This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tomstoner (talk | contribs) at 19:05, 18 March 2006 (adding reference to WP:CITE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:05, 18 March 2006 by Tomstoner (talk | contribs) (adding reference to WP:CITE)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)About the Illegal Naked Short Facts
Well done so far! It is difficult to get the facts straight on such a loaded topic. Also, much of the debate has to do with alleged facts regarding the current situation. These so-called facts and their interpretation will, of course, change. My feeling is that the entry as it is gives a fair representation of many aspects, but is not always 100% precise. It is my belief that precision is the only way to deal with advocates of the different factions.
Missing, I think, is the clear distinction between legal naked short selling and illegal naked short selling. Naked short selling is in general illegal; however, market makers are exempted from the general rule, and are the only ones allowed to short naked for the purpose of maintaining a market. 'Bonafide' is a word that is used in this context by the SEC, I think; you can look it up. Many claim that the market makers abuse this privilege; plus there are too many market makers. Some naked shorting also result from Fails to Deliver (FTD's). Temporary FTD's occur for many legitimate reasons, as the SEC is eager to point out (they have a list of reasons). Adversaries claim that the real problem is that permanent FTD's occur on a large scale for reasons other than the ones listed by the SEC, making them illegal. The SRO's like the SEC deny this vehemently, of course: it is their job. Looking at the Reg SHO list makes the SEC's version of the facts look doubtful: many companies are almost continually on this list with a hugh number of FTD's, suggesting there is a practice rather than the odd unavoidable problem. The section called “Its Effects” deals with supposed effects of illegal naked shorting. This is not made really clear, I think.
The section called “Controversy” deals compares legal short selling ('Some investors defend the practice . . .') and illegal short selling ('Critics contend . . .). The controversy is actually about how much illegal short selling is going on, and why the law is not enforced. The SRO's say there is not much illegal short selling, but will not disclose all numbers. Hmm. The specific numbers that have been requested by individuals and subsequently disclosed are high and are cause for concern. All this is easily corroborated, mind you. Furthermore, the 'anti-naked shorting forces' are against broker/dealers breaking the law and are asking the authorities to enforce the law. It is not as if they are asking for something out of the ordinary. The DTCC is allegedly operating outside of the law, by facilitating illegal naked shorting. The SRO's in general are not providing transparency. This is reason for concern. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to use the term 'anti-illegal-naked shorting forces' .
Perhaps the controversy legal/illegal could be a separate item. The rules for naked shorting are not under debate, the extent and effects of illegal market practices are.
Just my two bits. Keep up the good work!
No, the controversy is not between "legal and illegal naked short-selling" but between whether naked shorting is a widespread problem or not. "Legal and illegal" is a red herring that doesn't factor in to the current controversy.--Tomstoner 23:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that there isn't much to say about the size of the problem, as that data is kept secret - thus, any controversy is of a nature of angels on heads of pins. That the information is known, and is knowable, is easy - the DTCC (owned by the brokers) and the SEC know it - but they aren't telling. So no controversy, as no way to test any hypothesis.
As to the idea that the "counterfeiting" aspect is controversial, I have a simple thought experiment: When a naked short sale occurs, the seller fails to deliver the share to the buyer - and yet the transaction is not broken, rather, the NSCC (wholly owned by the DTCC) will provide a share from the Stock Borrow Program to deliver to the buyer - whose broker then redeposits that share right back into the anonymous lending pool, as though it never left. Thus, one legitimate share leaves an IOU with the original owner, and his share goes to the new buyer - only the old owner is never informed that he has just lost his real share. What is left in its place - the IOU - is not a share, has no voting rights, none of the rights that ARE the value of a genuine share - and yet it is treated in the system as a genuine share.
Can anyone think of a word for a facsimile that is falsely represented as genuine?
This is how the Stock Borrow Program creates IOUs/entitlements to shares, in excess of the outstanding authorized shares of a company, unbeknownst to the company, the buyers, the shareholders. Thus, it is entirely possible for a company to have 100 million shares authorized, and a short interest of 30 million, and then another 40 million of naked shorted shares. Only all 170 million "shareholders" believe they own shares - they paid real money for them, after all, and their brokerage statement indicates they have shares, so they must, right? Can anyone think of a word for the creation of 70 million more shares than the company has authorized, all represented to shareholders as genuine?
See how it gets weird quickly? Wall Street has created a situation where the rules are different than anywhere else. Creating stock whole cloth is not really counterfeiting, although it has every element thereof. Hence the cognitive dissonance between the pro and anti naked short selling camps. The pro is typically folks who benefit financially from the practice (the industry or their cronies) whereas the anti camp is usually shareholders, academics, regulators.
Odd, no? Bobobrien 06:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)bobobrien
About the Illegal Naked Short Facts
Btw, the previous entry was mine. I was not logged in.
You're still not. --Anonymous
My Two Cents
I think the current page is OK. However, no mention is made of the wild conspiracy allegations being made by these people. --Tomstoner 23:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Adding and identifying critics. I don't understand all the mush and hairsplitting that's been posted on this. The article is fine. Bye.--Tomstoner 05:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Illegal vs. widespread problem?
Surely if it were a widespread problem, that would imply illegality?
The bonafide market making exemptions for legal naked shorting are by definition not a problem.
So, naked short selling itself is not necessarily a problem.
Illegal naked short selling is a problem, because it can only exist is a weakly managed system. The unanswered question remains, just how widespread is it: big problem, or small problem?
I would still consider splitting the formal situation (SEC etc.) from the alleged situation (the debate).
Anyways, good luck; this is my last post to y'all. Unless there are questions ;-)
Zilcstra -- logged in, but perhaps not visible as such. Tue Feb 21 00:48:22 CET 2006
The article is fine.--Tomstoner 05:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Since this is a contentious issue...
And since philosophical bias has trickled in here in both camps. I have deleted every statement that,
- Is not fact based
- Just opinion
- Alleged
- Not an effect of naked short selling
- He said/She said (not an effect)
- Can not be verified from a reputable source or to whom the quote or action is being attributed to
So it severely shortens the "Effects" section, keeps it fact based and keeps the philosophy out of it. I think this is the only true fair way to describe the effects, and not something else.
If someone wants to start an "Examples or famous quotes" sections, a lot that has been deleted would fit there.--tom 08:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Is that an actual SEC quote? It reads like a composite. That's a no-no. But you did a good job, taking out everything reflecting reality. and now it reads like the back of a cereal box. Good work. --Tomstoner 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a real SEC quote, quoted from the SEC's REG SHO description. I'm sorry it reads dry, but done any other way on this topic will just infalme one side or another and there will be no end to it.
However, we can add other sections, such as "Examples" "Media Coverage" "Grass roots movements.." etc., "Regulatory and Legal actions" or whatever.
But anything added, needs to belong in it's section and be true and verifiable. --tom 19:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well you ruined the page and I don't have time to fix your damage. cheers.--Tomstoner 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I also changed the order of topics, without changing the content. controversy should come first followed by any responses to the contriversy, not the other way around--tom 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Tomstoner, I only left in factual information and took everything out that people are griping about one way or the other and that is clearly commentary and does not fir in the section. For instance, neither what Martha Stewart of Overstock say or do nor what Time or Businessweek journalists say, are effects of naked short selling. Those are opinions or controversies, etc...--tom 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Page Hijacked
That's all I have to say. I'm done here -- no time to fix. Page has been hijacked and turned into a polemic, all balance removed. Nuff said. Maybe a knowledgeable person can fix. I don't have time to baby sit this one and do reverts when my fixes are unfixed. --Tomstoner 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Only The Facts will do
- What remaining information is not correct or fact based?
- Only verifiable facts remain to ensure this is NOT turned into a polemic
- Allegations, beliefs, statements, etc are what will turn this into a polemic, that is why I removed them all.--tom 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the unsourced SEC quote. Footnote it or it stays out.
I have time now only to fix that much damage. When I have more time I'll see if I can fix the rest of the poorly written, biased mess this page has become. bye. --Tomstoner 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you put in, make sure it is factual and footnoted, otherwise it'll be gone in short order.
Journalist articles, opinion letters, statements, etc are not facts. Only links and quotes from the law, rules, SEC, NASD, DTCC are considered facts. Everything else will turn this into a polemic.
Anyone can read the raw information here and make up their own mind. Wiki si not a forum.--71.106.230.124 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have also removed the link to Jeff Mathews and the other article - both are commentary and opinion and not facts, ertainly ont regulators, the section inder which they were posted.--tom 13:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Outrageous! That "SEC quote" before "however" is a lengthy description of why naked shorting probably ISN'T the cause of a stock's decline. It goes out unless you want the whole SEC description in toto. --Tomstoner 15:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I substituted the actual language of the SEC brief for the inaccurate paraphrase somebody slobbed in there. Also, since we must remain "fact based" at all costs, I removed a quote from the anti-shorting website that said, inaccurately, that the substitutes or whatever were "counterfeit" shares. After all, just the facts, ma'am! --Tomstoner 16:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The section from which the SEC describes the "effects", describes several other possible reasons why the prices of shares decline. IF you want to start a WIKI article on Pump and Dump schemes or unlisted companies, etc...go ahead. When the SEC mentions naked short selling it is the exact quote.
It is a valid, correct and exact quote and comes from the SEC. It stays.--tom 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The opinion pieces by jounalists have been removed. These are not facts, just opinions. We do not want to turn this into a polemic.--tom 17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Just quote the part that favors you.
This was a Q&A. Question: Did my stock go down because of naked shortselling. You quote HALF the answer.
Either the whole quote goes in or none. --Tomstoner 17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
We're not talking about the many other reasons of why a stock goes up or down. The answer in the SEC's Q&A gives a lists of MANY OTHER REASONS of why stocks go up or down, INCLUDING naked short selling, as teh quote clearly states. This is the SEC's description on the efect of naked short selling, not mine or anyone else's.
The OTHER reasons the SEC gives for price fluctuations have nothing to do with naked short selling, so they have no place here.--tom 17:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Selective Quotations Skew the POV
Of course the other reasons belong here. The SEC provided a FULL answer. You just put in the part of the answer that supports your point of view. --Tomstoner 17:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Section is "Effects of naked shorting"
The Section is "Effects of naked shorting" NOT the many other reasons for price fluctuations of stocks. The question in the Q&A is :
"Is naked short selling the reason my stock has lost value?" The answer :
- "There are many reasons why a stock may decline in value." from the same SEC answer
and as it pertains to Naked Short Selling further down :
- Naked short selling, however, can have negative effects on the market. Fraudsters may use naked short selling as a tool to manipulate the market. Market manipulation is illegal.29 The SEC has toughened its rules and is vigilant about taking actions against wrongdoers.30 Fails to deliver that persist for an extended period of time may result in a significantly large unfulfilled delivery obligation at the clearing agency where trades are settled.
This WIKI article on naked short selling is not about,
- "If many people want a stock (demand is high), then the price will rise. If a few people want a stock (demand is low), then the price will fall." from the same SEC answer
- And on and on like things above that have nothing to do with naked short selling at all. The SEC page is linked and anyone can read up on the full text.
It is factual quote from the SEC related directly yo naked short selling. Do not delete factual and relevant information.--tom 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete factual links
The deletion of factual external links is a violation of WIKI policy. I ask this stop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommytoyz (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not. Please see our policy on external links. If we just googled for "Naked short selling" and put all the hits in our "External links", it would overwhelm the article. We should limit ourselves to two types of links: (1) significant references used when creating article content, and (2) external links which go in more depth than is necessary here in a reasonably neutral manner. (ESkog) 21:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Third Opinion
I think the SEC quote is a little long, but every idea presented in it should be stated here (including the other factors that can cause a stock to decline). Is it really so impossible to present a summary that's just a paragraph or two long, and then include a link to the entire reply? Kafziel 19:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
THe SEC quote is indeed too long and is mostly about things unrelated to naked short selling. --tom 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Unrelated to naked short selling, yes, but not unrelated to the reason stocks drop, which is what the quoted question is asking. A simpler solution to summarizing it might be simply to remove the entire SEC quote altogether and replace it with one from somewhere else that is answered in a more relevant way. I'm sure there are other stock websites out there with advice on the same subject. Kafziel 21:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is a very contentious issue and so the only way to keep it straight is to only use quotes from the authorities. Everywhere else naked short selling is written up, it's full of opinion.
My suggestion is to just add the context like this.
Effects
- In answering the question of whether or not naked short selling depresses stock prices, the SEC answers that, "there are many reasons why a stock may decline in value." Specifically, "Naked short selling, however, can have negative effects on the market. Fraudsters..." etc..
Does this seem fair? --tom 21:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'd consider the SEC any more unbiased than other sources, but if it's important to you that it be used a major source, then why not just put the whole answer in there? There's really no limit to how much information you can put into a Misplaced Pages article. If it's too long and boring, people can just skip it and go on to the next section. (Besides, something tells me anyone interested in short selling will have the patience to read the whole thing.) Kafziel 21:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the article back to the previous text, in line with the third opinion that the full answer, or summary thereof, should be presented. It was changed so that an entire paragraph is repeated. I will then try to summarize the entire SEC paragraph to make more concise. The article is generally a mess, and is far too weighted in favor of the anti-shorting viewpoint, but that will be a start. One problem is that it is laden down with references to "FOI requests" and other dross that regulators have decisively rejected as utterly meaningless. --Tomstoner 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Since the entire quote is now restored, though if someone is interested they can merely click on the link and read not just the quoted section but the entire SEC page. Of course this all makes for unwieldly reading and not the best of WIKI pages, but it can not be contested either.--tom 23:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Factual text, quotes and links are being delted
You have been warned not to delete factual links and quotes. To explain your actions, explain your claim that "references to "FOI requests" and other dross that regulators have decisively rejected as utterly meaningless. " Where did you see that? WHen has any regulator commented on the FOI data? Quote with link please.
Until then it will remain.
--tom 23:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop the ad hominems and please note the warning on your page.
I obtained a third opinion which agrees that the full quote should go in. The context of the full quote, that it was a question posed to answer the question in the Level 2 head, has been removed. I am restoring it.
One paragraph from that full quote is duplicated in the previous section. I'm removing it. Please stop reverting that deletion.
The FTD numbers linked are meaningless according to the regulators, the DTCC and SEC too I think both saying FTDs usually do NOT mean naked shorting. This page is already dreadfully written and contains a confusing array of statistics. I am removing it. --Tomstoner 16:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The Page is a Mess
Also the the SEC's explanation of the "substitutes" -- that it is a TERM FROM THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE ! -- has been removed. The page has been so messed up that I am going to have to revert back to the way it was before it was ripped to shreds. --Tomstoner 16:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I believe that Tomstoner's version of the page is better from both a writing perspective and an NPOV perspective. I think it does an adequate job of presenting factual information in an organized and balanced manner. Others should feel free to chime in here so that we can determine consensus. (ESkog) 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. The article is reasonably solid as it is right now and it's a good time for both parties to take a break and cool off by working on something else for a while. Kafziel 16:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The removal and deletion of the SEC data and FOIA requests is the removal of facts. Why? The insertion of opinion pieces is better? I say we have to keep this factual and not keep inserting opinion pieces.
The constant deletion of my version by the same parties within a 24 period is considered vandalism, or so I'm told. Is this true? This was reported to me by Kafziel. --tom 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- The rule is that any one user may not revert to the same version 3 times within a 24-hour period. If you find anyone violating this rule, you should report them to the three-revert rule noticeboard and follow the format there. (ESkog) 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
RfC reply
The only problem I see with the article is its sloppy presentation of source material. This article needs to be divided into two sections, one for, one against NSS. These sections should separately summarize cited viewpoints on each side. The situation is much like in a U.S. presidential debate, where candidates are vehemently opposed to each other, but are not allowed to interrupt each others' presentations. Unsourced material needs to be verified as per WP:V or deleted. After sources get verified and arguments get presented in a logical format, I think the POV issue will work itself out. Best of luck - Cdcon 07:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Then this article may be a waste of time. Applying WP:V -- and I have to confess I hadn't looked at it -- would essentially exclude the entire anti-naked shorting viewpoint, because that is stated principally in websites not allowed by Misplaced Pages policy, at least as I understand it. Why not just leave well enough alone. --Tomstoner 21:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Tomstoner, thanks for the comment on my Talk page, I'll do what good here I can. To you and anyone else who might be interested, I have a blog, and my two most recent entries there (today, March 4, and yesterday, March 3) deal with issues raised here, although the blog as a whole deals with a lot else -- pretty much whatever crosses my mind on a given day. Anyway, feel free to chat about this subject there if you'd like. cfaille.blog-city.com
--Christofurio 20:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Incidentally I see that there has been some anonymous IDs packing the page with technical gobbledygook. I've reverted.--Tomstoner 14:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Tomstoner, what was gobbledygook? It was a reference to the RegSHO FAQ published by the SEC. It speaks directly to Naked Short Selling (as opposed to the standard Short Selling FAQ). http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm. What is your issue with it?
It's all been discussed before, ad nauseum. See above. P.S. Sign your posts.--Tomstoner 00:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Does the SEC control this website? If I wanted the official SEC position on naked short-selling, I would go to . The problem is, the SEC won't share the FTD data, even in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. If the SEC is failing to enforce the law (as they have many, many times before), we have no way to know.
Folks, there is a grassroots movement to force the SEC to enforce laws on the book and end abusive naked short-selling altogether. The SEC is not about to admit it is a problem, because it is a problem they were supposed to prevent. But their grandfathering of pre-Reg-SHO FTDs amounts to an admission of their failure to control the problem. Why else would they grandfather prior violations?
It is completely one-sided and non-neutral to give 80% of the article to the SEC's position on the issue. The SEC is a party in the dispute, and this site should not favor any party in any dispute, particularly not the US Government, unless this is a government-controlled site.
Increasingly disappointed in Misplaced Pages, --68.88.193.14 04:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
68.88.193.14, this is what I posted in the Controversy section that Tomstoner removed (and called vandalism!). I see NO reference to this in the preceeding text.
"One particular area of controversy raised by opponents of Naked Short Selling involves some text within the RegSHO FAQ published by the SEC. In particular, the following excerpts:
IV. A. 7. F. Grandfathering Under Regulation SHO
The requirement to close-out fail to deliver positions in threshold securities that remain for 13 consecutive settlement days does not apply to positions that were established prior to the security becoming a threshold security. This is known as "grandfathering." For example, open fail positions in securities that existed prior to the effective date of Regulation SHO on January 3, 2005 are not required to be closed out under Regulation SHO. The grandfathering provisions of Regulation SHO were adopted because the Commission was concerned about creating volatility where there were large pre-existing open positions. The Commission will continue to monitor whether grandfathered open fail positions are being cleaned up under existing delivery and settlement guidelines or whether further action is warranted.
Opponents point to this paragraph as an admission that Naked Short Selling exists in such extremes in our markets that forcing settlement would cause undesirable volatility.
V. 11. Can I obtain fails information?
Currently, threshold lists include the name and ticker symbol of securities that meet the threshold level on a particular settlement date. Some investors have requested that the SROs provide more detailed information for each threshold security, including the total number of fails, the total short interest position, the name of the broker-dealer firm responsible for the fails, and the names of the customers of responsible brokers and dealers responsible for the short sales. The fails statistics of individual firms and customers is proprietary information and may reflect firms' trading strategies. The release of this information could be used to engage in unlawful upward manipulation of the price of the securities in order to "squeeze" the firms improperly.
Opponents argue that this paragraph expresses evidence that some firms use Naked Short Selling as a trading strategy rather then just a tool to maintain liquidity in a security as is allowed by the SEC."
I also added a link to the RegSHO FAQ written by the SEC in the reference section and Tomstoner removed that calling it SPAM?!!? Can anyone else comment as to why my text was in appropriate?
Reply
I removed it because it is grossly unencyclopedic and presents a one-sided view of the issue, putting an anti-shorting spin on a lot of highly technical mumbo-jumbo without any sourcing whatsoever. And no, taking an ambiguous sentence from an SEC document and highlighting it, and then saying what one thinks it means, is not proper sourcing.
This is an encyclopedia and personal research into this issue does not belong here. --Tomstoner 20:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm very surprised that the 'article' section 'External Links' does not contain links to the 'Regulation SHO Threshold Security List' published by both the NYSE and NASDAQ of companies with excessive failures to deliver (FTD). This is the heart of the controversy; whether companies with long standing excessive failures to deliver, companies that are and have been on these lists for a long time, are being abusively naked shorted or not. Inasmuch as the SEC and DTCC will not release the actual numbers, nobody can really say one way or the other. The links are:
http://www.nyse.com/Frameset.html?displayPage=/threshold/ http://nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx
There is much information contained at these linked pages, and they also contain links to relevant information. Not like the filtered content that appears on the 'article' page. As example, I find it most ingenuous that Tomstoner would indicate that personal research and or information without proper sourcing should not appear, when the Controversy section contains primarily one sided opinion. Just being a NYT columnist doesn't an expert witness make. His argument of small and microcap compaines flies in the face of having Delta Airlines (until delisting) et al on the list. People should look over the list and see for themselves just what types of companies qualify for inclusion.
63.96.70.230 22:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC) gekelly
Sur-Reply
Thank you I'm not called "ingenuous" very often but the rule prohibiting original research is a product of Misplaced Pages's ingenuity not mine. --Tomstoner 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom, your actions are curious. I'd be happy to redo the work but it was taken verbatim from the SEC so not sure how I could do better. How you interpret the text as ambiguous is beyond me but accepting that, and whether you like it or not, it is an area of controversy that exists in the opponent's community (and I tried to relay that in my words). That you allowed (or provided) a quote from a proponents view from a NYT journalist and not one from the SEC .
Also, in removing the link to the RegSHO FAQ from the SEC (which, btw, supports their (proponent) position) and calling it SPAM is beyond puzzling.
I agree with gekelly on posting the RegSHO lists. They are an official resource and important.
Short of restoring/deleting/restoring again, I would like to find a mediator and/or escalate as we obviously disagree here. --Mfv 00:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to get into a debate with you over this. All the changes you propose are clearly in violation of WP:V and WP:OR, not to mention generally fall afoul of WP:NPOV.
As for administrator intervention -- I have just made such a request. Please cease further editing until we have received further input on this pls.
Also I am going to have to ask you to direct comments at the content and not the editor. See WP:NPA.
I request that new editors please read the above links as well as WP:EQ, and related links on that page, before making further contributions to either the page itself or this talk page. This is a general comment, not directed to any particular user. --Tomstoner 13:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the status from the administrator(s)? I noticed that it was legal to quote from the SEC when asking "Does Naked Shorting Drive Stock Prices Down?" (they go on to say there are many reasons for a stock to go down...) yet apparently when I quoted them from the RegSHO it suddenly becomes a violation. Strange indeed. Mfv 01:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The SEC quote you cite addressed the central issue in plain English. The Reg SHO quote you cite addressed an aspect of the issue in highly technical gobbledygook prose, to which was added a one-sided spin without sourcing. --Tomstoner 13:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This is perhaps one of the most polarizing topics in the markets today yet 95% of the text on this wiki denies it exists or is a problem. All opponent comments are concluded with "but such and such denies it happens" yet the proponent views are left unchallenged and treated as undisputed fact. The words used in my prose are the exact ones found in the article as written today (threshhold, securities, settlement). Your term "gobbledygook" is a direct miscategorization. --Mfv 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've redacted per WP:RPA, because my request to cease personal attacks was ignored. I toned down some of my own remarks as well.--Tomstoner 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom, editting the discussing page is a bit much. 'Direct miscategorization' or 'Curious' is not anymore a personal attack then your words 'dross' or 'yeah whatever'. I will work on an Arbitration request this weekend. Be advised that you will be on it. --Mfv 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Concerns Re Sourcing & Personal Attacks
Editing talk pages is permitted as per the guideline I cited, and I toned down some of my own remarks as well. However, rather than get into a tussle over that, I'll await adminstrator intervention, if any, on this whole issue of the personal remarks.
As for arbitration -- I am all for that. However, it seems far too early for an arbitration, given that the previous steps have not been completed, but if that can happen now I certainly think it is a good idea.
As for your remark that "you will be on it" (meaning "on the arbitration," whatever that means) again I am going to draw your attention to the warning on your user page that remarks directed against other editors are against Misplaced Pages policy. Personal remarks seem to be a constant, ongoing problem concerning with this page, as has been noted in the past by other editors.
There is, incidentally, an overriding issue that needs to be addressed that was raised by User:CdCon. While I objected to your added material because it is original research and unencyclopedic, I think the article overall may very well be objectionable because of sourcing (as per his comment -- please refer back to that above on the talk page). I think it may well be that that both sides of the argument are not well sourced through veriable sources as required by Misplaced Pages.
Were a wholesale rewrite to be done, and if the sourcing were to be verified as per Misplaced Pages policy, then I am not sure there would be much left to the article, particularly from the "anti-shorting" viewpoint. Apart from the Time article, there does not appear to be too much in the way of proper sourcing that can be cited. Again, it needs to be kept in mind that raw data is not allowed. That is not my policy but Misplaced Pages's, so please don't flame me for pointing that out.
For example, there is no doubt whatsoever that raw lists of "fails to deliver" would be original research not permitted by Misplaced Pages policy. However, and by the same token, the SEC Q&A might well be objectionable for the same reason -- original research. However, since the SEC Q&A is written in plain language and designed for a general reader, and is from a neutral source of widely acknowledged reliability, I would argue that it would not fall under that category.
Rather than go back and forth on this, I would personally prefer to do nothing until some fresh eyes come in and look at this page and, particularly, the sourcing issue. Fair enough? --Tomstoner 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
A few things:
If you look at the arbitration rules, one of the prerequesites is to notify the participants that they will be part of it. I was merely doing so.
The "rules" for edditing here seem to be conflicting:
1) On the one hand my comments are said to be improperly sourced yet they were taken verbatim from the SEC (If there were a standard format that you would be happy with I would be inclined to do it provided the content remained stable). They then are said to be "gobbledygook" which is highly subjective and confusing since the same words are used in another SEC quotes in this article. As previously stated, I could alter the text but then you mentioned above: "Is that an actual SEC quote? It reads like a composite. That's a no-no. But you did a good job, taking out everything reflecting reality. and now it reads like the back of a cereal box. Good work.". Also, you noted above one must quote the SEC in it's entirety: "Outrageous! That "SEC quote" before "however" is a lengthy description of why naked shorting probably ISN'T the cause of a stock's decline. It goes out unless you want the whole SEC description in toto.". So hopefully you can understand my confusion on the proper presentation here. Do I rewrite it to make it clearer or maintain the quote verbatim? Your suggestion is to simply keep it out which I disagree with entirely as many opponents question these 2 excerpts.
2) Someone above mentions: "Journalist articles, opinion letters, statements, etc are not facts. Only links and quotes from the law, rules, SEC, NASD, DTCC are considered facts. Everything else will turn this into a polemic." Which again is puzzling, since Fred Norris from the NYT is allowed to give his opinion for the proponent's view on this article!
My point is that this topic is highly charged and there are varying views as one can probably guess. The article conveys the proponent view and defense almost in totality. I made an attempt to relay why it's confusing in the Controversy Section from the opponents standpoint and have tried to provide direct sources to the topic from the SEC itself and not any of the other external opinions. That it has been blankly removed and called vandalism (as oppose to commenting on what can be done to alter the text for clarity or satisfaction) is simply not right. --Mfv 11:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I objected to the SEC quote that you mention in 1) because it was out of context. You needed the preceding material to put it in context. Since the whole thing is written in plain language and designed for public consumption, I think it is proper to put in the article.
The other passage you mention was a lengthy quote on the issue from the SEC on "grandfathering," which is a technical issue. You added a comment on that which was unsourced. The two are like night and day. One is a kind of SEC digest written in simple terms and the other is original data. The fact that they are from same source is beside the point.
On 2) that was written "before my time" by someobdy else. It is not a correct statement of Misplaced Pages policy. Frankly I only became fully aware of the sourcing policy myself when it was pointed out by CDCon.
My "vandalism" remark was incorrect (as has been forcefully pointed out to me!). No, the problem is that it was original research and that you added an unsourced comment.
Anyway, I appreciate that we can discuss this civilly but I would suggest that you take seriously my concerns re original research. Don't you see my point on that? Is there any verifiable, proper (by Misplaced Pages standards) source that discusses this grandfathering issue? The TIME piece, for example? --Tomstoner 16:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom, I would much rather try and work this through amongst ourselves. I suppose I don't understand the original research thing since the SEC is already quoted in this article (what makes one original and another not?). Even Misplaced Pages admits there is a fine line. I am trying to stick to official points (not putting down TIME mag in any way) since I realize this topic is so charged. It just so happens, opponents question these particular excerpts. I have not seen any good counter arguments to Grandfathering aside from message board banter. Feel free to shoot over any links you might have that says otherwise. There are some academic studies to strategic FTD's worth noting at www.businessjive.com under the Byrne interview. Regarding context, if you let me know what other part of the SEC statements would inject better context into the mix, I would be willing to discuss. --Mfv 22:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The Source Thing
Well, we have no choice but to reach consensus. I have asked the experienced user who first raised the sourcing issue to come over and give his input.
Re sources -- you see, I don't think that www.businessjive.com would be a proper source under the Misplaced Pages guidelines. However, the studies cited on the site may be another matter entirely.
The "verifiability" requirement is a big obstacle to putting together this article, as it would seemm, at least to me, to pretty well knock out the vast majority of websites and blogs that deal with this issue from both sides! Let's face it, there's no way that SanityCheck or the Jeff Matthews blog could possibly be considered meeting the verifiability standard.
There's nothing wrong with official sources, and obviously you see them all over Misplaced Pages. Historical documents etc. etc. The problem is that here you have a technical issue here. If you post lists of FTDs or language from a regulation, such as the one re grandfathering, you are posting an opaque piece of writing that I really don't think you can put in an encyclopedia. Also it seems to fall afoul of the ban on original research. People on one side of the issue feel the documentation, lists etc. mean something, but if that is just expressed on a website or chat room, then I think you have a sourcing issue.
On the other hand, if you have an SEC document like the FAQ that is written in plain language, and is understandable by just reading it, then I can't see a sourcing problem with that. It isn't raw data and it is from a source that I believe could be considered verifiable.
Frankly I have not seen Grandfathering even addressed anywhere but the message boards. Why not look at the verifiability page here and see what you can find that would meet that criteria? --Tomstoner 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom, I admit your argument has me at a loss. I don't know how much clearer one can get with the sentence "The grandfathering provisions of Regulation SHO were adopted because the Commission was concerned about creating volatility where there were large pre-existing open positions. " for excerpt 1 and "The fails statistics of individual firms and customers is proprietary information and may reflect firms' trading strategies." for excerpt 2. I have tried to acknowledge that this is a point of controversy (by putting it in the controversy section) and have asked you for guidance on how to better add context. The paragraphs are independent sections in the FAQ. Let's face it, this area of the market is complex (thus the confusion surrounding it) since the keepers of the information aren't exactly forthcoming. The whole DTCC Stock Borrowing program and the (undated) future's contracts it can generate would make people's head spin (plus it uses undocumented formulas for certain decisions). Until the SEC releases less ambiguous prose or proceeds to clarify these statements, we are stuck calling it, at best, Controversy. That it is suppressed entirely as a result, seems wrong to me. --Mfv 09:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, but as I've indicated several times before, these two statements ("The grandfathering provisions. . ." and "The fails statistics. . ." ) only have relevancy to this article when you spin them via the following two sweeping, unsourced commeents:
1) "Opponents point to this paragraph as an admission that Naked Short Selling exists in such extremes in our markets that forcing settlement would cause undesirable volatility."
2) "Opponents argue that this paragraph expresses evidence that some firms use Naked Short Selling as a trading strategy rather then just a tool to maintain liquidity in a security as is allowed by the SEC."
These two issues -- the SEC "admission" and the "evidence," need to be boiled down into proper form and sourced. It's not enough to quote an SEC document and then just say, "here, 'opponents' say they are incriminating." --Tomstoner 13:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I keep on talking about "verifiable," and by that I am referring to WP:V. Just so you don't think I'm making it up! Hey, I'm fairly new here too and, reading that statement of official policy I scratched my head and said to myself, "What in this article can possibly pass muster with this policy!"
Note the internal links within WP:V, in particular WP:NOR. Ditto my reaction when I read this policy.--Tomstoner 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it fascinating that so much ado has arisen over a spectacularly rhetorical discussion. Naked short selling as exactly nothing to do with short selling. Short selling is legal. Failing to deliver stock, unless you are a market maker acting in a bona-fide manner, is not legal, and violates Section 9 of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act (go read it) as well as UCC 8, and 15c6-1, and 17A. Just because the slang terminology is to call the manipulative practice of selling stock and not delivering it naked short selling, doesn't mean that we have to nod our heads along with it. Short selling is legal. Failing to deliver what a buyer paid for is not, unless you are a bona-fide market maker acting in a bona-fide capacity.
Long sales can fail for nefarious as well as legitimate reasons, and can be "naked short selling" - but obviously trades marked long are not short sales. Thus, a misnomer. And clearly a confusing one.
I've given up trying to bring balance to this, as clearly a cherry-picking approach has been introduced. A 3 paragraph description of penny stock fraud has as much relevance to failing to deliver stock as a soliloquy on bicycles. That the SEC, in the many thousands of words it chose to print in its missive, elected to editorialize on the perspective of one of the commissioners that much of the noise is as a result of disgruntled investors and stock fraudsters, is opinion - nothing else. To pretend that thinking upright bipeds would view it differently diminishes the value of Wikepedia, and converts it into a bully pulpit of sorts.
Strip this down to its essentials. Naked short selling is a euphemism which is often confused with legal short selling. It is in actuality failing to deliver shares of stock, whether sold short, or long. Some is innocent, some is legal, and some isn't either. The controversy surrounding the issue revolves around the size of the third category. All the attempts to justify its effects as good or bad are noise - the only ones trying to argue the pro case are those financially benefiting from the practice. Again, it is failing to deliver stock that was paid for. All the rest is rationalization as to why it is good not to deliver it, or why not delivering it offsets other frauds.
But until the article actually describes the actual thing that is happening accurately, it is useless as a reference.
By the way, failing to deliver stock that someone paid for isn't controversial. It isn't a trading strategy. When done deliberately beyond 13 days, it is stock manipulation - 10b5. No controversy. All the blah blah to try to conceal or deflect does you no good service, and again, denigrates your integrity of the site.
The SEC's rant is pure hyperbole, and as self-serving as anything to come out of thesanitycheck. Failing to deliver is against SEC rules, except for market makers, when it is done deliberately.
Why is that so hard to grasp or articulate?Bobobrien 07:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)bob obrien
Perhaps you can suggest some sources that conform with WP:V and WP:NOR that could help in creating this article? Also I should point out that Misplaced Pages articles are not personal essays. They draw on sources and require citations, particularly on controversial issues. See WP:CITE. --Tomstoner 13:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)