Talk:Naked short selling: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:01, 2 June 2007 editPiperdown (talk \| contribs)1,821 edits rm generic warnings that have outlived their usefullness and dominate this page - issues cited in the warnings are obsolete to current page conditions← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:45, 3 June 2007 edit undoSamiharris (talk \| contribs)1,443 edits these warnings are helpful as page seems to have a history of combat and heated debate, personal attacks trolling, please do not removeNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Bus&Econ\|class=Start\|importance=Mid}}		{{Bus&Econ\|class=Start\|importance=Mid}}
	{{talkheader}}		{{talkheader}}
			{{Off topic warning}}
			{{calm talk}}
			{{TrollWarning}}
	*]		*]
	*]		*]

Revision as of 16:45, 3 June 2007

Template:Bus&Econ

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naked short selling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Naked short selling. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Naked short selling at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:TrollWarning

Reasons for Version 14:10, 6 October 2006:

I thought I should state my reasons for reinstating the above-mentioned version.

1. Definitional section, Line 1: Overall, there is no change in substance here, but I think there is definite improvement in clarity.

2. “The Practice”, Line 6: Again, no major substantive changes, merely an improvement in clarity. I would disagree that the addition of “and then failing to deliver it to the buyer” is accurate in order to have a naked short sale of a security, however the addition is probably necessary because the current discussion among regulators and participants focuses upon the insidious results of naked short selling. It might help to clarify this aspect of the Misplaced Pages page by elaborating upon the history of the bear raids precipitating the stock market crash of 1929, which directly led to congressional curtailment of shorting, specifically naked shorting, in the Securities Act of 1933. Side 3. “Does Naked Shorting Drive Stock Prices Down?”, Line 18: I think that the additional paragraph after the large blocked paragraphs could be simplified. I am not sure it adds anything. it is factually accurate although it is unsourced. Naked short selling is often accompanied by dissemination in the media of distortive misinformation or disinformation. (See also Misplaced Pages’s page on media bias.)

4. Under “Controversy”, several suggested edits to the Mantanmoreland version appear to have improved the clarity of this section, but perhaps there is still room for improvement.

4.a. The prior version began “Some investors....” The latest version change this to “Some traders....” I would suggest “Some market participants....” but have not made this change. Others may be inspired to do so, however.

4.b. The prior version then proceeded to state: “Naked short-sellers claim that they are enacting market pressure against overpriced and undertraded small-cap stocks.” The proper word is “exerting,” not “enacting.” Enactment has to do with laws or with acting out, as on a stage. The subsequent description under “Controversy” of the prior Mantanmoreland version has engendered the most significant edits from other readers. In full, it read as follows:

- In the bubble of the 1990s, they argue, regulations against short-selling would have caused an even greater boom and bust.

- Penny stock brokerages urge all investors to keep their stocks in cash accounts so that no shares can be shorted. The penny stock fraudsters can then illegally hype the stock to very high prices allowing the penny stock fraudsters to pump and dump their shares.

- Naked shorting keeps the penny stock brokerages from driving prices above the true value of the stock. The free market in this case could prevent the crime of pumping and dumping without any additional police or raising taxes.

- Pump and dump organizations sometimes are run by the Mafia (see Gary Weiss's true story of Hanover Sterling in the book Born to Steal, published in 2003).

Critics contend that the naked shorting is fraud, and that it constitutes "taking a buyer's money and not delivering the product." However, the SEC denies that occurs, saying that a fail to deliver "does not mean that the customer's purchase is not completed."

This campaign has drawn criticism. Financial columnist Floyd Norris of the New York Times observed that "Investors who own shares might do better to try to understand why some think the shares are overvalued, rather than simply rail about unfair short selling."

Critics of the naked shorting campaign contend the practice is not harmful and its prevalence exaggerated. Opponents include Wall Street Journal, which criticized the naked shorting allegations in an editorial, and columnist Joseph Nocera of the New York Times. Author and journalist Gary Weiss criticized the anti-shorting campaign in his book “Wall Street Versus America," as a diversion of regulatory resources from more pressing issues.

4.c. What is the purpose of the foregoing? The above definitely expresses its preference for a particular “side” of the controversy and therefore falls (far) short of the standards Misplaced Pages requires for an unbiased presentation of both sides of an issue. For example, the following statement – “Penny stock brokerages urge all investors to keep their stocks in cash accounts so that no shares can be shorted. The penny stock fraudsters can then illegally hype the ...” – is fallacious for a number of reasons. Following the preceding sentence (“In the bubble of the 1990s, they argue, regulations against short-selling would have caused an even greater boom and bust”), the first declaration that follows is a non sequitor and fails to explain why this should be so. If this declaration is to be retained, it should explain the theory behind why keeping stocks in a cash account (as opposed to a margin account) is supposed to curtail misappropriation (by one’s broker, I might add) of one’s shares. Second, it appears to be a statement of fact, and as such it incorrectly assumes that naked shorting is only a problem of so-called penny stocks and incorrectly presumes that a broker (and by extension the DTCC) will abide by regulation and not abuse an investor’s securities that are held in street name. The extent to which certain brokers are abusing their custody of investor assets is precisely a large part of the controversy surrounding naked short selling. Next, the second statement of the prior version, “...penny stock fraudsters...”, is, in addition to also being a non sequitor, is unnecessarily laden with bias and innuendo. It serves only to confuse or divert the focus away from what should be a Misplaced Pages (encyclopedic) explanation of naked short selling. Its proper interpretation is not possible, because the statement is inherently inconsistent or incoherent. Does it mean that all penny stocks are “frauds”? If penny stock “fraudsters” are to be distinguished from legitimate penny stock “promoters,” then the addition of “illegally” is redundant. US courts of law mandate that an allegation of fraud must be plead with “particularity” or the allegation will be tossed out, so to toss around “fraud”, “fraudulent” etc. willy-nilly, without any specific context, is to commit the combined fallacies of argumentum ad ignorantiam, circulus in demonstrando, dicto simpliciter, petitio principii, post (and/or cum) hoc ergo propter hoc, red herring, and straw man all at the same time.

4.d. As for the rest of the prior version’s summation of the “Controversy,” I think more need not be said about it here, except that others have repeatedly pointed out spamming some obscure author’s biased opinion as the “definitive” authority on the subject has no place under a heading entitled “controversy.” Furthermore, there is no Misplaced Pages entry for “Joseph Nocera,” and the continual kneejerk reversions to older version(s) which perpetuate that error are becoming irritating. The latest version merely reads as follows:

* * *

Critics contend that naked shorting is fraud, and that it constitutes "taking a buyer's money and not delivering the product." However, the SEC denies that interpretation, saying that a fail to deliver "does not mean that the customers purchase is not completed." The SEC doesn't articulate how a purchase is concluded absent delivery of the product purchased, however.
Harvey Pitt, the former Chairman of the SEC from 2001 to 2003, formalized his understanding of the practice's damaging impact in a recent Forbes Magazine editorial .
Regulation SHO requires the timely close-out of securities that linger on Regulation SHO, but it is not enforced, as there are stocks that have been listed for over 1 year. Every day there are new stocks that exceed the 13 day closed-settlement date. The fact that there are securities on Regulation SHO for more than 13 days has led many observers to comment on the inadequacy of the regulation.
In general, I think the above is a vast improvement over the prior version, and I am certainly not alone in that regard, but there is probably still room for further improvement. Avoiding the contraction “doesn’t” springs to mind. If others see fallacy or error in the current “Controversy” summation, then they should state their reasons HERE, and not engage in ad hominim attacks and immediate reversions (to prior versions) without considering the evolution that this page has had to date.
5. “Regulators Respond”: As with the prior section, I think the way the current version reads is an improvement over the prior version, both in clarity and for succinctness. Ocham’s Razor, and all that....
6. “Recent Developments”: The changes between the versions are minor. But again, to “wipe out” the latest edits with a knee-jerk reversion to a much older, discredited version of this page is irresponsible and disrespectful to the person(s) who took the time and effort to make a contribution to this project.
Sincerely and respectfully,
UB
It's about time someone gave Joseph Nocera at least a stub. Here's a good place to start. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/bio-nocera.html --Christofurio 21:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC) I may do it later this weekend if I haven't persuaded anybody else to get there ahead of me!

Cellar Boxing: A Term of Art?
I deleted a sentence that seemed to be repetitive of material already there except for the introduction of some new lingo. It claimed that there's a term of art for naked shorting, "cellar boxing." I found a few uses of this term via "google," but the ones that related to naked shorting seemed to mirror each other suspiciously. A lot of the appearances of the term are in irrelevant contexts, i.e. "I would only work out in my cellar, boxing isn't a sport of mine...." The few that are relevant only indicate very rare usage, not a notable term of art. More important, perhaps, the reference was inserted into a quotation from an SEC document! If you follow the link to that document, you'll see that the sentence about cellar boxing wasn't in the original. --Christofurio 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm
Also, note that the references to Joseph Nocera have gone from red to blue, so that particular objection to the material is moot.

Problems with "Controversy"
Two points:
First, one might expect the "Controversy" section to present the points of views of naked short-selling critics in a balanced fashion vs. those of defenders of the practice. However,
(1) The first half of this section attempts to justify naked short-selling with no rebuttal, (2) Each criticism of the practice in the second half of this section is promptly rebutted, and (3) Critics' point of view is never clearly explained (see below).
Why is that? Given the amount of brainpower expended on this page, why is it so lopsided?
Second, the language below makes no sense. Why are we allowing it to stand?

Critics contend that the naked shorting is fraud, and that it constitutes "taking a buyer's money and not delivering the product." However, the SEC denies that occurs, saying that a fail to deliver "does not mean that the customer's purchase is not completed."

By definition, when a naked short sale occurs, shares are neither borrowed nor delivered. The seller has the money, but the buyer has no shares. How could the customer's purchase possibly be completed? The SEC quote makes no sense in this context; it is non-responsive to the criticism. Heck, the SEC quote does not even address naked shorting per se; it addresses "fail to deliver". Is there a good reason to use a non-responsive, not-quite-on-topic SEC quote?
In general, this article seems to reflect a view that naked short-selling is interesting despite criticisms of the practice. In fact, naked short-selling is interesting precisely because evidence suggests it is being used to manipulate stock prices. Absent its critics, naked short-selling would be of no importance whatsoever. The article should reflect this reality by making the controversy the central topic and exploring both points of view thoroughly.
By the way, I am adding a link to SEC comments on proposed SHO amendments.
--Errudite (sic) 23:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Some defend NSS as just another tool of the market 2. Some caution against federal regulation 3. Naked short-sellers enact market pressure against overpriced small-caps 4. In the bubble of the 1990s, short-selling mitigated the damage 5. NSS deters penny stock fraudsters 6. Prevent pump and dump without police or taxes 7. Pump and dump organizations are run by the Mafia 8. Naked shorting is fraud 9. Taking buyer’s money and not delivering product 10. SEC says FTD does not mean purchase is not completed 11. SEC has acted against NSS under pressure from small companies 12. Campaign has drawn criticism 13. NYT says investors should focus on why shares are heavily shorted 14. Critics contend NSS is harmless and infrequent 15. WSJ criticized NSS allegations 16. GW criticized anti-NSS campaign as NSS deters pump-and-dump 17. GW says NSS regulations are a “diversion”

Number of points made in the "Controversy" section: 17
Number of points defending naked short selling: 15
Number of points criticizing naked short selling: 2
Hi-jacking a supposedly neutral forum and using it to mislead the public: Priceless. --Errudite (sic) 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is Gary Weiss?
And why would anyone care about his ridiculous opinion regarding the utility or propriety of allowing naked short selling as a deterrent to illegal pump and dump schemes?
I don't see how this article is served by referencing the opinions of unknown parties with undetermined conflicts of interest. --Errudite (sic) 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If you were really interested in who he was/is, you might have simply checked out the wiki article addressing that question, Gary Weiss. Or is the question rhetorical, sort of like starting a novel with "Who is John Galt?" At any rate, who is Errudite (sic), who doesn't bother to register as a user? --Christofurio 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That question is rhetorical; the next question is not. In fact, I have no interest in who he is as I find ludicrous the notion of allowing one illegal behavior to counter another. Sort of like allowing murder to counter rape: dead people can't rape; never mind if the wrong people get murdered. By the way, I am registered, but I am not cited in the article, and properly so. Not sure where you are going with the ad hominem comments. Any comments on the article? --Errudite (sic) 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If a person of notability equal to Weiss' maintained that murder shouldn't be prosecuted because it may deter rape, would that opinion not be notable? worth mentioning in an article on the laws on murder? If not, explain why not. At any rate, my only point was that your comment makes no sense unless you're trying to imply that Weiss is less notable than, say, Patrick Byrne or anybody else cited in the article. You've given no reason for that, except by asking a question which you now say yourself you didn't care about. Should anybody else care about your questions/comments if you don't, or are you just practicing your typing? --Christofurio 14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my point. Anyone who would take such a ridiculous stance is not worthy of attention. Notable? Weiss? Don't think so. When I get around to it, I will delete his silliness. If you don't care about my comments, why are you wasting time responding to them? Dictionary.com can help you out on the whole "rhetorical" thing. Good luck. --Errudite (sic) 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I do care about your willingness to make deletions from this article that I don't believe to be warranted. I don't care about your comments insofar as they are only rhetorical flourishes. You start off asking who somebody is then say you don't care who he is, and you say you're "registered" but your name remains red, and aside from those flourishes ... have you had anything to say at all? Words like "ridiculous" don't constitute reasoning. They constitute labelling. There's a difference. You have not yet given any reason for deleting any material relating to Weiss except that you don't like what he's quoted as saying. I don't like a lot of things that get quoted in encyclopedias. Big deal. So your point is ...? --Christofurio 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Weiss' position seems to be that illegal naked short selling is a useful deterrent against illegal pump and dump. I think this is illogical. Rather than unleash a band of thieves to stop another band of thieves, hoping they don't steal anything from the good guys (or ignoring the fact that they do), I am in favor of enforcing the law, as I believe most rational readers are. I think most readers will be confused by a suggestion that a practice known to be harmful to businesses, destructive to honest investors, and illegal on its face be allowed to continue, regardless of its effects on other crooks. --Errudite (sic) 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for finally attempting a more substantive point. But I still don't see a case for deletion. After all, "this quotation takes a position which I find irrational" is no case for deletion. People who argue for a flat earth, or even a hollow earth, are quoted in encyclopedias, including this one, all the time. We aren't including only authors with whose views we agree. If readers are confused by suggestions, then they really can't be trusted with an open encyclopedia.
Furthermore, I for one am not of the view that all laws are equally deserving of enforcement. If my local police department decided to stop going after marijuana smokers, I'd be delighted, not because I smoke the stuff but because I think its efforts in that area are a waste of my tax dollars. Even if people who think as I do can't prevail in the legislature to get the laws off the books, the view that enforcement should be de-emphasized isn't inherently irrational.
Indeed, although the brief passage stating his view in this article doesn't spell that out, Weiss' book contends that the laws and regulations against naked short selling are wrong. The enforcement issue is secondary for him. But, obviously, if you believe a law to be misguided (as I do in the marijuana case) you're also likely to believe the same about its enforcement. --Christofurio 14:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
So Weiss believes the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, which requires prompt settlement of trades including delivery of actual shares to the buyer, is wrong? Certain people should be allowed to violate the SEC Act and sell short as many millions of shares of targeted companies as they want, pocket the cash, and never deliver the shares to the buyer? Buyers should be content that their brokers claim the buyer owns shares, when in fact all they have done is enrich the seller and dilute the value of the company by creating "phantom" shares? Oh, now I see. Thanks for clearing that up. Weiss is obviously looking out for investors' best interests. --Errudite (sic) 21:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Christofurio on this. Weiss is a respected market commentator.Samiharris 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but if the statement attributed to Gary Weiss in this article is accurate, it is my considered personal opinion that Gary Weiss is an imbecile, a crook, or both. As such, citations to GW should be removed. --Errudite (sic) 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No offense taken, though I do not agree with removal. I see that there was an addition to the article, with the Overstock suit. I agree with Christofurio that lawsuits against brokerages are not per se notable, so will remove and replace with a summary sentence concerning the general issue of private (as opposed to SEC) lawsuits. Also I have added comments from Joe Nocera that I believe have a bearing on this article and also addresses Errudite's concerns. Do you have an opinion on the Reg. SHO article?--Samiharris 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Christofurio and Samiharris. Do not remove content from Misplaced Pages because one does not agree with it. Under certain circumstances it can be considered vandalism.--Mantanmoreland 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think anyone considered notable enough to have an article on Misplaced Pages is a credible source for articles on subjects related to the reasons that they are considered notable. Gary Weiss is considered notable enough for inclusion on Misplaced Pages because of his work as a journalist in financial and securities exchange-related issues. Therefore, he is a credible source for an opinion on this issue. Cla68 07:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate article on Regulation SHO?
Can someone please explain to me why there is a separate article with the title "Regulation SHO"? Shouldn't that article be folded into this one?--Samiharris 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a blatant POV fork and should be deleted.--Mantanmoreland 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

lawsuits
Removed statement that Novastar has sued alleging naked short selling. A group of shareholders sued in California court, but the company is not a party to the suit. It is therefore not notable. Lawsuits and enforcement actions related to naked short selling of Sedona Corp and the Refco Group might be included, however. Also, the settlement of Friedman Billings and Ramsey founder Emmanuel Friedman with the SEC with respect to his firm's abuse of the short selling delivery requirements prior to issuance of PIPEs deals would be on point. It also eliminates the conclusion that no suit has been successful, since banning from the profession and multi-million dollar settlements generally counts as success.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.57.229 (talk • contribs)
Sorry for the error on Novastar. I will check out the Friedman settlement you mention. The sentence references the private lawsuits not being successful and therefore the sentence is correct as it now stands.--Samiharris 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Overstock lawsuit that claims illegal naked short selling was only filed yesterday, so saying that it is not successful is a great deal like POV pushing. The existing lawsuit by Overstock was about stock manipulation via release of coordinated and biased research and news articles that Overstock claims were being managed by (legal) short sellers. It withstood a motion to dismiss and a motion to change venues to Federal Court, and is just now going into discovery. Not successful, but you can't really call it unsuccessful, either. It certainly doesn't belong in an article about naked short selling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.57.229 (talk • contribs)
Please log in and sign your posts. The edit that you made incorrectly implies there there have just been two recent lawsuits on this issue. There have been at least ten naked shorting suits against the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. that were withdrawn or were unsuccessful, in addition to the recent suits. See this link: Not one has succeeded. I have added this information to the encyclopedia. Please do not remove.--Samiharris 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment explanation
I've assessed this article as a Start class for the Bussiness and Economics Wikiproject. Some of the problems which I think we should adress before rating it higher are:
needs thorough clean-up and copy-editing: the style is not encyclopedic (rather journalistic), some parts are just collections of quotes;

over-long and over-detailed discussion of the controversy, with too much focus on specific cases - all this should be summarized, with content maybe put in other articles on the specific cases (if they are notable enough);

not comprehensive enough: it misses any discussion of the economics of short selling. AdamSmithee 12:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think these are good points. It seemed to me that this article was written by committee. I think one problem may be a lack of independent and reliable sourcing, other than government documents. There seems to be just a smattering of news articles.--Samiharris 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR vs WP:RS
I see a source (that appears to me to meet WP:RS for a video showing SEC's Cox commenting on Naked shorting) was added by an anon IP, removed by an editor Mantanmoreland, added again (by me, as I see initially no problem with it meeting WP:RS), then removed again by same editor with brief note about WP:OR. I don't see how that applies as this quote from Cox is not an unsourced opinion from the anonymous editor, it's a direct quote from a video that's from a "reliable" site, from my initial research on it.
If the editors could specifically prove how that site does not meet WP:RS, then the quote should be removed, otherwise I see no reason why it shouldn't exist in this article, especially since it's from the Chairman of the most dominating source in this article, the SEC.
Mantanmoreland, for the betterment of other editors' future efforts to properly source, please give more details on why you have found the source to be WP:OR instead of WP:RS, and please don't confuse emotional outbursts from anonymous editors with a reason to revert such quotes. Thanks for your research on this and any help you can provide as this article is sorely in need of WP:RS with detailed opinions on th e matter. I'm willing to learn more about what constitutes WP:OR and WP:RS, and have seen way too many YouTube videos and blogs used as WP:RS across this encyclopedia, so I share your concerns for proper sourcing.Piperdown 18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There was no substantiation for the quote on the website linked. There was a webcast link but it was/is dead.--Mantanmoreland 18:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, see that the link is dead, thanks for the correction! That would probably be a constant problem with links to webcasts that are recent, as live casts are usually kept at the same link for a short time, then later archived days later to a separate link. Perhaps the transcript for the Q&A section will be published by US C of C, but until then you are in the right. Perhaps this could have been explained to the original editor in the quote removal edit to explain, they probably felt the removal was unjust, probably not realizing the link was in limbo. Also, I am wondering what the difference is here between a quote from a videocast that could be attained by request from a RS, vs one from a published book that also can not be instantly verified by 2 clicks of a mouse. I don't think there's a good answer to that, but at least a book can be eventually verified for a quote, while a webcast that's waiting for a government site admin to provide an archive link from a live cast will have to wait. I hope you can understand why I reverted your deletion of the quote and source, as it was there when I watched it live myself, so I agreed with the original editor's inclusion of it. But I'm no WP:RS, and I didn't reverify the link was still live when I edited. Thanks,Iw'l be wary of verifying recent webcasts links as sources. Interesting questions these modern times raise when it comes to using the web as source, as dynamic as it is. If editors find this video later archived and available to wikipedia readers, or the contents used in another WP:RS, the quote should be restored or at least key parts of it.Piperdown 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I take offense to your calling my edit "erroneous" - Goldman fine
From the piece: "The settlement is the first between the Securities and Exchange Commission and a brokerage firm where the US regulator alleged that the firm played a role in a type of abusive short-selling practice known as “naked” short selling." We could go on and quote the entire piece in the entry, or we could just not beat around the bush that the article leads in with "naked short selling" to provide more detail on the "short selling" in the headline. It is a fact that the SEC charged GS with naked short selling according to the article. If you feel my addition was incomplete in providing view points from the article, that's fine, but what I wrote about it was not "erroneous".Piperdown 19:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Goldman Sachs clients engaged in the trades. Goldman Sachs was acting as prime broker. See the Bloomberg article here-- Saying that Goldman Sachs engaged in the trading was wrong. The current version is correct.--Mantanmoreland 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As a prime broker, GS is liable for ensuring their customers have shares that have been located and borrowed. Again, the SEC did charge GS, not GS's customers. And the charge was that "the firm played a role in a type of abusive short-selling practice known as “naked” short selling." Your edit can be described as correct according to the sources cited, but my edit was not "erroneous". It was a very short but accurate decription of the Times/AP article. I don't have a problem with your edit, but I do have a problem with you calling my edit "erroneous". It was not. Your additions to the section are well sourced and well done. But you're not doing wikipedia any favors by calling other's edits "erroneous" when sources show they are not. Incomplete? OK, editors should expand when they feel a statement does not fully charcterize the situation. Encyclopedias are by nature too brief and subject to the same limitations as headlines. Thank you for ensuring that this one is not too brief. Have a good day.Piperdown 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I have made far far worse mistakes believe me! People make mistakes all the time in the encyclopedia and one should not be upset when corrected.

I have cut back on the Indian material, particularly the lengthy and difficult to understand quote from the chairman of Sebi. The paragraph also left the impression that naked shorting had been banned by India when it had not just yet. I also removed the lengthy quotation from Regulation SHO, which was unnecessary in my opinion and much too technical and jargon-y.--Samiharris 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The article re:Sebi was explicit in stating that its sources said that naked short selling would be disallowed on March 29th. So we'll revisit your edit then. Also removal of the entire Sebi commissioners's quote is not very productive. Quotes from heads of regulartory agencies should carry more weight on complicated topics such as this, than one line soundbites from non-regulators. If you feel the quote wsa too long, then you should shorten the quote, not cut it out completely. It was a very straightforward quote, I'm sorry that you feel it wsa hard to understand. It will be restored after the Sebi meeting on the 29th and subsequent followup by a WP:RS.Piperdown 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Reverting is not preferable and we all have to keep in mind the three-revert rule, which is at WP:3RR. That said, I strongly disagree with your adding that lengthy excerpt from Regulation SHO. It clogs up an article that is already top heavy with jargon, and it is unnecessary detail. As for India, your edit of the article said as follows: "Naked short selling would not be permitted as per the recommendations by India's Secondary Market Advisory Committee. Investors in Indian stock markets will be required to deliver securities at the time of settlement." That gave the impression that this was certainty or had already been passed by the pertinent Indian authorities. The ambiguity in the language had to be removed and the article needs to be quoted accurately. The quote from the Sebi chairman, first name not given, was very hard to understand and was disjointed. --Samiharris 04:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job!
I think Piperdown did a really nice job of summarizing the article last night and I think he deserves a round of applause for that. Good job! I still have a problem with the addition to the October 2006 Q&A at the SEC. Though now summarized, which is good, I still question its significance. Was there some kind of change in policy in October 2006 regarding Reg. SHO? I searched the SEC website and could find none. I then looked for articles mentioning this and could find none. So I would suggest to please provide some article sourcing meeting Misplaced Pages criteria. As written currently, it falls squarely under the category of "original research" which is verboten under Wiki rules. Thanks for understanding and for your good work.--Samiharris 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sam, let me get this straight. First I post the exact verbiage with a link to the SEC site. You suggest that this including long excerpts from SEC site is not encyclopedic, which I agree with and so have improved the inclusion. Now you say you can't find the information and call it WP:OR? C'mon. How about going back to my original inclusion, and searching the linked Reg SHO Q&A site? It's there. My summary is a best shot at cliffs notesing it. I also am puzzled why you didn't previously apply the same approach to the earlier section that had 4 long exact quote paragraphs on the SEC's opinion on how to value stocks, which has nothing to do with explaining naked short selling. Also the ncans.net sourced NASAA document is not only poorly summarized, it's technically WP:OR as that is not a WP:RS site. I can see that this article has suffered from selective application of WP rules. Let's all work together to improve it and hold the patronizing applause rhetoric. Piperdown 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Section summarizing from "(NEW! 10/10/06)" section on SEC Reg SHO website restored to "Regulators Respond". Please do not remove properly sourced material with baseless WP:OR claims. Piperdown 17:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The SEC adding something to its website, restating the existing requirements of Reg SHO, hardly warrants inclusion as a "recent development." It says at the top of the Q&A that the questions and answers are provided by the staff and may be periodically updated. Their adding a new item that just restates what is already in the regulation is thus of zero significance. Reg SHO is already adequately explained and this addition is unnecessary.--Mantanmoreland 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
re: user:Mantanmoreland comment deleting a propely sourced NPOV edit where he says "(rv - erroneously implies SEC action in October 2006 when there was NOTHING except an addition to the website)"....that's just bizarre. It doesn't imply anything except what it says. That there Q&A website was updated in 2006 October with information that is directly pertinient to that section. I don't understand what game is being played here, I'm pretty sure it's an attempt to get me to violate a 3 revert rule while two editors continually remove a well sourced, as neutral as possible addition from the SEC itself clarifying the topic discussed here. I won't be bullied or intimidated by nonsensical excuses in a baiting attempt to be intimidated from editing here. Stop removing well sourced and applicable edits. If you can improve them, do so. Piperdown 02:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If you feel it's not a "recent development", then feel free to include it in the section explaining technicality of what naked short selling is. There is no detail on Reg SHO here, other than a site link at the bottom. If there was a section on what Reg SHO is summarised here, I would agree with your point. There isn't. I see the entire first half of the article containing odd segues about issues peripheral to naked short selling, but little in the explanation in the intro of exactly how the SEC is defining and addressing the matter.Piperdown 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The third paragraph of "The Practice" section is more than sufficient discussion of Reg SHO.--Mantanmoreland 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
For further discussion of this topic please see the user talk page of Piperdown. Samiharris 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)