99:
James Dale
Davidson who created 'NAANSS' or National Association Against Naked Short Selling' is behind NCANS.A google search 'schwab lom' or 'attorney o'quinn' or 'naanss ncans' or 'attorney brent baker' or 'james angel georgetown ' plus my nake will give you much to read about this fraud.I will add a link here to my indymedia article 'Charles Schwab Share Money Laundering'that has a link to a pdf file showing that Endovasc placed 'up to 30 million shares'! into one Schwab acount in mid 2002 all the while claiming in pr that a real 'reverse split' was occuring.I had over half a million shares reduced to little more than 10 thousand shares but in theory that would have reduced all shares to under 3 million.In fact Davidson's Agora Inc.promoted Endovasc and over one million shares were 'traded' per day in late 2002.This was not the only massive pump and dump fraudulently disguised as 'naked shorting'.
107:
it on 'naked shorting'.I noted the author of the scammy naked shorting site has erroneously claimed Pet
Quarters as an example of victim of naked shorting. If this is so then why has 'famed attorney O'Quinn' who has been promoting the fraudulent lie while never winning one at least won that oneĀ ? Because Pet Quarters management signed a deal with the very person they accused and he got super discount shares to dump on public and Pet Quarters management got cash for all those shares that were dumped.Also why does your your wikipedia site not mention any examples of penny scam companies that are at least being investigated for fraudulent naked shorting claimĀ ?
565:"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 Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG)?' Anyone that feels that this needs to be corrected should contact Knowledge (XXG) and find out how they got taken on this one."
95:
have been the Schwab LOM of
Bermuda account.I am greatly disappointed that the SEC has allowed this fraud to get so out of control it has even grown since 2002.Now it is being used to promote scammy Nasdaq companies and management as well as OTCBB penny stocks.It is apparently so lucrative and I believe Beltway connected that those running the fraud can enlist politicians such as Senator Bennett of Utah to make the fraud appear a legitmate concern.
31:
213:
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
103:
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.
724:
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.
668:"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,..."
462:
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.
974:
impoverished students, is that although there is a substantial body of opinion favoring naked shorting or at least opposing the naked shorting campaign, there is no organized pressure group as there is from the anti-shorters. Thus a researcher must do a little digging but it is there, and quite vehement. --
650:"...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.
1180:
Sorry, but we don't 'freeze' articles, unless there is an outright edit war about it. If someone is reverting without discussion to a version that doesn't have consensual support, then it is ok, to a point, to revert them, with talk messages explaining why. Watch out for the 3RR - part of the reason
1002:
I added a link in the
Effects section to a primary source that might be helpful -- an SEC "summary of comments" on its short-selling regulation, which at page 15 lists in a footnote the identity of 45 pro-shorting commenters. A curious reader can go to the link and find the panoply of opinion arrayed
763:
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
583:
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
480:
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
973:
You may not agree, but that is the opposing argument, required for a neutral POV. Also (editing my comment to add this) FYI, your best compendium of info on the opposing arguments is the comments from the SEC rulemaking cited in the text. One problem facing researchers on this subject, particularly
744:
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
723:
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
682:
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
550:
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
484:
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
391:
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
317:
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
180:
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
Knowledge (XXG) article. As with Hitler, it is better to present the facts and allow the reader to discover that this adds up to a
1165:
I have been following this discussion for the last several days and have found it very interesting. The editing process of the article has really impressed me. The article, as revised, turned out to be very well done. Now, it seems that someone has again hijacked the article and replaced it with
1050:
As indicated above, ESkog has requested unprotection and merging in of the /Workshop page (it is possible to merge the histories seamlessly). I just wanted to make certain that other parties are happy with that request being approved? Note that /Workshop need not be in complete and final in all its
759:
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
535:
Re the "Counterreply": If we ever get to a point at which we are discussing the merits of the emtry, I would like to see the exchange remain calm and without personal attacks ("hypocrisy") or assertions of intellectual hegemony on the basis of asserted "expertise." The "Counterreply" is essentially
461:
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
106:
Also why not mention the CMKX pump dump fraud being investigated by SEC for false claim of being 'naked shorted'Ā ? Or USXP.In fact the SEC is either incompetent or corrupt to have allowed so many penny stocks scams to dump millions or billions of shares on a defrauded public and then falsely blame
1204:
It's not vandalism to prefer a different version of the page. Re not needing 4 reverts ā if it's just two editors warring, both will hit the 3RR and then get stuck with whatever is the last version. If one version has the support of many editors, then a lone opposing editor will run out of reverts
1193:
Well, I interpret this hijacking of the page to be a resumption of the editing war. The entire compromise page was jetissoned and replaced by a polemic. I am a little hazy about your point re not needing 4 reverts each, but anyway I don't see how correcting vandalism would be subject to that rule.
948:
Errudite -- Yes, excellent point. Any practice that is aimed at manipulating the market is illegal. Therefore naked shorting per se is not ilelgal as the SEC observed. Would the SEC acknowledge that a massive fraud has been going on for decades? I think the answer is yes, in the sense that the SEC
928:
Mantanmoreland: yes, SEC spokespeople claim they have no evidence of manipulative naked short selling. Would you expect the SEC to jump up and say "Yes, a massive fraud has been occurring for decades, while we hid the data from the public and did nothing to stop it."? Or would you expect them to
843:
They're cited in the article. Most clearly the Time Magazine piece outlines the claims that are made. Please go improve the article in the workshop - that's what it's there for, and I know I didn't do a good job presenting the pro-naked shorting side (because, quite frankly, I didn't find a lot of
674:"...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."
476:
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
465:
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
321:
The current article is a clear violation of the Knowledge (XXG) 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
212:
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
98:
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
94:
Would anyone like me to fax them my Endovasc 'cert' that I was defrauded into purchasing by 'famed attorney John O'Quinn and those such as James Dale Davidson who ran the scam in part from a Charles Schwab account in 2002Ā ? I believe that account that helped defraud me of 100% of my investment may
554:
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
503:
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 Knowledge (XXG), and it's not going away anytime soon. With good sources (which it appears you have), we can build an article
1016:
likes it. I was getting some snippy remarks in my "talk" page and I had gotten the impression the debate was totally polarized. What I've tried to do is to balance out the argument with official sources wherever possible. I do get "you shouldn't believe the SEC" feedback but, again, the argument
969:
I donĀ“t understand this issue fully, but I understand it enough to know that there is a lot of misinformation here. Expecially the comments about how naked shorts are a market-based counterweight against pump and dumps. Unless there is something big that I am missing, this is completely false.
147:
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
680:"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."
572:
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
273:
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.
158:
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.
767:
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
865:
Instead of using a secondary source that contains no citation or attribution, why not simply use the primary source that I cited, the the SEC FAQ? It seems to me that this recent, comprehensive document, from an official U.S. Government source, is dispositive on the issues and should be given
361:
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
102:
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 holderĀ ? Because while Endovasc was not 'naked shorted' Schwab did provide an account as I
760:
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)."
488:
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
924:
ESkog, thank you! You have done a good job of presenting the issue in a balanced and concise manner. I may suggest a few edits here and there, but I appreciate your effort to give us a much more reasonable starting point. Some of us are very passionate about this issue, as you can tell.
481:
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.
454:
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.
1228:
So far there's just one anonymous editor, and Splash is right that the consensus would be enough to "beat" his/her reverts. If it becomes overwhelming again, we certainly have the option of re-protecting for a day or two to let people find some other way to occupy themselves.
932:
M, by the way, you are right: naked short selling is not illegal. Using naked short selling to manipulate the price of a stock is illegal, and that is what the article about, not naked short selling as a result of clerical errors. My mistake; I presumed that was understood.
699:"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,"
318:
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?
756:"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.
821:
The idea is that you will add your own information and sources to the article - it doesn't belong to me. Everything mainstream I found was pretty conclusive to the point that this is an illegal practice which has caused actual damages, so that's what I wrote.
638:"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."
365:
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"
512:, 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
568:
Aside from an understandable lack of appreciation of Knowledge (XXG) procedures, the above troubles me as I do not think that Knowledge (XXG) entries should be written and then injected forcibly by leaders of pressure groups and their friends.
469:
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?
1217:
Thanks for clarifying. I think the problem is that this page has been subject to external publicity from people with a particular point of view. That raises the realistic possibility of neutral editing being overwhelmed by "hijackers."
1240:
No, actually there have been two -- the one that I reverted and the one that you did. Note that both made the same changes. However, you are right that the pace of changes is not what it was and hopefully it will peter out.
466:
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.
477:
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.
1017:
there is with the SEC. Incidentally I don't think the current version is all that lopsided. In fact it makes some points I would like to see in the test page, but which I am omitting for the sake of peace in the world. --
662:"...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."
1085:
Weii I for one am very pleasantly surprised at how well this was (apparently) resolved. Personally I just stumbled on this whole thing in my own research. It actually presented me with new sources and was interesting.
175:
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
1169:
I agree. I will revert back to the agreed-on compromise version. To avoid a further editing war I suggest that the compromise version be frozen. I would make that request myself but I am not sure of the mechanics.
771:
Quite frankly, I believe that this entire subject has been so dragged out of proportion that, as I previously proposed, I believe that an abbreviated version of the current entry should be merged with the entry on
811:
Well, this is not really a compromise. It is an adoption of the "anti-naked shorting" position without the opposing point of view presented and without adequate sourcing. Its length is appropriate, however.--
983:
Mantanmoreland, I agree with your approach and this is an enlightening process for me... I have certainly read balanced writing before, but I am learning just how difficult creating a balanced piece can be.
764:
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.
752:
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.
717:
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
709:"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.""
304:
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. --
1151:
Well, I can see why this person made that analogy. It is not a terrible point. In fact it is actually quite thoughtful, but I think that it really belongs in the discussion on ordinary short selling.--
473:
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.
383:
I am not an "official moderator" of Knowledge (XXG); 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
644:"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."
879:
You seem to be absolutely adamant that we can't say anything about it being illegal or harmful - but there are considerable, credible claims being made that it may be both. Use your SEC FAQ and
562:
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:
689:
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.
620:"...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."
955:
Incidentally -- in my edit I removed the reference to Rocker entirely, since one user cites evidence that naked shorting is not alleged. That belongs in the main entry on short selling.--
380:
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.
894:
Well, the only source cited here is the Time magazine piece. Frankly I feel the only way to improve the piece is to begin anew, which I don't want to do without a sense if that is OK. --
191:
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.--
715:"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."
695:
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?
693:"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."
558:
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
181:
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. (
424:
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
526:
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?
741:, 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.
201:
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. (
952:
ESkrog, to retain a neutral POV it is important to point out that the allegation of the "expert" hired by the anti-naked shorting lobby has not been substantiated.
833:
I'm sorry but Richard Geist is not an unbiased source. He is a penny stock promoter. Where are your unbiased sources for "actual damages." The SEC says otherwise.--
670:
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.
244:
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. (
555:
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."
869:
Also I am perplexed by your reference to "investor harm" as the SEC is definitive on that too. The Time article is a rehash of naked shorting allegations. --
1138:
short selling. To buy on margin, I borrow money (for a fee) to buy a stock, while short selling involves borrowing stock (for a fee) to sell for money.
664:
Wrong. Requesting physical delivery of share certificates is ILLEGAL? Then why are brokers agreeing to deliver certificates every day? That is insane.
1106:
913:
Your edits look good, and the sources are all solid. I think we're really making progress here on a page that will at least be tolerable to all of us. (
224:
458:
You have mentioned several "problems" with removed version of this page. My version attempts to rectify the inaccuracies in the protected version.
1051:
eventual glory, you all just need to be satisfied that the dispute that lead to protection is amicably resolved so that there is no re-eruption. -
489:
security. Be informed before taking a stand on neutrality. Learn and advocate the facts. Otherwise you are definitely become part of the problem.
485:
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.
340:
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. (
392:
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
1103:
Should this article have some sort of reference to "buying stocks on margin," which is essentially the exact opposite of naked shorting?
626:"If naked shorting were allowed by SEC rules, other brokerages would step in and naked short the stock bringing it back to true value."
115:
We have a saying for people who sit and whine endlessly without contributing anything productive - {{sofixit}}. Seriously, get over to
236:
81:
76:
71:
59:
508:
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
1073:
Done, with a history merge. The page is no longer protected. Please note that I copied a comment from the talk page to this one. -
1118:
987:
What is the process / timing for moving ESkog's re-write onto the main page? I can't wait to get rid of the lopsided version.
711:
So if one percent ($ 6 billion) of trades fail, and the fails are concentrated in ten or twenty securities, that is acceptable?
573:
position as a kind of "undeniable truth" on the basis of their "expertise." I also find disturbing the tactics employed.--
1097:
417:
General phrasing - "It is difficult to argue with a straight face" - "Another canard that is floated by apologists" - "
1125:
You know, personally I would suggest not doing so. Also it is not exactly the opposite of buying stocks on margin. --
854:
I have replaced Geist with a source that appears to be more neutral, which also defines this as an illegal process. (
611:
However, do you not see the following (from the current article) as POVs, non-verifiable, errors, and speculation?
38:
1036:
791:
116:
701:
Wrong. The panel repeatedly alluded to millions of unexplained failures to deliver in heavily shorted stocks.
536:
an aggressive assertion of opinion and appears to be crafted to project the position of pressure-group dogma. --
221:
titled "HOW HEDGE FUNDS TIED TO EMBATTLED BROKER REFCO USED "NAKED SHORT SELLING" TO PLUNDER SMALL COMPANIES".
433:
393:
47:
17:
595:
I'm concerned by both the tone and the content, given the pressure-group interjection into the process here.--
513:
745:
it does not substantiate -- and indeed repudiates -- the highly charged allegations made re naked shorting.
632:"By making naked shorts illegal, volume of trading is reduced resulting in higher spreads and illiquidity."
358:
Your "Naked Short Selling" page is definitely biased in favor of the naked short seller. It is not neutral!
232:
687:"However, critics of naked short-selling have failed to produce evidence in support of their arguments."
1143:
1064:
994:
940:
729:
559:
407:"it is generally accepted... simple fraud" in the opening paragraph is clearly not true, and also uses
334:
295:
Oh (sound of head smacking forward) yes I see. I thought that was a discussion of a different dispute.--
260:
255:
There is a significant (and so far very productive!) discussion of the page protection taking place at
228:
1114:
1031:
Once we feel like we've gotten past the "dispute" stage (I would say we have), someone should post a
218:
1251:
1242:
1219:
1195:
1171:
1152:
1126:
1087:
1018:
1004:
975:
956:
904:
895:
870:
834:
812:
777:
596:
574:
537:
305:
296:
275:
192:
149:
131:
1205:
long before any of the consensually supported editors will. They'll either stop, or get blocked. -
1039:
in so that we can keep the page history. Or I'll do it later tonight - it doesn't really matter. (
408:
130:
Yes, Mr. Ryals would be welcome making contributions AFTER discussing them first here please.--
527:
1032:
798:
795:
414:
The word "apologists" applied to those who argue it is not illegal is a very judgmental word.
388:
384:
177:
866:
deference over press accounts and Internet reference manuals. The SEC is a neutral source.
490:
367:
1254:
1245:
1234:
1222:
1211:
1198:
1187:
1174:
1155:
1146:
1129:
1090:
1079:
1067:
1057:
1044:
1035:
so that we can move the new version in. You might also mention that the admin should merge
1021:
1007:
997:
978:
959:
943:
918:
907:
898:
888:
873:
859:
849:
837:
827:
815:
806:
780:
732:
599:
589:
577:
540:
530:
521:
493:
441:
425:
397:
370:
345:
308:
299:
289:
278:
268:
249:
206:
195:
186:
164:
152:
134:
124:
1142:
short selling involves selling a stock without first borrowing it. Pretty crazy, huh? --
1110:
738:
656:
451:
Thanks for the reply. Hopefully we can have a constructive dialog with truth as the goal.
330:
256:
1250:
Again, wholesale changes, despite your warning. Same anonymous editor. I will revert. --
1181:
it works is that editors supporting the consensual version don't need 4 reverts each. -
436:
page. If you have any other questions about the process, my Talk page is always open. (
322:
anyone is interested. The current article is too biased to serve as a starting point.
929:
say "We can't find any evidence we have been derelict in our duty."? Think about it.
748:
Naked shorting's "illegality": the FAQ calls it "potentially abusive" and avers to no
773:
1003:
there. I thought that would be better than linking to one particular commenter.--
1206:
1182:
1074:
1052:
640:
POV, and nonsense. Retail investors USE brokers; they do not compete with them.
516:
where we could collaborate on the wording and presentation of the information. (
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
614:"...the extent to which this practice takes place has been widely exaggerated"
1230:
1040:
914:
884:
855:
845:
823:
802:
585:
517:
437:
341:
285:
264:
245:
202:
182:
160:
120:
504:
that is structured in a neutral tone which still presents all the facts. See
432:
I hope these comments help, and feel free to engage in the discussion on the
702:
655:
POV and wrong. This is the subject of the article, and it is illegal. See
794:. Feel free to contribute in whatever way you can - make sure to carefully
1134:
I agree with Mantanmoreland... buying stocks on margin is the reverse of
396:. Our goal is to create a neutral version of the page that stands up to
214:
551:
see in this discussion as well as a general effort to overdramatize.
790:
I have created a first draft of an attempt at an unbiased article at
505:
646:
POV, provably false. SEC Regulation SHO threshold list is evidence.
219:
http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1126706,00.html
683:
a meaningless element of a complicated but credible complaint.
25:
949:
would acknowledge that some kind of fraud has taken place.
403:
Here are some problems I had with your version of the page:
903:
OK, I put in some balance to the page without rewriting. --
421:" - fly in the face of maintaining a neutral point of view.
284:
Agreed. I think you'll find we've moved past/around that. (
263:. Other interested parties may chime in here or there. (
883:
then - I agree that it's a valid source to include. (
801:
sources as this is apparently a contentious topic. (
1063:
I, for one, am happy with the /Workshop version. --
705:. They were unable to explain the failures. Why?
447:Counter Reply to Naked Short Selling (Riverrunrun)
653:This is a practice of questionable legality,..."
362:untruthful and biased information on this page.
8:
768:without basis as indicated by the SEC FAQ.
217:. If you want a more recognizable link, try
546:Concerns Regarding Pressure Group Tactics
608:Agreed, the bobobrien version is a POV.
737:I appreciate Errudite's posting of the
171:Page Protection - discussion of dispute
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
990:With a new respect for journalists,
215:http://www.rgm.com/shortselling.html
1166:their own version of "the truth".
24:
1098:Talk:Naked short selling/Workshop
354:Naked Short Selling (Riverrunrun)
1121:) 16:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
29:
239:) 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
428:what Knowledge (XXG) is about.
1:
1161:The Article Has Been Hijacked
1033:Request for page unprotection
1255:03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
1246:01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
1235:18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1223:18:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1212:18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1199:18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1188:17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1175:17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1156:01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
1147:01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1130:22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1091:22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1080:22:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1068:18:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1058:06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1045:01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1037:Naked short selling/Workshop
1022:00:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1008:15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
998:23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
979:14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
960:15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
944:02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
919:04:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
908:00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
899:23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
889:23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
874:23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
860:23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
850:22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
838:22:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
828:22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
816:22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
807:20:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
792:Naked short selling/Workshop
781:15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
733:14:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
600:06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
590:05:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
578:05:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
541:18:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
531:04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
522:02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
494:02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
442:00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
385:neutral point of view policy
371:00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
346:04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
309:03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
300:03:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
290:03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
279:03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
269:02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
250:01:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
207:22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
196:22:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
187:22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
165:20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
153:19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
135:01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
125:23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
117:Naked short selling/Workshop
965:naked short page needs work
411:in lieu of citing a source.
1270:
786:Compromise page attempted
844:information about it). (
514:Naked short selling/temp
434:Talk:Naked short selling
148:needs to be addressed.--
18:Talk:Naked short selling
419:There is no controversy
111:Sincerely Tony Ryals
143:Neutral POV violations
1109:comment was added by
387:and a committment to
335:User talk:Riverrunrun
261:User talk:Riverrunrun
227:comment was added by
119:and make it better. (
42:of past discussions.
628:POV and speculation.
881:improve the article
936:Well done, ESkog.
560:an entry yesterday
1210:
1186:
1122:
1078:
1056:
240:
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1261:
1209:
1185:
1104:
1077:
1055:
499:Reply #2 (ESkog)
222:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1163:
1105:āThe preceding
1101:
1029:
1027:What comes next
967:
788:
548:
501:
449:
378:
356:
338:
331:User talk:ESkog
325:Thanks erudite
223:āThe preceding
173:
145:
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1267:
1265:
1252:Mantanmoreland
1243:Mantanmoreland
1238:
1237:
1220:Mantanmoreland
1215:
1214:
1196:Mantanmoreland
1191:
1190:
1172:Mantanmoreland
1162:
1159:
1153:Mantanmoreland
1144:Errudite (sic)
1127:Mantanmoreland
1100:
1094:
1088:Mantanmoreland
1083:
1082:
1065:Errudite (sic)
1061:
1060:
1028:
1025:
1019:Mantanmoreland
1015:
1012:Hey, I'm glad
1005:Mantanmoreland
995:Errudite (sic)
976:Mantanmoreland
966:
963:
957:Mantanmoreland
941:Errudite (sic)
922:
921:
905:Mantanmoreland
896:Mantanmoreland
892:
891:
871:Mantanmoreland
863:
862:
852:
835:Mantanmoreland
831:
830:
813:Mantanmoreland
787:
784:
778:Mantanmoreland
751:
730:Errudite (sic)
606:
604:
597:Mantanmoreland
593:
592:
575:Mantanmoreland
547:
544:
538:Mantanmoreland
500:
497:
448:
445:
430:
429:
422:
415:
412:
389:citing sources
377:
374:
355:
352:
350:
337:
327:
315:
313:
306:Mantanmoreland
297:Mantanmoreland
293:
292:
276:Mantanmoreland
253:
252:
210:
209:
193:Mantanmoreland
172:
169:
168:
167:
150:Mantanmoreland
144:
141:
139:
132:Mantanmoreland
128:
127:
110:
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1266:
1257:
1256:
1253:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1236:
1232:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1189:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1173:
1167:
1160:
1158:
1157:
1154:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1099:
1096:Comment from
1095:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1081:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1059:
1054:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1026:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1000:
999:
996:
991:
988:
985:
981:
980:
977:
971:
964:
962:
961:
958:
953:
950:
946:
945:
942:
937:
934:
930:
926:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
909:
906:
901:
900:
897:
890:
886:
882:
878:
877:
876:
875:
872:
867:
861:
857:
853:
851:
847:
842:
841:
840:
839:
836:
829:
825:
820:
819:
818:
817:
814:
809:
808:
804:
800:
797:
793:
785:
783:
782:
779:
775:
774:short selling
769:
765:
761:
757:
754:
749:
746:
742:
740:
735:
734:
731:
726:
725:
720:
719:
713:
712:
707:
706:
704:
697:
696:
691:
690:
685:
684:
678:
677:
672:
671:
666:
665:
660:
659:
658:
651:
648:
647:
642:
641:
636:
635:
630:
629:
624:
623:
618:
617:
612:
609:
605:
602:
601:
598:
591:
587:
582:
581:
580:
579:
576:
570:
566:
563:
561:
556:
552:
545:
543:
542:
539:
533:
532:
529:
524:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
498:
496:
495:
492:
486:
482:
478:
474:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
452:
446:
444:
443:
439:
435:
427:
423:
420:
416:
413:
410:
406:
405:
404:
401:
399:
395:
390:
386:
381:
376:Reply (ESkog)
375:
373:
372:
369:
363:
359:
353:
351:
348:
347:
343:
336:
332:
328:
326:
323:
319:
314:
311:
310:
307:
302:
301:
298:
291:
287:
283:
282:
281:
280:
277:
271:
270:
266:
262:
258:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
220:
216:
208:
204:
200:
199:
198:
197:
194:
189:
188:
184:
179:
170:
166:
162:
157:
156:
155:
154:
151:
142:
140:
137:
136:
133:
126:
122:
118:
114:
113:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1249:
1239:
1216:
1192:
1168:
1164:
1150:
1139:
1135:
1133:
1124:
1102:
1084:
1062:
1030:
1011:
1001:
992:
989:
986:
982:
972:
968:
954:
951:
947:
938:
935:
931:
927:
923:
902:
893:
880:
868:
864:
832:
810:
789:
770:
766:
762:
758:
755:
747:
743:
736:
727:
722:
721:
716:
714:
710:
708:
700:
698:
694:
692:
688:
686:
681:
679:
675:
673:
669:
667:
663:
661:
654:
652:
649:
645:
643:
639:
637:
633:
631:
627:
625:
621:
619:
615:
613:
610:
607:
603:
594:
571:
567:
564:
557:
553:
549:
534:
528:DJ Clayworth
525:
509:
502:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
468:
464:
460:
457:
453:
450:
431:
418:
409:weasel words
402:
382:
379:
364:
360:
357:
349:
339:
324:
320:
316:
312:
303:
294:
272:
257:my talk page
254:
229:63.96.70.230
211:
190:
174:
146:
138:
129:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
65:
43:
37:
703:Transcript.
634:Verifiable?
622:Verifiable?
491:Riverrunrun
368:Riverrunrun
36:This is an
1111:BrerRabbit
584:article. (
398:consensus
394:talk page
82:ArchiveĀ 5
77:ArchiveĀ 4
72:ArchiveĀ 3
66:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
1119:contribs
1107:unsigned
1014:somebody
799:unbiased
237:contribs
225:unsigned
1136:regular
750:per se
739:SEC FAQ
657:SEC FAQ
178:WP:NPOV
90:Comment
39:archive
1207:Splash
1183:Splash
1075:Splash
1053:Splash
718:place?
506:Murder
1231:ESkog
1140:Naked
1041:ESkog
915:ESkog
885:ESkog
856:ESkog
846:ESkog
824:ESkog
803:ESkog
586:ESkog
518:ESkog
438:ESkog
366:page.
342:ESkog
329:From
286:ESkog
265:ESkog
246:ESkog
203:ESkog
183:ESkog
161:ESkog
121:ESkog
16:<
1115:talk
796:cite
776:. --
676:POV.
616:POV.
333:and
259:and
233:talk
510:bad
426:not
1241:--
1233:)
1218:--
1194:--
1170:--
1117:ā¢
1086:--
1043:)
993:--
939:--
917:)
887:)
858:)
848:)
826:)
805:)
728:--
588:)
520:)
440:)
400:.
344:)
288:)
274:--
267:)
248:)
235:ā¢
205:)
185:)
163:)
123:)
1229:(
1113:(
822:(
231:(
159:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.