Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mantanmoreland (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 30 January 2006 (→Concerns Regarding Pressure Group Tactics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive of old comments

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

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

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

Neutral POV violations

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

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

Page Protection - discussion of dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks erudite

From User talk:ESkog and User talk:Riverrunrun

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

Naked Short Selling (Riverrunrun)

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

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

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

Reply (ESkog)

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

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

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

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

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

Counter Reply to Naked Short Selling (Riverrunrun)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply #2 (ESkog)

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

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

Concerns Regarding Pressure Group Tactics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed, the bobobrien version is a POV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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