- a viewpoint -- and I find disturbing this attempt by Mr. O'Brien and others to present their position as a kind of "undeniable truth" on the basis of their "expertise." I also find disturbing the tactics employed.--Mantanmoreland 05:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is important to be careful, but my concerns with the problematic version of the article were at least as much about the nonencyclopedic tone and argumentative style as with the actual content. I think that if well-sourced criticism can be included, we should include it in line with the rest of the article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned by both the tone and the content, given the pressure-group interjection into the process here.--Mantanmoreland 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Agreed, the bobobrien version is a POV.

However, do you not see the following (from the current article) as POVs, non-verifiable, errors, and speculation?

"...the extent to which this practice takes place has been widely exaggerated" POV.

"...allegations of naked short-selling have historically been used as a scapegoat by pump-and-dump scam operators wishing to shift blame for the inevitable decline in manipulated stocks." Verifiable?

"If naked shorting were allowed by SEC rules, other brokerages would step in and naked short the stock bringing it back to true value." POV and speculation.

"By making naked shorts illegal, volume of trading is reduced resulting in higher spreads and illiquidity." Verifiable?

"Also, present naked shorting rules allow brokerages to make large profits doing "bona-fide market making" while stock markets are falling. Since retail investors are not allowed to do naked shorting, this presents an unfairness or uneven playing field." POV, and nonsense. Retail investors USE brokers; they do not compete with them.

"Critics of the practice also charge that naked short-selling could theoretically result in trading in fictitious shares. However, regulators have found no evidence of that actually taking place." POV, provably false. SEC Regulation SHO threshold list is evidence.

"...true naked shorts are typically done by broker-dealers and market makers who are able to maintain such naked short positions in secrecy via simple electronic journaling or book-keeping, intra-firm, to customers who bought and who simply need to see share figures on their statements to feel assured.

This is a practice of questionable legality,..." POV and wrong. This is the subject of the article, and it is illegal. See SEC FAQ

"...but so are the methods that are used to fight naked short-selling, which are also used to fight less controversial forms of short-selling. These include the buyer requesting physical delivery of share certificates." Wrong. Requesting physical delivery of share certificates is ILLEGAL? Then why are brokers agreeing to deliver certificates every day? That is insane.

"Even in the rare instance such share certificate delivery is sought by the shareholder, the broker-dealer or market maker can always belatedly buy the needed shares on the open market, and deliver those. That can artifically inflate share prices via what is known as a "short squeeze." Such manipulative methods are frequently illegal,..." Huh? Legally buying shares to fulfill an obligation to deliver, causing a share price to increase is not illegal, it is exactly how the markets work. POV at best.

"...and are used by scam artists to artificially elevate share prices. Investors who buy shares that have been inflated in that manner can be hurt when the shares, as they invariably do, decline. However, short squeezes allow pump-and-dump scam artists to dump their shares on innocent investors." POV.

"Some critics have contended that there is a "massive stock counterfeiting" conspiracy, with one vocal critical, Overstock Inc. chief executive officer Patrick Byrne, maintainingthat there is a "Sith Lord" behind naked shorting machinations -- a claim that has been met by widespread derision." POV, and misleading. Dr. Byrne has obtained sworn depositions from former employees of Gradient Analytics pertaining to illegal collusion between the research firm and Rocker Partners, a hedge fund holding huge short positions in OSTK. The Sith Lord reference pertains only to the OSTK case, and is a meaningless element of a complicated but credible complaint.

"However, critics of naked short-selling have failed to produce evidence in support of their arguments." Wrong. Evidence: Regulation SHO Threshold List (conspicuously absent from the article, although central to the issue), Dr. Byrne's inability to obtain certificates for shares he PAID FOR.

"Critics of naked shorting are themselves frequently the subjects of harsh criticism, with skeptics pointing out a near total absence of evidence that the practice even exists." POV, wrong. Again with the absence of evidence? And by the way, what is a "near total absense" of evidence? Might that suggest the existence of evidence? Mind if we cover that?

"Indeed, the entire subject was pretty well laid to rest at a November 2005 forum on naked short-selling conducted by the North American Securities Administrators Association, in which regulators testifiedthat has been little or no evidence of extensive naked short selling," Wrong. The panel repeatedly alluded to millions of unexplained failures to deliver in heavily shorted stocks. Transcript.. They were unable to explain the failures. Why?

"James Brigagliano, assistant director of market regulation at the SEC, said, "While there may be instances of abusive short selling, 99% of all trades in dollar value settle on time without incident."" So if one percent ($6 billion) of trades fail, and the fails are concentrated in ten or twenty securities, that is acceptable?

"Despite the overwhelming evidence that "naked shorting" is a nonissue that is a drain on regulatory resources, opponents of naked short-selling continue to press their campaign." Nonissue? Why write about it? Drain on regulatory resources? It's called enforcing the law. Okay, so why not MENTION the Regulation SHO Threshold list and other evidence that naked shorting is taking place?

As written, this piece expresses the POV of one who accepts the existence of naked short selling by brokers, but considers it beneficial in preventing illegal "pump and dump" schemes. Setting aside the lunacy of using one fraudulent practice to combat another, an encyclopedic treatment would simply lay out all of the facts and omit the numerous misstatements, opinions, and speculations riddling the current article. The writer of the current article wants naked short selling by retail investors to be made legal, apparently because s/he was defrauded in the past. None of this is relevant to the issue, and the current article needs to be rewritten.

--Errudite (sic) 14:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Errudite's posting of the SEC FAQ, as it substantiates the concerns that I previously raised and also raises the more fundamental question of why this is even a separate encyclopedia entry at all.

The SEC FAQ shoots down all of the pressure group's arguments. It substantiates none of the assertions made by Errudite above, and I would suggest that interested persons go there and read it. As you can see, this is a highly technical document but it does make several clear statements and above all it does not substantiate -- and indeed repudiates -- the highly charged allegations made re naked shorting.

Naked shorting's "illegality": the FAQ calls it "potentially abusive" and avers to no per se illegality. (See Introduction at paragraph three.) Conclusory words like "illegal" should not be thrown around in an encyclopedia entry on issues related to complex interpretations of the securities laws.

"Counterfeit" Securities: See the answer to Question 7.1, SEC FAQ. The SEC's answer is a clear and unequivocal no. "Naked short selling has no effect on an issuer's total shares outstanding." Thus the cornerstone of the pressure groups' concerns is simply not true.

Regulation SHO deals entirely with what are known as "fails to deliver," which is referred to constantly in pressure-group literature as identical to a nepharious "naked short selling" scheme. However, in the answer to Question 7.1, these concerns are also dismissed: "However, fails to deliver can occur for a variety of legitimate reasons, and flexibility is necessary in order to ensure an orderly market and to facilitate liquidity. Regulation SHO is intended to address the limited situations where fails are a potential problem (for example, fails in securities on a threshold list)."

This is not to say that the current version is perfect. Certainly citations can be added as required. I did not write the section on "Advantages" but restored it from an older version that had been discarded some time ago. However, there is much information in the literature on that issue, and indeed there is much in the literature concerning "naked shorting" allegations being advanced by operators of less than reputable brokerages, such as the Haas and Creative Securities firms to which I posted links.

Any edits to the article should not, in my view, grant equal weight to the objective and recent declarations of regulators, accurately quoted in the current version of the article, versus the emphatic and unsupported allegations of pressure-group spokesman that have been repeatedly shown to be without basis as indicated by the SEC FAQ.

Quite frankly, I believe that this entire subject has been so dragged out of proportion that, as I previously proposed, I believe that an abbreviated version of the current entry should be merged with the entry on short selling. --Mantanmoreland 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Compromise page attempted

I have created a first draft of an attempt at an unbiased article at Naked short selling/Workshop. Feel free to contribute in whatever way you can - make sure to carefully cite unbiased sources as this is apparently a contentious topic. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is not really a compromise. It is an adoption of the "anti-naked shorting" position without the opposing point of view presented and without adequate sourcing. Its length is appropriate, however.--Mantanmoreland 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• The idea is that you will add your own information and sources to the article - it doesn't belong to me. Everything mainstream I found was pretty conclusive to the point that this is an illegal practice which has caused actual damages, so that's what I wrote. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Richard Geist is not an unbiased source. He is a penny stock promoter. Where are your unbiased sources for "actual damages." The SEC says otherwise.--Mantanmoreland 22:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• They're cited in the article. Most clearly the Time Magazine piece outlines the claims that are made. Please go improve the article in the workshop - that's what it's there for, and I know I didn't do a good job presenting the pro-naked shorting side (because, quite frankly, I didn't find a lot of information about it). (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• I have replaced Geist with a source that appears to be more neutral, which also defines this as an illegal process. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of using a secondary source that contains no citation or attribution, why not simply use the primary source that I cited, the the SEC FAQ? It seems to me that this recent, comprehensive document, from an official U.S. Government source, is dispositive on the issues and should be given deference over press accounts and Internet reference manuals. The SEC is a neutral source.

Also I am perplexed by your reference to "investor harm" as the SEC is definitive on that too. The Time article is a rehash of naked shorting allegations. --Mantanmoreland 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to be absolutely adamant that we can't say anything about it being illegal or harmful - but there are considerable, credible claims being made that it may be both. Use your SEC FAQ and improve the article then - I agree that it's a valid source to include. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only source cited here is the Time magazine piece. Frankly I feel the only way to improve the piece is to begin anew, which I don't want to do without a sense if that is OK. --Mantanmoreland 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I put in some balance to the page without rewriting. --Mantanmoreland 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Your edits look good, and the sources are all solid. I think we're really making progress here on a page that will at least be tolerable to all of us. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

ESkog, thank you! You have done a good job of presenting the issue in a balanced and concise manner. I may suggest a few edits here and there, but I appreciate your effort to give us a much more reasonable starting point. Some of us are very passionate about this issue, as you can tell.

Mantanmoreland: yes, SEC spokespeople claim they have no evidence of manipulative naked short selling. Would you expect the SEC to jump up and say "Yes, a massive fraud has been occurring for decades, while we hid the data from the public and did nothing to stop it."? Or would you expect them to say "We can't find any evidence we have been derelict in our duty."? Think about it.

M, by the way, you are right: naked short selling is not illegal. Using naked short selling to manipulate the price of a stock is illegal, and that is what the article about, not naked short selling as a result of clerical errors. My mistake; I presumed that was understood.

Well done, ESkog.

--Errudite (sic) 02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Errudite -- Yes, excellent point. Any practice that is aimed at manipulating the market is illegal. Therefore naked shorting per se is not ilelgal as the SEC observed. Would the SEC acknowledge that a massive fraud has been going on for decades? I think the answer is yes, in the sense that the SEC would acknowledge that some kind of fraud has taken place.

ESkrog, to retain a neutral POV it is important to point out that the allegation of the "expert" hired by the anti-naked shorting lobby has not been substantiated.

Incidentally -- in my edit I removed the reference to Rocker entirely, since one user cites evidence that naked shorting is not alleged. That belongs in the main entry on short selling.--Mantanmoreland 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

naked short page needs work

I don´t understand this issue fully, but I understand it enough to know that there is a lot of misinformation here. Expecially the comments about how naked shorts are a market-based counterweight against pump and dumps. Unless there is something big that I am missing, this is completely false.

You may not agree, but that is the opposing argument, required for a neutral POV. Also (editing my comment to add this) FYI, your best compendium of info on the opposing arguments is the comments from the SEC rulemaking cited in the text. One problem facing researchers on this subject, particularly impoverished students, is that although there is a substantial body of opinion favoring naked shorting or at least opposing the naked shorting campaign, there is no organized pressure group as there is from the anti-shorters. Thus a researcher must do a little digging but it is there, and quite vehement. --Mantanmoreland 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, I agree with your approach and this is an enlightening process for me... I have certainly read balanced writing before, but I am learning just how difficult creating a balanced piece can be.

What is the process / timing for moving ESkog's re-write onto the main page? I can't wait to get rid of the lopsided version.

With a new respect for journalists,

--Errudite (sic) 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a link in the Effects section to a primary source that might be helpful -- an SEC "summary of comments" on its short-selling regulation, which at page 15 lists in a footnote the identity of 45 pro-shorting commenters. A curious reader can go to the link and find the panoply of opinion arrayed there. I thought that would be better than linking to one particular commenter.--Mantanmoreland 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm glad somebody likes it. I was getting some snippy remarks in my "talk" page and I had gotten the impression the debate was totally polarized. What I've tried to do is to balance out the argument with official sources wherever possible. I do get "you shouldn't believe the SEC" feedback but, again, the argument there is with the SEC. Incidentally I don't think the current version is all that lopsided. In fact it makes some points I would like to see in the test page, but which I am omitting for the sake of peace in the world. --Mantanmoreland 00:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What comes next

Once we feel like we've gotten past the "dispute" stage (I would say we have), someone should post a Request for page unprotection so that we can move the new version in. You might also mention that the admin should merge Naked short selling/Workshop in so that we can keep the page history. Or I'll do it later tonight - it doesn't really matter. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As indicated above, ESkog has requested unprotection and merging in of the /Workshop page (it is possible to merge the histories seamlessly). I just wanted to make certain that other parties are happy with that request being approved? Note that /Workshop need not be in complete and final in all its eventual glory, you all just need to be satisfied that the dispute that lead to protection is amicably resolved so that there is no re-eruption. -Splash^talk 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, am happy with the /Workshop version. --Errudite (sic) 18:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Done, with a history merge. The page is no longer protected. Please note that I copied a comment from the talk page to this one. -Splash^talk 22:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Weii I for one am very pleasantly surprised at how well this was (apparently) resolved. Personally I just stumbled on this whole thing in my own research. It actually presented me with new sources and was interesting. --Mantanmoreland 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Talk:Naked short selling/Workshop

Should this article have some sort of reference to "buying stocks on margin," which is essentially the exact opposite of naked shorting?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrerRabbit (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, personally I would suggest not doing so. Also it is not exactly the opposite of buying stocks on margin. --Mantanmoreland 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mantanmoreland... buying stocks on margin is the reverse of regular short selling. To buy on margin, I borrow money (for a fee) to buy a stock, while short selling involves borrowing stock (for a fee) to sell for money. Naked short selling involves selling a stock without first borrowing it. Pretty crazy, huh? --Errudite (sic) 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see why this person made that analogy. It is not a terrible point. In fact it is actually quite thoughtful, but I think that it really belongs in the discussion on ordinary short selling.--Mantanmoreland 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Article Has Been Hijacked

I have been following this discussion for the last several days and have found it very interesting. The editing process of the article has really impressed me. The article, as revised, turned out to be very well done. Now, it seems that someone has again hijacked the article and replaced it with their own version of "the truth".

I agree. I will revert back to the agreed-on compromise version. To avoid a further editing war I suggest that the compromise version be frozen. I would make that request myself but I am not sure of the mechanics. --Mantanmoreland 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't 'freeze' articles, unless there is an outright edit war about it. If someone is reverting without discussion to a version that doesn't have consensual support, then it is ok, to a point, to revert them, with talk messages explaining why. Watch out for the 3RR - part of the reason it works is that editors supporting the consensual version don't need 4 reverts each. -Splash^talk 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I interpret this hijacking of the page to be a resumption of the editing war. The entire compromise page was jetissoned and replaced by a polemic. I am a little hazy about your point re not needing 4 reverts each, but anyway I don't see how correcting vandalism would be subject to that rule. --Mantanmoreland 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to prefer a different version of the page. Re not needing 4 reverts — if it's just two editors warring, both will hit the 3RR and then get stuck with whatever is the last version. If one version has the support of many editors, then a lone opposing editor will run out of reverts long before any of the consensually supported editors will. They'll either stop, or get blocked. -Splash^talk 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I think the problem is that this page has been subject to external publicity from people with a particular point of view. That raises the realistic possibility of neutral editing being overwhelmed by "hijackers." --Mantanmoreland 18:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So far there's just one anonymous editor, and Splash is right that the consensus would be enough to "beat" his/her reverts. If it becomes overwhelming again, we certainly have the option of re-protecting for a day or two to let people find some other way to occupy themselves. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, actually there have been two -- the one that I reverted and the one that you did. Note that both made the same changes. However, you are right that the pace of changes is not what it was and hopefully it will peter out. --Mantanmoreland 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, wholesale changes, despite your warning. Same anonymous editor. I will revert. --Mantanmoreland 03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)