Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:33, 8 August 2008

Template:Article probation Template:Bus&Econ

Finance & Investment Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2 - 1/29-2/4, 2006
• Archive 3 - 2/4-3/19, 2006
• Archive 4 - 3/19-10/6 2006
• Archive 5 - 2006-2007

Article probation

Restrictions...Editors are directed: (A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account; (B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration; (C) To edit in accordance with all Misplaced Pages policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and (D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page. Do not remove this notice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A word.

So one can't move on this project these days without discovering that this article may or may not be a problem. I've come to have a look myself. It has problems. Here are the problems:

• Far too much dependence on financial journalism. The "media coverage" thing dominates the end of the article, and is least encyclopaedic. It should be cut down drastically. Since there are several complaints about it, and a recommendation from the Business and Economics Working Group already on this page suggesting as much, it beggars belief that it has not been done as yet.
• Nowhere near enough reliable academic sources covered in the "studies" section. I am not an expert, but have some small knowledge of theoretical financial economics, and the current section is clearly underweighted, outdated and unrepresentative. Here are a couple of relevant studies:
  • Finnerty, John D. (Fordham): Short Selling and Death Spirals, SSRN no 687282.
  • Boni, Leslie (Anderson SoM) :Strategic delivery failures in U.S. equity markets, JFinMar 9:1.
  • Angel, Christophe and Ferri (Georgetown and GMU): A Short look at Bear Raids.
  • Culp and Heaton, (Chicago GSB): Naked Shorting, SSRN no 982898.
  • Knepper, Zach (Berkeley): Future-Priced Convertible Securities & The Outlook For “Death-Spiral” Securities-Fraud Litigation, Berkeley Legal Press. This last has a decent survey of the litigation.
• It also dramatically fails to provide a worldwide perspective; there are several other countries with much stiffer approaches to this than the US, including the PRC, Singapore and Spain (IIRC) and although there are academic studies of all those approaches, none are in here. I notice the content on the Indian regulation has been unjustifiably pruned back.

Relata refero (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a little more reading on this specific subject, and am going to rewrite this article shortly so that it finally complies with policy. Relata refero (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions

• Are "traders", who are not market makers, required to identify shares before selling them short, or may they "use naked shorts in the case where they felt there was a reasonable opportunity to make the borrow some time during the settlement period"?
  • Per my reading of Regulatory Circular RG07-87 (and a lack of response on this question), I have decided to remove this. As the circular states, "Only options market-makers that are engaged in bona-fide options market-making may utilize the exception to Regulation SHO's "locate" requirement when effecting a short sale in the underlying security as a hedge."
• Is it undisputed that fails to deliver are "a bothersome but relatively benign clerical problem under normal conditions"? If not, is there a source which this can be attributed to? http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2005/03/24/the-naked-truth-on-illegal-shorting.aspx doesn't seem to say that, as far as I can tell.

Anthony (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is US centric

The article in the current form is US centric. I think "globalize" tag should be added. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is a tag really going to do any good? I agree that the article could use a lot more information about naked short selling outside the US, but I'm not sure that just adding a "globalize" tag will attract anyone capable of doing that (personally, I don't even know where to begin to research it). I also think once we get that global perspective, if not sooner, Regulation SHO should be split back out to its own article, and most of the US-centric parts can be moved there. What do you think? Anthony (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  Tags such as {{globalize}} can be good in 3 ways: to alert the reader to possible problems, to act as an incentive for readers to become editors, and to alert current editors (who may be interested in either the topic itself, or the specific problem-type). If the article is severely lacking in global perspective, and thereby misrepresenting the topic as being US-centric, then by all means add the globalize tag, and/or subsection headings with expansion requests. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Even the first sentence of the lead is US-centric. I agree Reg SHO might merit a separate article. Let's wait a couple of days for more comments before adding "globalize" tag. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why has the the template {{globalise}} (note the spelling) not been added to this article? For example "Naked shorting is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws, and can contribute to market liquidity, but is illegal when it drives down stock prices." which federal? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Talking about US centric, the T+3 rule is from 1934!? Isn't it about time they updated it for electronic/demat holdings? Isn't demat mandatory in the US now? Nshuks7 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Blog attention to article

I hope you realize that this article and few others are getting a *lot* of attention in various blogs and on the net. Is that worth mentioning in the article?--Stetsonharry (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No- blog attention is transitory and largely irrelevant. Good of you to point this out here -- it raises the risk of POV editing to the article. John Nevard (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This article and others are a subject of a great deal of talk in blogorhhea. It may be worth my while to take a look at them myself. Sometimes a fresh viewpoint is helpful. Am new here, but already found that an article on a well known book from the 1930s gets everything wrong about it, including the title! If someone can show me how to rename an article, I will do it myself.--Stetsonharry (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Moving a page. If it's likely to be a controversial or unexpected move, make a note on the discussion page of the article first and wait a day or two. If there is significant opposition but you think it may be possible to obtain consensus with a big enough discussion, see Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks yr reply. I used the "redirect" technique that I found somewhere. I did not think it controversial because the title of the book was wrong. The correct title was stated in the article on the author of the book. FYI, the book in question is "I am a Fugitive from a Georgia Chain Gang."--Stetsonharry (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes

• /Notes 1

These are notea mainly for my own use, but they may be useful as a general reference. Please do feel free to amend. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

India

I've expanded the lead a bit on India, and explained the background a bit. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Indian content to the lead. It was removed by someone who apparently believed the article to be about a US-only phenomenon. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I missed this interesting though misguided attempt at characterizing my edit as motivated by "someone's apparent belief" that ignored just about everything my edit summary said. You have no way to guess what I believe, you guessed wrong, and in the end what I believe doesn't even matter. I don't believe I have to explain this to you. Avb 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative determination

In the US (and India too) to comply with the regulator's rules short sales must be made either on borrowed stocks or else the dealer must make an "affirmative determination" that the stocks can be borrowed in time for delivery. That's a bit of compliance language introduced, I believe, by NASD in 1990 (see /Notes 1#NASD for details). Just about all descriptions of naked short selling I've found use language that describes the principle of the thing, not the compliance-oriented language. It's a quibble, most likely, but I've decided to remove the "affirmative determination" stuff from the lead . --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed some unsupported material that seemed to be arguing the illegal naked short selling is fraud. While the SEC is considering a declaration of this kind, at the moment it isn't cut-and-dried (it's illegal, so whether it's definitively fraud or not is a technical nicety that can be left to the courts). There was also some unsupported stuff that seemed to argue that there was an "economic justification". Although this gave an argument that may or may not be true, it's not verifiable because it's unsupported, and in face may amount to original research. So also removed. --194.66.226.95 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reinsertion within minutes of lede sentence that did not cover the article's content

Tony's revert (diff) did not address the 3 points made in my edit summary. Fourth argument: the lede should be a summary of the article. If anyone wants this in the lede, better make the article less US-centric. The lede now looks like an ad for a detergent. Also note that I did not make the article "less US-centric" (Tony's single argument to reinsert) as I moved the lede sentence into the relevant section. The number of sentences about India remained two. Avb 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we should have something about it in the body (there was at one point, perhaps it got factored out). There is also something about Australian moves at /Notes 1#Non-US_items. The fact that the article body has far too much US material doesn't make the non-US material too unimportant for the lead. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please address my four arguments. Here they are again:

1. overemphasized India-related content (single sentence in USA-centric article)
2. differed significantly from that sentence
3. the lede sentence wasn't even about naked shorting
4. the lede should be a summary of the article

Avb 02:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop calling this a US-oriented article? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why, isn't it? Please address my arguments. <repeated arguments removed> PS Feel free to take your time. I'll be back tomorrow. Avb 02:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's wise to start repeating text Misplaced Pages talk pages in the manner of a parrot. This one is on probation, you know. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

Regarding your response above: Thanks for indicating that you have now seen my arguments. I'll remove the second instance now that they have your attention. Unfortunately you still haven't addressed them, choosing to comment on my behavior instead. We may have different views on article probation. My view is that editors should be on their best of behaviors when editing or discussing such articles. I'll ignore "wise" "parrot" and "you know".

Regarding your removal of the disputed text from the lede "for now": Thanks for that. However, my original edit moved it to the relevant section, where it made some sense. Maybe you had missed that? I'll insert it once again. Avb 11:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This article must not progress as a result of a disagreement between two editors. Accordingly I have accepted your edit (please make further changes if you think my own revert was in error). I don't think your change was problematic except that it seems to be a move in the direction of US-orientation. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks; now you're talking. I quite agree about the number of editors. If others are watching the article but holding back due to the (now closed) MM arbitration, please jump right in. As to US-orientation, the article clearly needs work (as in other areas; maybe it even needs stubbing, tracking more sources, also international ones, and rebuilding from scratch). Avb 14:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I became aware of this and other articles because of blog publicity. Coming here and reading them, I saw some bias but nothing major. I would jump in myself but nothing seems pressing. --Stetsonharry (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

I have removed a potentially promotional pair of sentences about Gary Weiss. There is substantial evidence that COI editing has occurred involving that writer or his supporters. Jehochman 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That amount of prominent comment does belong in that section, I think. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Process Question

The section on the process confuses me. How can it be legal to sell something that you don't own? Maybe it is me, but I find this confusing.--Stetsonharry (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One example of this would be a nominee account (or "Street name security"), in which a shareholder (the nominee) who has legal title to the shares holds them beneficially for a client. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of this form of trading and holding in U.S. markets here. To sell the security, the beneficiary instructs the nominee to perform the necessary transactions.

Another way in which one can sell shares which one does not own is by selling shares that one has borrowed, or made arrangements to borrow (see short (finance)).

It is also legal in some circumstances and in some markets for a market maker to sell shares it does not own, has not borrowed, and has made no arrangements to borrow. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The "no intention of borrowing" is one of the points I've tried to verify. My basic understanding, to Stetsonharry, is that most of this has to do with the loose meaning of the word "sale." We say someone "sells" the stock, but by that we don't necessarily include the transfer of the stock, we just mean an agreement between the parties that this will take place. The general regulations, as I understand, are in turn that a seller has three days to transfer the stock ("deliver" it) after "selling." This is what creates the basic discrepancy where someone could "sell" a stock, quickly aquire it, and then deliver it, even though he didn't have it when he initially made the "sale."

The complaints are in turn that the three day limit isn't well enforced, which is what creates other issues. Thus someone sells the shares, doesn't deliver, and the unfulfilled transaction sits open on the market, "diluting" the float and lowering the share price. Presumably (this is the point I haven't been able to verify) that also means the seller could then simply buy new shares and deliver them directly to the buyer without ever having borrowed anything (and paid the fees, etc.). It's also what creates the situation where you can theoretically sell an unlimited number of shares to different parties, deliver them gradually, and then eventually just buy back from buyer A B and C to deliver to buyer X Y and Z (to over-simplify). Of course, others dispute that this happens or is harmful to the extent it does.

In any case, I think the biggest complaint is that the process can harm a company by preventing it from raising money by issuing additional stock. If the share price is driven down from 10 to 5 dollars by naked short sales, the naked short seller may say this will even out in the end when he eventually delivers, but if the company needs money at that moment, then they're out of luck. Thus, if you naked short enough stock of a company that needs capital, you could end up hurting the company itself in a way that makes the shares cheaper to "cover" (or in this case, buy outright, if I understand correctly). Other than the legality, I believe these are some of the main objections. Mackan79 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the short answer to the "has no intention of borrowing" is "yes, subject to the short sale being part of bona fide market-making activity", which is less than satisfactory I know but due to the complexity of the stock market the SEC seems to deliberately avoid spelling out situations that would be genuine, although it does list some that would not. The exception to Regulation SHO for market makers consists of an exemption from the so-called locate requirement (203(b)(2)(iii)). For this purpose, a market maker is defined as "any specialist permitted to act as a dealer, any dealer acting in the capacity of a block positioner, and any dealer that, with respect to a security, holds itself out (by entering quotations in an inter-dealer communications system or otherwise) as being willing to buy and sell such security for its own account on a regular or continuous basis." The SEC FAQ says "market makers may maintain temporary short positions in CNS until such time as there is sufficient trading to flatten out their position." CNS here stands for "Continuous Net Settlement", a settlement system operated by a subsidiary of DTCC, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. Sorry about the alphabet soup.

In practice, "market maker" usually means merchant bank, a company that you would expect to quote a price for any share you would want to buy.

On Mackan79's point about the seller being able to obtain and then sell new shares to fulfil his obligations without paying lending fees, as I understand it this would be legal, but questionable, under the current system. It would for instance be one means by which the short seller would remedy a legitimate fail-to-deliver resulting from failure of his borrow transaction despite due diligence in the locate.

The stock borrow program in many cases also provides the setttlement system with a means of making the buyer whole in the meantime. In this scheme, holders of shares register their willingness to loan shares (listing stock, and quantities available, at close of trade) and the settlement system uses these shares to resolve fail-to-delivers, depositing cash in bank accounts held by the lender as collateral. At a later stage in settlement the loan is returned, and capital removed from the lender's account and he keeps the interest. While the shares are on loan the lender foregoes all normal ownership rights, which are temporarily assigned to the buyer until the transaction is properly settled. Unfortunately the shares most likely to result in a fail-to-deliver are those that are difficult to obtain, and thus less likely to be available in sufficient quantities via the Stock Borrow Program to satisfy settlement.

But I don't believe the defaulting short seller (whether legitimate or not) gets away scot-free in this failed transaction. I don't have the details to hand but I seem to recall that the consequences are outlined in the paper by Culp and Heaton (see /Notes 1#Theory). Suffice to say that he doesn't just pocket the proceeds and go on to trade without consequences.

Some people have argued that either naked short selling or the Stock Borrow Program creates "counterfeit shares" but the Securities and Exchange Commission sets out a refutation of this in its FAQ at 'Question 7.1: Do naked short sale transactions create "counterfeit shares?"' and 'Question 7.2: Does NSCC's stock borrow program ("SBP") create "counterfeit shares"?'

The degree to which manipulative traders could use naked short selling in order to profit by shorting a company (for instance, in a so-called bear raid) is undeniable, and this could do serious harm to a company already experiencing solvency problems, but the extent to which this occurs is disputed. As with all regulation, the costs of regulating (which would damp short selling and thus tend to moderate its beneficial effects in restraining share overpricing) must be balanced against this. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds about right to me. However, the "counterfeit shares" issue may be one that can't entirely be taken at face value. I think from one perspective, any sale without ownership is to sell a share that doesn't "exist," and thus creates a sort of "counterfeit" share. Non-owners are soaking up the buys, thus bringing the price down. You could equally call this "dilution." On the plus side, I think it's also what's called "liquidity" in terms of allowing a short sale today even though the share can't be found until tomorrow. I'm not clear on all the technical aspects of the borrowing, but I think these are mostly different words for the same thing. Mackan79 (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The SEC Regulation SHO basically defines how the short seller is to ascertain that he can cover his sale; similar rules existed (from about 1994) formulated by the NASD (the dealers' trade association now known as FINRA), based on rules initially formulated for long sales. See /Notes 1#History_of_"affirmative_determination"

You document the steps you've made to locate shares that you will be able to borrow, and make sure that the lender is promising to do so within the timescale of delivery. The SEC FAQ I cited before, I believe, addresses the argument that short sales involve a dilution ("counterfeit shares"). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So, if the real estate market worked the same way, I could sell a house when I don't actually own one, or even rent or lease one, and it's possible the particular house I'm selling hasn't even been built yet, but I did spend some time looking through real estate listings in newspapers and online, and have some hopefulness to the effect that, by the time the closing takes place and I have to turn over possession of the house to the buyer, I'll have managed to actually obtain a house to so transfer. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. It seems illogical. I also can't understand how, in ordinary short selling, I could borrow somebody's camera and sell it.--Stetsonharry (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Much improved version available

Setting aside the slant of the current article, I find its organization to be abominable. Reporting on the opinions of many people is woven at every turn into sections that should merely be expository. I created a Sandbox in which to restructure the current article, finding a way to include all the material, but bringing all the exposition together to the top of the article, then the material that describes what various people and institutions think of the issue. Once that was done, it was clear that there were approximatey 10 times as many links to NSS-denial materials as there were to equally prestigious (or more prestigious) publications who were NSS-critics (that may have been the point of creating such a muddled structure). In any case, this restructuring preserves the original material but makes it a far clearer read, I believe. I respectfully suggest that you should copy it over and making it the new page.PatrickByrne (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Restructured for Clarity

I know this is a controversial article, so I want to explain why today I moved material around to create a structure that I believe makes it far clearer to the newcomer. The former structure had a section regarding the controversy over this issue, with pebbles from both sides of the scale; however, pebbles from one side of the scale were also strewn through the rest of the article, creating a mishmash that was, if nothing else, repetitive (literally, whole sections were repeated). I kept all the pebbles from each side of the scale, so no one could say I was adding or subtracting from either argument. However, I rearranged the sections this way: a description of the issue and the evolution of the regulations which govern it; a section on the controversy, preserving all the NSS-apologist lines but bringing them together into one place (you can see some of the duplicate paragraphs), and nothing added from the NSS-critical side; then a section on the issue vis-a-vis the courts (with all material about enforcement and litigation preserved). If it is the case, as it may appear, that a NPOV is a difficult thing on which to agree when it comes to this subject, then the closest thing would be an article that presents the clashing points of view neutrally. I cannot see how someone could in good faith deny that this structure makes for an article that presents the various points of view most neutrally. PatrickByrne (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I believe the structure could be further improved with one additional move along the previous lines: have the section explaining NSS, then the section regarding the controversy (with all arguments from both sides retained), and then the sections on regulation, enforcement, and litigation. In other words, take the current section on regulation, (which is #2, and splits the explanation of NSS from the controversy), and move it after the section on the controversy. This would keep the explanation at the top, followed by the controversy, followed by all sections on legal issues (regulation, enforcement, and litigation) grouped together. This approach has some charm to me, but I will see what others think.PatrickByrne (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

'Pervasiveness of naked shorting' intro

The section that begins "Regulators downplay the extent of naked shorting in the US." seems to discuss regulators downplaying the effect, the impact, effectiveness or importance of naked shorting. John Nevard (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than any 'pervasiveness' or 'extent' of naked short selling. John Nevard (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the Lead, which previously had said inaccurately that naked shorting is illegal That is contradicted by the quotation from "Key Points About Regulation SHO" and the quote further down in the article.--Bassettcat (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:COIN#Naked_short_selling

It would seem to be sensible not to restore the version of the article as rewritten by someone with an actual financial interest in promoting a naked short selling conspiracy as a serious problem to honest companies. John Nevard (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Recover useful and relevant external links that were improperly removed

{{editprotected}} I am requesting undo of the removal of several very useful and relevant external links. Those external links were removed in revision 20:40, 17 May 2008, please undo that change. Specifically I want the external link list to go back to the revision right before the removal, which looked like the list below. Silverbach (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Short Selling FAQ: Securities and Exchange Commission
• Naked Short Selling FAQ: Depository Trust and Clearing Corp.
• Who's behind Naked-shorting? - Fool.com
• AMEX's daily and monthly Regulation SHO threshold security list
• NASDAQ's Regulation SHO threshold security list
• NYSE's Regulation SHO threshold security list
• Failure to deliver data charting for US securities exchanges.

N Edit declined at this time, consensus not yet apparent, see WP:PER.  Sandstein  07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In that case I am requesting adding back AT LEAST the NASDAQ link. There is currenly NYSE link, AMEX link, but no NASDAQ link, which doesn't make sense. Also the FTD link from SEC should also be included since this is from an official SEC web site. Let me leave out the Motley Fools web link for now. My proposed modification will look like below. Silverbach (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Short Selling FAQ: Securities and Exchange Commission
• Naked Short Selling FAQ: Depository Trust and Clearing Corp.
• AMEX's daily and monthly Regulation SHO threshold security list
• NASDAQ's Regulation SHO threshold security list
• NYSE's Regulation SHO threshold security list
• Failure to deliver data charting for US securities exchanges.

A good link for the SEC web page

The current link at the bottom for the "SEC FAQ" link isn't really that much about naked short selling, but this link is. I hope it helps once the article is unlocked. Rhetth (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That link is in the lead of the article. --Jenny 14:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please add

de:Ungedeckter Leerverkauf Thanks and KR Bahnemann (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} {{pov}} or {{totally-disputed}}

• Shouldn't this page have one of these boxes on it, since apparently everything on it is wrong? What is the box for, if not to tell readers that an article is crap, which this one is?
• How did locking the talk page allow a NPOV version to be built by consensus? Predictably, no one talks about anything when the page for talking is locked. Improvements will be enacted by neutral admins. When will that be? Next month? Next year? Hopefully soon.
• Naked short selling is illegal everywhere, but I'm guessing you already knew that.
  • I believe the current version of the article correctly states the legal situation in the lead with reference to the SEC's statement "Key Points About Regulation SHO". . --Jenny 09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I raised the issue myself a while back and there was an extensive discussion. Jenny appears to be right.--Stetsonharry (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Just so we don't get confused, I recently changed my username and signature from Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The to Jenny. I was involved in that previous discussion. --Jenny 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm disabling the editprotected request; there is already a prominent protection tag at the top of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes/changing

The SEC seems to clearly be taking a harder line stance now than the article displays, in as much as it is engaging in emergency rule making to prohibit the practice completely for certain companies. See New York Times, Forbes, Globe & Mail. This isn't an urgent update - and in fact the various news articles will probably be more useful tomorrow or the day after than they are today - but it does clearly indicate that the current article is obsolete if it ever was reasonable. GRBerry 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit to the regulatory actions section to keep the article up to date, since I'm sure there will be people stopping by to learn what naked short selling is. Marumari (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can the powers that be please do something to get whatever disputes resolved so that this article can return to its normal status of open editing? This really isn't the sort of topic that, by its nature, needs permanent full protection. People could really have benefited from a good and neutral article on this topic today. We have failed our readers here. --JayHenry (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article looks to have been protected a few weeks ago but there is no ongoing dispute that I'm aware of. If you want to edit it, you can ask someone to unprotect it at WP:RFPP. --Jenny 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As you know, this article was recently the subject of a very acrimonious ArbCom case. The status of the disputes are unclear to me, as I don't follow these dramas closely. I simply would like to request that editors familiar with the case work to bring about unprotection. I would not be comfortable making such a request myself as I am not familiar with the intricacies of this case. --JayHenry (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll request unprotection. Apparently a sock puppet involved with the article recently has been banned. --Jenny 09:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:LessHeard vanU seems to be pretty busy - I've gone ahead and semi-protected the article for now. I'll keep an eye on it to make sure everybody behaves. --Marumari (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mixed Media Feedback?

Almost all the media comments are in favor of nudism. Then how come the section starts with "mixed reaction" statement? I'm not making the edit myself since there are a lot of contentions around this topic. Nshuks7 (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about Nudity. Rekutyn (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any room left to mention that I turned out to be right?

Gosh, I wonder if anywhere in this article there is room left to mention that the last two weeks has seen a desparate scramble (emergency SEC orders, suddenly-called Congressional hearings, demands from the US Chamber of Congress and an association representing 8,000 banks) to keep naked short selling from collapsing the US financial system? At the risk of being accused of “soap-boxing”, I am going to give extensive citation and quotation because it appears that nothing but a nuclear blast will penetrate the hermetically-sealed version of reality it seems to be the intent of some to perpetuate.

• Here on July 18 is a public statement by SEC Chairman Cox (printed in Investors Business Daily and appearing on the SEC website “Public Statement” section):

Naked Short Selling Is One Problem a Slumping Market Shouldn't Have The demise of IndyMac, coming on the heels of Bear Stearns' desperate sale to JPMorgan Chase, is a sure sign of the fragility of today's markets….The classic "pump and dump" scheme, in which a stock is inflated through false information and then dumped on unsuspecting investors when the perpetrators flee, is one example of how this works. "Distort and short" is the same thing in reverse. Naked short selling can turbocharge these "distort and short" schemes. In a naked short, the usual process of short selling is circumvented, because the seller doesn't actually borrow the stock and simply fails to deliver it… It allows manipulators to force prices down without regard to supply and demand. Next week, the SEC will implement an emergency order designed to prevent naked short selling in the financial firms that the Federal Reserve Board has designated as eligible for access to its liquidity facilities… At the same time, eliminating the prospect of naked short selling will help assure investors that it is safe for them to participate, and that the current declining market is not the product of unseen manipulators and "distort and short" artists... The abusive practice of naked short selling is far different from ordinary short selling…But when someone fails to borrow and deliver the securities needed to make good on a short position, after failing even to determine that they can be borrowed, that is not contributing to an orderly market — it is undermining it. And in the context of a potential "distort and short" campaign aimed at an otherwise sound financial institution, this kind of manipulative activity can have drastic consequences….Naked short selling can undermine the market's integrity. For the financial sector in this crisis, certainly, but as soon as possible for the entire market, this is one worry investors shouldn't have.

• Here is CNBC, saying that I have been vindicated.

• Then here is Fox Business News saying that the kooky guy (that would be I) turned out to be right.

• Then here is Fox Business News discussing with me how it turned out that I was right.

• Here is The Washington Post describing the emergency action the SEC took this week to prevent our financial system from being destroyed by … precisely what I have been talking about for three years:

SEC Order On Naked Short Selling Takes Effect An order from the Securities and Exchange Commission aimed at protecting some of the country's largest financial companies against a form of short selling took effect yesterday, provoking complaints from smaller firms that they have been left vulnerable to the practice.... Shares of the 19 large companies in the SEC's order have been rising since the commission announced last week that it would shelter them from the practice, known as naked short selling, while organizations representing banks and investment firms excluded from the list have been pressing to have the protection extended to them…. In naked short selling, the seller doesn't actually borrow the security but conducts the rest of the transaction as if he had. Since the seller is not constrained by the number of available shares, he can sell an unlimited number of securities that may not even exist. In large volumes, naked short selling can depress a company's stock by creating sustained downward pressure and ultimately destroy it, driving down the price until it is worthless, critics say. The SEC's order, issued last Tuesday, provides further protection against abusive naked short selling -- which was already barred by securities law with only a few exceptions -- to 19 companies, including mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and leading Wall Street investment banks Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, among others… The ABA, which represents 8,500 banks, last week wrote a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox expressing fear that naked short sellers would turn their attention to the banks and bank holding companies not on the list. The Financial Services Roundtable, which represents 100 of the largest financial services companies in the country, sent a similar letter… Naked and abusive short selling are not new. Robert J. Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs, testified before the SEC's rules committee in 2003 about the then-growing problem. He noted that one form of manipulative short selling that was widespread in the 1990s, called death-spiral financing, created "strong incentives for large-scale naked short sales focused on small and medium-size public companies." His research found that a sample of 200 companies victimized by the technique posted a combined market loss of more than $105 billion. Shapiro, who is chairman of Sonecon, a District economic advisory firm, said in an interview yesterday that the troubled financial market had made it possible for naked short sellers to affect much larger companies than before, including the major firms covered by the SEC order. "Finally, the real concern has arisen because the target of it is a financial institution whose failure could pose a systemic risk to the capital markets," Shapiro said. "That's why they're concerned. But the phenomenon has been around in significant scale, and cost thousands, maybe millions, of investors money, who have been in stocks that have been driven down by naked short sellers for years now."

• And here is Fox again having me on to discuss this issue.

• Then here is SEC Chairman Chris Cox again, in another op-ed (this one to the WSJ) and again, appearing in the public comment section of the SEC website:

What the SEC Really Did on Short Selling "The classic "pump and dump" scheme, in which a stock is inflated through false information and then dumped on unsuspecting investors when the perpetrators flee, is one example of how this works. "Distort and short" is the same thing in reverse. "Naked" short selling can turbocharge these "distort and short" schemes. ... For this reason, naked shorting can allow manipulators to force prices down far lower than would be possible in legitimate short-selling conditions....Last week, in close consultation with the Treasury and the Fed, the SEC issued an order to further the objective of existing commission rules that restrict naked short selling...Illegitimate naked short selling is different. In the context of a potential "distort and short" campaign aimed at an otherwise sound financial institution, this kind of manipulative activity can have drastic consequences….Eliminating the prospect of naked short selling will help assure investors that it is safe for them to participate, and that when the market declines it is not because of unseen manipulators and "distort and short" artists....When the SEC announced this order, I also made clear my intention to ask the full commission to apply operational protections against abusive naked shorting to the broader market....Although the Commission's order was issued under emergency authority in unusual market conditions, it is based on several years of experience and analysis...But Regulation SHO also offers an alternative to these requirements if the broker has "reasonable grounds" to believe that the security can be borrowed. This could create opportunities for evasion of the rule's purpose....We are also exploring other remedies to "distort and short" and naked short-selling abuses, such as the reporting of substantial short positions (akin to the long-standing requirement to disclose significant long positions). All of this comes on the heels of the agency's recent elimination of other exceptions to Regulation SHO, and our March proposal of a new antifraud rule targeting naked short selling....Abusive naked short selling is far different from ordinary short selling, which is a healthy and necessary part of a free market. Manipulative naked short selling is one worry investors shouldn't have."

Now while the SEC imposes emergency rules to stop naked short selling from taking down our financial system, and Congress holds hearings, and it suddenly is being reported on in every serious newspaper, and the possibility of systemic meltdown due to it is discussed on CNBC and Fox, here are the nuggets I find on the current Misplaced Pages page:

• "Regulators downplay the extent of naked shorting in the US."
• "NYSE had found no evidence of widespread naked short selling, and alleged 'fear mongering that there's this rampant naked shorting that's gone unregulated.'"
• "fails-to-deliver are not necessarily the result of short selling, and are not evidence of abusive short selling or 'naked' short selling."
• "The Motley Fool... observes that "when a stock appears on this list, it is like a red flag waving, stating 'something is wrong here!'"
• "the SEC states that appearance on the threshold list 'does not necessarily mean that there has been abusive naked short selling or any impermissible trading in the stock.'"
• "Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins observed that fails were 'more like an acceptable kludge, helping the market work better, than a cesspot of corruption liable to bring down the financial system.'"
• "However, the SEC observes that fails can occur because of ordinary 'long' stock sales and for reasons entirely unrelated to efforts to profit from share price declines."
• "the SEC cites the prevalence of false claims of naked short selling in Pump and Dump fraud."
• "The SEC downplays naked shorting as a factor in declining stock prices."
• "Curtis Bramble said at the time of repeal that he now believed that Overstock's motives were 'highly suspect.' Bramble said, 'There are those who believe Overstock has been using the Legislature as a distraction against its own problems. It raises serious questions.'"
• "A study of trading in initial public offerings by two SEC staff economists, published in April 2007, found that excessive numbers of fails to deliver were not correlated with naked short selling. The authors of the study said that while the findings in the paper specifically concern IPO trading, 'The results presented in this paper also inform a public debate surrounding the role of short selling and fails to deliver in price formation.'"
• "Even though fails to deliver are viewed by some as a way of measuring the degree of naked short sales, the SEC economists said the delivery failures seen in the IPO market 'cannot be explained by short selling in general or 'naked' short selling specifically.'"
• "some commentators contend that naked short selling is not harmful and its prevalence has been exaggerated by corporate officials seeking to blame external forces for their own shortcomings."
• "Wall Street Journal columnist Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., has derided naked shorting allegations."
• "In the New York Times, several columnists have criticized the campaign against naked short selling. Chief financial correspondent Floyd Norris contended that investors of stocks that are being shorted 'might do better to try to understand why some think the shares are overvalued, rather than simply rail about unfair short selling.'"
• "New York Times financial columnist Joseph Nocera has criticized naked shorting allegations as diversionary complaints, and said that 'most people who understand the issue or have looked into it think it's pretty bogus.'"
• "Author, columnist and former Business Week investigative reporter Gary Weiss ...cites economic justifications for naked short selling and downplays its significance as a problem for the market."

Does that seem odd? Because it seems odd to me. So once again I ask, amidst all the stuff about how minimal this issue is, how all the old studies said this was not really an issue, how the Establishment journalists assure us that it is a non-issue, how suspect my motives must be to try to warn people of this before it crashes the system... is there any chance that there is room for someone to mention that the biggest financial news story of the year, and perhaps for all time, is that our financial system is on the brink of a Chernobyl from this figment of my imagination? PatrickByrne (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

1. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Cox has not endorsed your Wall Street conspiracy theories.

2. You omitted from your presentation the following pertinent facts contained in the article Overstock.com:

'In February 2007, Overstock.com launched a $3.5 billion lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and other large Wall Street firms, alleging a "massive illegal stock market manipulation scheme" involving naked short selling. Among its allegations, Overstock stated that since at least January 2005, naked short selling has accounted for large portions of Overstock stock, in some cases exceding the 23.4 million total shares outstanding. The lawsuit alleged that this had created "immense downward pressure" on share prices over time.'

As CEO of Overstock, you have a direct personal interest in the outcome of this litigation. Thus I think it desirable that you desist from commenting on this talk page in an effort to slant its contents in your favor. --Janeyryan (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Janeyryan, this is exactly where he should be commenting; he, of all people, is aware of the Arbcom ruling that applies to this page and is operating completely under its direction. He has a recognised conflict of interest and, per our policy, is permitted to comment on the talk page of the article while being strongly advised not to edit it directly. Perhaps you too should become familiar with the Arbitration Committee's ruling here. Risker (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Mr. Byrne is welcome to comment and request changes, but not to use this talk page as a Soapbox, and I think his comment above crossed the line into that. --Janeyryan (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Risker. In addition:

"1. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Cox has not endorsed your Wall Street conspiracy theories." Returning to the real world for a moment, that is exactly what he has done, which explains why CNBC and Fox are reporting that I have been vindicated (links above). Have a beef with that? Take it up with CNBC and Fox.

"2. ... I think it desirable that you desist from commenting on this talk page on the subject of naked short selling in an effort to slant its contents in your favor." It may be desirable to you for it to remain slanted (as I have shown above), but it is desirable to me to expose the slant by posting links to articles and TV clips on this talk page. You may try to run me out on that grounds that the Washington Post, CNBC, Fox, etc. are BADSITES, or entartete kunst, or whatever your word for it is these days. See how many Wikipedians want to see that farce return, or want to see the Project be used in a cover-up (as my post on this talk page amply demonstrates). So go ahead, make my day. PatrickByrne (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cox's order was bizaare on many grounds. I spoke recently to an attorney who is on the same side of the issue as Mr. Byrne. My interviewee is in fact at the heart of litigation from Nevada to Georgia against naked short selling practices, and this atty indicated with what seemed to me surprising vehemence that he regarded Cox' order as more of an affront than a vindication. The only firms protected by the order are those who (via their prime brokerage operations) have been causing the problem all these years. So who is vindicating what? I have difficulty seeing how one vindicates a crusade by concosting a travesty of what it stands for, using some of its slogans, and aiding Saladin. --Christofurio (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the emergency order is "bizarre on many grounds." We now have an explicitly apartheid capital market, with one set of rules for favored companies (those being the one that the government has backed), and another set of rules for the unwashed (that would be me, you, and just about everyone else). I have so many problems with the absurdity of the emergency order that I hardly know where to start. One thing the emergency order makes clear, however, is that "Naked short selling can turbocharge these 'distort and short' schemes.... It allows manipulators to force prices down without regard to supply and demand....The abusive practice of naked short selling is far different from ordinary short selling… But when someone that is not contributing to an orderly market — it is undermining it. And in the context of a potential 'distort and short' campaign aimed at an otherwise sound financial institution, this kind of manipulative activity can have drastic consequences…Naked short selling can undermine the market's integrity." And in that sense, yes, I think the Emergecny Order does vindicate those who have been arguing for years now that, well, Naked short selling can turbocharge 'distort and short' schemes, and that it allows manipulators to force prices down without regard to supply and demand, and that it is far different from ordinary short selling, and that naked shorting does not contribute to an orderly market — it is undermining it, and lastly, that naked short selling can have drastic consequences and can undermine the market's integrity. Those are, in a nutshell, precisely the points that we have been arguing all this time. And now it shows up in an editorial from Chairman Cox. So while I agree that his subsequent action was tepid, I am missing why you think that the views of the anti-NSS movement have not been vindicated. PatrickByrne (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I explained myself well enough and am missing what you are missing about my point. I'll try again, though because: hey, that's the kind of guy I am. The underlying theory of the anti-NSS crusade is (tell me if I'm mis-stating it) that Wall Street is using the mechanism of phantom stock to steal from Main Street USA. I understand "Wall Street" here in an extended sense to include, say, Greenwich CT and the Caymans. Main Street includes, say, Scottsdale, Ariz. where Taser Inc. is headquartered, and Nevada, former home of Nanopierce.

The theory that this mechanism has been used in a big way for that purpose is not at all vindicated by an order that seems designed simply to keep Wall Street from preying upon itself. Whether Cox is right or wrong about the threat that Wall Street will prey upon itself in this way unless stopped -- or right or wrong in his apparent view that this is what happened to Bear Stearns -- that doesn't vindicate, it doesn't even address, the "Wall Street versus Main Street" theory at the heart of this article.

That's no spin of mine, BTW. It's a point the key lawyer involved was anxious to make when I last spoke to himOn Borrowed Time?. He's been pursuing lawsuits against the very banks his new ally, Christopher Cox, is protecting. Some alliance. Though both may be using phrases like "naked shorting can undermine the market's integrity" the "market" they have in mind is very different. Cox is worried about the "market" in stocks in the company that are, in Mr. Christian's view of things, doing the undermining of the "market" he and his clients are concerned about.--Christofurio (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pure spin. First and foremost, the claims of the NSS movement are that Naked short selling can turbocharge 'distort and short' schemes, and that it allows manipulators to force prices down without regard to supply and demand, and that it is far different from ordinary short selling, and that naked shorting does not contribute to an orderly market — it undermines it, and lastly, that naked short selling can have drastic consequences and can undermine the market's integrity. These allegations end up as the main claims of a published editorial by the SEC Chairman to IBD. That's vindication. Yes, we believe that these dynamics have led to a giant crime against Main Street by Wall Street. To argue, however, that this is not vindication simply because the corporations protected by the emergency order are themselves Wall Street banks, is intellectual gibberish. The fact that the protected parties are themselves Wall Street banks, is certainly one more great irony among many, but the main event is that Cox's letter states things we have been saying about NSS for many years, things which, incidentally, the Misplaced Pages page on NSS continues to downplay, dismiss, or deride. PatrickByrne (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this starting to get a little silly?

The word is out in WR that anyone editing this article must fear repercussions. That may explain the following observation. Here is a link to tonight's Google search results on "naked short selling". It shows that in the last three weeks there have been nearly 2,000 articles on the subject of naked short selling, on the SEC's unprecedented emergency order to stop it in 19 financial institutions deemed "too big to fail", on the regulatory changes in the works, on the mad lobbying effort that is now underway in DC by hedge funds so that the loopholes through which NSS occurs get closed, etc. Yet this page still blithely depicts the issue as largely imaginary: "Regulators downplay the extent of naked shorting in the US"; "when a stock appears on this list, it is like a red flag waving, stating 'something is wrong here!'"; "fails were 'more like an acceptable kludge, helping the market work better, than a cesspot of corruption liable to bring down the financial system"; "The SEC downplays naked shorting as a factor in declining stock prices"; "some commentators contend that naked short selling is not harmful and its prevalence has been exaggerated"; most people who understand the issue or have looked into it think it's pretty bogus"; and "Gary Weiss ...cites economic justifications for naked short selling and downplays its significance as a problem for the market."

Wikipedians, your beloved project is being used in a cover-up, and by your inaction you are going along with it. What superb commitment to intellectual integrity. Bravo. PatrickByrne (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about bias in the rest of the article, but the "Media coverage" section looks a little absurd now. In the last several weeks, this went from being an esoteric subject (wherein the opinions of, say, Gary Weiss might have actually been a big chunk of the coverage), to a major story in the business section. This heading needs an overhaul. I don't have a lot of time, but I'll be watching it closely and hopefully updating it. Cool Hand Luke 04:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The word is out in WR that anyone editing this article must fear repercussions. Such as? Please substantiate this allegation, or withdraw it. Thank you.--Janeyryan (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Luke, you're right. An overhaul would be a good idea. But the overhaul would have to make the distinction I was just trying to explain to Pat, between what the usual crusaders have been saying and what the Cox order and Cox' defenses thereof actually represents. Between the Wall Street v. Main Street theory of the problem NSS supposedly represents and the Wall Street self-cannibalization theory. They could both be wrong or they could both be right, or one could be wrong and the other right, but they are surely two different subjects. --Christofurio (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC) And Jane's right too.

Jane wants justification for this claim: "'The word is out in WR that anyone editing this article must fear repercussions." See here: "I am afraid Relata refero is right; I've contacted a couple of editors who have done work in this general field, and they won't even consider touching the articles, despite acknowledging they are complete messes. One said 'no thanks, I have a clean block record and I intend to keep it that way,' and the second said he had no doubt that any edits he made would be contested and railed at. Perhaps the arbitrators could put on their editing hats and demonstrate how it is done - or make personal requests of very knowledgeable and well respected editors to clean things up, under the protection of the committee. Risker (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)" When people are afraid of touching articles in a field even while "acknowledging that they are complete messes" for fear of being "contested and railed at", or insist "I have a clean block record and intend to keep it that way", and will proceeed only with air cover provided by "the committee".... I think that is safe to describe that as a sense that "anyone editing this article must fear repercussions." Of course, who knows what counts as evidence on this board anymore, given that Christo argues that having Chairman Cox of the SEC denouncing naked short selling along precisely the same lines that I have, even at times even using the same words, is not "vindication", for some esoteric private ideological argument of his that is barely readable. Given that, maybe it is worth debating whether "repercussions" means the same thing as fearing the loss of "a clean block record" and knowing "that any edits he made would be contested and railed at." Or whether a desire to edit only under the cover of a committee counts as "fear". Who knows? Maybe we need to debate what "editing" means. Or, perhaps we can dispense with the pettifoggery. You now have ample citations above showing you that the SEC is taking unprecedented emergency action to protect the institutions at the core of our capital market from naked short selling. Here is a Salt lake Tribune article "Wall Street War: a Win for Utahn" ("These days, when people talk of Byrne, the word 'vindication' comes up a lot. 'You can always tell who the pioneers are - they're the ones with all the arrows sticking out of their backs,' said James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University. 'You really can't understate what Byrne has accomplished') showing how far awareness has come. Here is Jim Cramer, one of my biggest opponents three years ago, now completely changing his tune by saying that if naked shorting does not get fixed, you should pull out of the stock market. And so on and so forth. Yet your article continues to feature bromides like "most people who understand the issue or have looked into it think it's pretty bogus" and "downplays its significance as a problem for the market" (Weiss) and "Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., has derided naked shorting allegations". In othe rwords, they are deriding, downplaying, and calling "bogus" an issue that the SEC now takes emergency action to stop against the core of our capital market. I'm not sure that this could get any sillier. I repeat my claim: Wikipedians are allowing these pages to be used in the obvious cover-up of a financial crime of epic proportions. PatrickByrne (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide the identities of editors who have been blocked for editing this article? Much time has elapsed since that remark was made (on Misplaced Pages six months ago, not WR or Misplaced Pages Review currently, as you stated). There appears to be substantial editing of the article, so I trust you can provide that information. Thank you.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

At least two well-respected editors, (User:Mackan79 and User:Cla68) have been blocked for editing one or more of these 4 articles. In a rather infamous exchange User:G-Dett found you could get blocked/banned just by sounding like User:Wordbomb. So yes; it makes perfectly sense to stay away from these pages if you disagree with the Gary Weiss-people and want to keep your "block-list" clean. Myself, I just started editing on these pages (mostly the Byrne-article) after making it very, very clear that I am not a native English speaker, (but knows Swedish, Danish and Norwegian), hence I am clearly no Wordbomb-sock. Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here, Piperdown notes that everybody who edits any of the four protected articles will likely be checkusered (nobody wants this, given the history of false positives made by inexperienced checkusers...and the risk of wrongful blocking that might result). As noted above, here within Misplaced Pages is someone writing "I've contacted a couple of editors who have done work in this general field, and they won't even consider touching the articles, despite acknowledging they are complete messes. One said 'no thanks, I have a clean block record and I intend to keep it that way,' and the second said he had no doubt that any edits he made would be contested and railed at." I can find no evidence that this sentiment has changed, and as additional evidence that it has not changed, cite without repeating) the many examples I have given above. In the last four months the SEC went from proposing an anti-fraud naked short selling rule (see their release "SEC Proposes Naked Short Selling Anti-Fraud Rule" to, as our financial system appeared on the brink of imploding, passing an unprecedented emergency order "SEC Enhances Investor Protections Against Naked Short Selling". As SEC Chairman Cox described it therein, ""Today's Commission action aims to stop unlawful manipulation through 'naked' short selling that threatens the stability of financial institutions." Here are 2,000 Google search results for stories that have appeared in recent weeks about "naked short selling". And so on and so forth. Yet this article remains frozen displaying three year old absurdities such as ""Regulators downplay the extent of naked shorting in the US"; "Wall Street Journal columnist Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., has derided naked shorting allegations"; "New York Times financial columnist Joseph Nocera ... said that 'most people who understand the issue or have looked into it think it's pretty bogus'"; and "Gary Weiss ... downplays its significance as a problem for the market." In short, the page remains frozen insisting that "regulators downplay the extent of naked shorting in the US" when regulators have in fact passed an unprecedented emergency order to prevent it from taking down our financial system. I cite this as additional, compelling evidence that the attitude of "editors who have done work in this general field... won't even consider touching the articles, despite acknowledging they are complete messes" remains unchanged. PatrickByrne (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: the article as it is now is very tilted. I will try to start working on it in a day or two. However, I am not generally editing in the "economics" area. We very much need the "regular" economics-editors here. And frankly, I don´t think they will come in the near future, unless something substantial happens here on WP. Eg, if Wordbomb was unblocked; now that would give all economics-editors the sign that "block-on-sight" of certain views here on WP is no longer the case. But I´m not holding my breath. Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Finance & Investment articles
• Unknown-importance Finance & Investment articles
• WikiProject Finance & Investment articles