Talk:Naked short selling

Revising lead

Can you explain the reversion, Janeyryan? My initial questions are:

1. Whether we shouldn't clarify that we're talking about U.S. regulations (or if we know this is solely a term used in the U.S.)
2. Why we are starting with a presumption that it would be illegal,
3. Which part of the reverted version was unsupported by the source,
4. Whether it makes sense to begin with a pro-argument before we've given much if any explanation of what this is or how it works, and
5. If the standard for illegality is whether it drives down share prices (if "drive" means "is used to drive" then it would be illegal, but I don't believe that is a standard for naked short selling).

If I read the "synth" objection correctly, possibly the lead should be more careful to note that the regulations create requirements for short selling generally rather than focusing just on the "naked short sales." In any case, these are mainly what I was attempting to correct. Mackan79 (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to the source that you cited and I did not see any explicit statement in support of your wording. Going back to the original version, I saw that in 'Key Points' there was explicit and clear language. Perhaps the preexisting language could be improved, but for now it seems to better reflect the underlying sources.--Janeyryan (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I tried again, attempting to address this. I'm guessing the disagreement has to do with the word "prohibits," which I suppose isn't necessary. If I was synthesizing, is was based on the "locate" requirement discussed in the Key Points document, which would seem to mean then that the sale isn't "naked." The exceptions then are as I understand for "Market Makers," or where there is some unforeseen event that prevents delivery (I didn't read through all the exceptions in detail). In any case I do think one problem with the article has been hyper-focus on declaring this "legal" or "illegal," so I'm glad to avoid it, if that was the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fiddled with it a bit. Going back to 'Key Points,' I noticed that the SEC uses 'broker dealer' and 'seller' interchangably. So I substituted 'broker dealer' at one point for seller. When I sell shares, certainly I as an investor am not asked to deliver them; this is a requirement of the firms executing the trade. I also added back in the sentence on the legality. I see now your point that it did not need to be quite so very very high in the article, but it is still a useful fact that should be retained I think.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. As a quick point about the "not necessarily illegal" paragraph, the problem I was getting at is that, yes, intentionally driving down the price of a stock is illegal (as market manipulation), but that's not a rule just about naked short selling. The rules that address naked shorting are primarily to my knowledge the "locate" and "close out" requirements in Reg SHO, and other requirements that apply specifically to shorting. This is why the statement that it's not necessarily illegal, but is when it drives down prices, is problematic without some clarification (also because it would still have to be intentional for the general rules on market manipulation to kick in, which the statement we had isn't clear about). Mackan79 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I should explain why I removed the section. The extent that naked short selling actually occurs is greatly disputed, and the legality is quite nuanced as Mackan79 says. This should be covered in the article and perhaps in the lead summary style, but that lead would not boldly make propositions about a practice with almost totally disputed prevalence, and an arcane regulatory scheme.

At the same time, it's probably worth noting that legal naked short selling exists because it helps with liquidity. Cool Hand Luke 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the last paragraph in the present lead is not very good at all. Too abstract, and too much crammed into one sentence. Just my 2 cents. Huldra (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That was me, apologies. To clarify my meaning, some of the main disagreements appear to be over 1. whether the regulations are enforced or not and how widespread it is, and 2. whether it is primarily beneficial by contributing to market liquidity, or primarily a vehicle for abuse. I was finding it difficult to spell this out but would welcome any attempt to build on this. Mackan79 (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as the first paragraph, one point I think would be great to include is what happens next, after the fail to deliver. The various scenarios I'm aware of include, 1.) the transaction is undone and a fee is assessed, 2.) the transaction is eventually completed when shares become available, or 3.) the transaction sits open indefinitely. But I still don't feel that I've seen this adequately explained. If anyone can clarify this point, I think it would be one way to solidify the basic explanation of what is a naked short sale, how they work, and what happens when you sell shares in this way. Mackan79 (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Other legislation" section

Considering the recent thrust of national regulation, it seems strange we have a whole subheading dedicated to a repealed bill in Utah that was probably unenforceable anyway. It seems like a dated jab at Overstock.com. I propose this section be removed; or perhaps moved to Overstock.com. Any thoughts? Cool Hand Luke 14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, remove it, or mv it to Overstock.com, keep possibly half a sentence here, saying something like "Attempts were made in 2006 in Utah at the behest(?) of Overstock.com to introduce legislation to curb naked short-selling." Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (PS: I don´t think the word is "behest"..but my English isn´t good enough to find the correct word)

One might accurately say, "...at the urging of Overstock.com..." PatrickByrne (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just removed most of it. It was really totally out of proportion. Huldra (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Text about North American Securities Administrators Association

I've removed this text from the "litigation" section because it seemed misplaced there. It doesn't seem obviously related to any litigation mentioned (or to the 2007 Senate commentary, which immediately preceded it). The Whistler case (with the nsas amicus brief linked) isn't discussed, and the letter cited in the footnote is about Regulation SHO. I'm not sure what to make of this:

The North American Securities Administrators Association, representing state stock regulators, filed a brief saying that if the claims were correct, its shareholders "have been the victims of fraud and manipulation at the hands of the very entities that should be serving their interest."[1][2]

Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

<sigh of relief>Thanks for taking this on, Luke. I tried to get some interest for the subject, I wasn´t very successful...I left a note earlier over at WikiProject Investment (trying to bribe them with barnstars!) ..but I didn´t get any takers. It looks as if this article is still suffering from leprosy. Anyway, logging out now, good luck, Huldra (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to work on this topic for a while. I remembered today how much I criticized ArbCom for their slowness, inefficiency, and so forth. But they asked the community to work on these articles—it was one of their remedies, and it's a good idea. So I'm here. Cool Hand Luke 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's enough

Banned by the SEC. I really think we need to drop the whole media section and do a thorough rewrite. Its reached the point that even if we dont rewrite the section, we need to remove the current contents. (Anyone else feeling vaguely guilty about WP's role in all this?) --Relata refero (disp.) 04:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I had not heard about that. Yes, I agree. Cool Hand Luke 04:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a shot at adding this to the lead. Mackan79 (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the media section, which was removed peremptorily and without discussion or obtaining a consensus.

Notable views of expert journalists do not become less notable because of the passage of time. They do not become 'outdated,' as was used in an edit summary, because of the late SEC action. I think Wikipedia readers are entitled to this information. If other articles need to be added, then they should be added. Removing the articles mentioned wholesale, as has been done, strikes me as a significant violation of WP:NPOV.

The rewritten paragraph also is not accurate. It cites the Jenkins and Norris articles, both of which are against action against NSS, by saying that they 'support the regulator.' They did not. This created a false dichotomy. Indeed, although I reinstated the original language, the word 'mixed' is unsuppported by the underlying citations. If media reaction has been 'mixed,' then the commentaries that say otherwise whould be added.--Janeyryan (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. Much of this material was never notable to begin with. Even if it was representative of coverage in 2005-2006 (unlikely as it was drafted by a COI editor), the tone of the coverage has changed, and it's become a high-profile issue.

Incidentally, there was quite a bit of discussion, and four editors agreed that the section should be trimmed if not rebooted. Cool Hand Luke 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add back in the articles that you feel were excluded unjustly by some 'COI editor.' If there are no such articles that you can locate, please don't take out the articles you don't like. Your not liking articles, or four editors (including the CEO of a company suing alleged naked shorters) cannot unilaterally override WP:NPOV and remove sourced commentary from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other notable commentators. The participation of that CEO, very openly in this page urging the slanting of this article to fit his commerical interests, is the only 'COI' of which I am aware, and it is amusingly blatant and open. An article not adhering to your point of view, does not make them 'never notable to begin with.' The passage of an SEC regulation does not necessitate wiping out of notable opinions expressed prior to the issuance of that order. You say the 'tone of the coverage has changed.' Very well, please add in the commentaries devoted to this subject from notable publications that express opposing opinions. I searched and could not find them but I did find these, and added them.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want more opposing opinions. Just coverage that accurately reflects the state of the art. These articles give a skewed portrait, and most should be cut. Cool Hand Luke 15:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't want to, you just want to remove opinions with which you disagree, Please provide evidence for your statement that they are 'skewed.' I've asked for this several times, and you have yet to substantiate your statement.--Janeyryan (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time you've accused me of pushing my POV. Pray tell, what is my POV? I excised a section above that looked like it was written by naked short selling plaintiff's attorneys. I'm no pusher, and my long record on Wikipedia reflects it.

Sections should be removed if they're undue weight. Cool Hand Luke 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree here with Cool Hand, they are undue and also really out of date. It's undue since we special out the media, and not academics or policy makers or business leaders. Any articles used there and are useful should be put in other sections. --Patrick (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm cutting it again. Consider that this has the approval of five editors now (six assuming Mackan79). Cool Hand Luke 05:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

New "reactions" section

This section pushes a POV. It's hard to say the reactions were anything but mixed, considering that the ABA, Financial Services Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all urged the SEC to extend the temporary order to cover more firms. Hillary Clinton seems to have criticized the SEC for ever lifting the restriction. These are not insignificant groups, and these are notable POVs, but apparently they have no weight against a couple of op-eds. Even if one imagines that op-ed writers are the only opinions that matter, it's easy to find editorials siding with them.[3]

Who are you, Janeyryan? Cool Hand Luke 15:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and please address the content, not the contributor. I've tried to do the same with you, despite the lack of reciprocity, and even though you recused yourself from a related article for reasons that seemed a bit murky to me. I'm glad you found an op-ed that, albeit in passing, approved of the SEC action. I will add it to the article since you chose not to do so. As for the other groups you mention, I think you need to produce reliable sources such as you did with the Los Angeles Times editorial, and add them to the rticle. As I read WP:NPOV, it requires that these sources and articles be mentioned. Again, if there are other sources that need to be added, please list them. Thank you.--Janeyryan (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please be accurate in characterizing the article and the editing of the article. This is not a 'new' reactions section, but the old 'media reactions' section that you gutted. which I reinstated and updated. The business lobbying groups that you mention are not media organizations and their positions, if contained in reliable sources, belong elsewhere in the article. Media reaction was, at best, mixed. As I said earlier, that is not really precise, as media reaction appears to be predominently skeptical to claims of NSS and predominently hostile to the SEC emergency action.--Janeyryan (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few points:

1. Someone has started to sign his contributions, "Patrick". Just so there be no mistake, that is not I. I sign mine "PatrickByrne".
2. Janeyryan writes, "as media reaction appears to be predominently skeptical to claims of NSS and predominently hostile to the SEC emergency action." That is insane. A quick Google search will reveal hundreds of recent stories that are anything but "predominatly skeptical to claims of NSS and predominatly hostile to the SEC emergency action." For example, here is a Time Magazine article that appeared last week.
3. I don't mean to be schoolmarmish, but the construction of the "Media Coverage" section is not only poor, but it remains poor in precisely the same way the previous version was poor. The rest of the article (for the matter, most of the rest of Wikipedia) manages to be written in direct, clear English. Why must this section, which should be simple to write, so opaque? The logical way to construct it is (being charitable to the NSS-deniers), to say: There is controversy, here is what one side says, here is what the other side says. Instead we find:

"Reporting by major media outlets has been mixed. While concern expressed by the regulator has been echoed by journalists, some commentators contend that naked short selling is not harmful and that its prevalence has been exaggerated by corporate officials seeking to blame external forces for their own shortcomings. Others have discussed naked short selling as a confusing or bizarre form of trading."

Once again, the NSS-critics get short thrift ("While concern expressed by the regulator has been echoed by journalists"). NSS-deriders get a more extensive statement ("some commentators contend that naked short selling is not harmful and that its prevalence has been exaggerated by corporate officials seeking to blame external forces for their own shortcomings"). And then there is "Others have discussed naked short selling as a confusing or bizarre form of trading", which is simply inexplicable.

Then rather than have one paragraph of NSS-denials, and one of NSS-criticisms, they are morphed into one paragraph which highlights the denials and makes the criticisms unclear:

"Reviewing the SEC's July 2008 emergency order, Barron's said in an editorial: 'Rather than fixing any of the real problems with the agency and its mission, Cox and his fellow commissioners waved a newspaper and swatted the imaginary fly of naked short-selling. It made a big noise, but there's no dead bug.' Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal said the order was 'an exercise in symbolic confidence-building' and that naked shorting involved technical concerns except for subscribers to a 'devil theory'. The Economist said the SEC had 'picked the wrong target', mentioning a study by a Swiss academician who found that trading in the 19 financial stocks became less efficient.' The Washington Post expressed approval of the SEC's decision to address a 'frenetic shadow world of postponed promises, borrowed time, obscured paperwork and nail-biting price-watching, usually compressed into a few high-tension days swirling around the decline of a company.' The Los Angeles Times called the practice of naked short selling 'hard to defend,' and stated that it was past time the SEC became active in addressing market manipulation."

Again, the NSS-criticism expresses none of the substance of the criticisms, and comes buried at the end of a more extensive statement of the position of the deniers. Why not have one paragraph that begins, "Some have argued that NSS is not a significant problem in US markets. For example...." And then have another paragraph that begins, "Others have argued that NSS is a significant problem in US market. For example... " PatrickByrne (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Close-out requirement

Does anyone know how Reg SHO affected the "T+3 delivery" requirement from the 1934 act, or how those interact in regard to the "close out" requirement? I would say that Reg SHO further limited the delivery requirement, but I'm not sure if that is exactly right. Mackan79 (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any coverage that goes into that level of detail. By the way, I take strong issue with the manner in which you have pared down the aforementioned media section, retaining a non notable chap named 'Keiser' from Al Jazeera while deleting notable sources. No rime or reason to it, and will be reinstated. Paring down the section is one thing, but do not omit notable sources without justification.--Janeyryan (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what goes into that level of detail, but I'm sure it would be said somewhere, whether Reg SHO created the close out requirement or only adjusted it. I think you mistake the notability policies, though. Nowhere does WP:Notability state that any source of a basic level of notability must be included in any part of any article where it may be relevant. See WP:Undue, in terms of balancing the detail given to each view. Currently, this section begins by stating generally that some commentators see criticism of NSS as exaggerated. It then discusses various such views at the New York Times. To then start a third paragraph adding another individual who has "derided" the allegations is just poor writing, fails NPOV, and doesn't serve the article. It's also unclear to me that Weiss' views merit inclusion in this article, considering his views are already well-represented by better known sources. Mackan79 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any duplication at all in that section, least of all the Business Week article by Weiss. That referred to aspects of this issue not mentioned elsewhere. The Weiss reference is problematic because, unless you look at the footnote, it is not clear that this article appeared in Business Week. It needs to be mentioned that this is a Busiweek commentary, for the contrary imnpression is given.

Generally speaking, in order to fail NPOV and UNDUE, the views in this section would have to be unrepresentative. For the umpteenth time, let's see evidence of that. If that is the gist of the media reaction, then that is that. UNDUE does not require false balance, particularly when there is nothing much to balance out. Indeed, removing viewpoints in an effort to achieve a false 'balance' would violate NPOV as I read it.--Janeyryan (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is we have a section which begins by saying coverage has been mixed, then outlines the two views, and then provides a long list of people expressing one view point. If coverage is overwhelmingly that NSS is no big deal, then we should simply say that, end of story. If coverage is mixed, then we should cover each side comparably. It appears you're saying the answer is to provide much more detail about the pro-regulation side, but others including myself aren't agreeing; this is simply over-kill on the anti-regulation side regardless, exemplified by the third paragraph you replaced which begins as one more writer who has "ridiculed" criticism of NSS.

The issue with the Weiss material is partly this, and partly relates to PatrickFlaherty's point above that this whole section is somewhat suspect. If media attention is important, it's important for the general assessments, not for their detailed explanations of naked short selling, which should as Patrick points out be included in the relevant sections of this article. Additionally, to cover Weiss is problematic both because of the controversies on Wikipedia, and because Weiss is controversial on this issue.[4] Considering these points and the pile-on problem we have already is why I removed the portion relating to him. Mackan79 (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is well said. The Jenkins article is already cited, incidentally, sans rhetoric. Cool Hand Luke 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning on Janeyryan´s page.[5]

Also: In the assessment from last year (see: Assessment explanation) of this article, it was especially mentioned that "some parts are just collections of quotes". (It also mentioned "over-long and over-detailed discussion of the controversy, with too much focus on specific cases" and "it misses any discussion of the economics of short selling"). That assessment has, AFAIK, never really been followed-up. Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

One study

I read through this paper as a foray into the academic views. Basic points I gleaned:

• Argues that naked shorting is economically similar to regular shorting and probably beneficial to the market.
• Argues that the primary difference is to reorganize the parties, turning the buyer into a lender instead of having a third party lender.
• Says the practice is most common when lending fees are high, and argues that the inversion of the parties increases efficiency by allowing non-owners to provide additional competition with owner-lenders in the lending market.
• Analogizes sale of unowned shares to a bank providing depositors with a "claim" to the amount deposited, rather than literally holding custody of that physical currency on a depositor's behalf.
• Lists the three requirements for a broker/dealer to accept a short sale from Reg SHO as 1. having borrowed or arranged to borrow, or 2. reasonably believes it can borrow, and in either case 3. has documented compliance with one of these.
• Provides counter-argument that NSS can create additional volatility in stock prices.
• Explains the DTCC clearing process in some detail.

Has anyone linked other papers available on line? Maybe it would help to get them out here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yes it's published academically. I'm a little wary of the source because CompassLexecon should probably be treated like a think tank in this context. Basically, they're law and economics theorists best known for providing expert testimony, typically in defense of corporate clients. They would tend to have the reverse perspective as plaintiffs' attorneys (such as the ones suing for Overstock.com or Taser). But with the institution of the author disclosed, it's a fine source.

Most sources seem agree that naked short selling happens most commonly when borrowing costs are high. That is, naked short selling is often beneficial for liquidity.

The SHO requirements have been changed considerably. Cool Hand Luke 07:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, and I think that's fine; I expected even the academic sources will tend to come at this with a point of view. I'm just curious what we have. Some of the material could probably be helpful in either case. Mackan79 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I went looking for the studies that RelataR menioned (see earlier on this page). In addition to the one that Mackan mentions (Culp and Heaton), I found:

• Boni, Leslie (Anderson SoM): Strategic delivery failures in U.S. equity markets, JFinMar 9:1 "We argue that long-lived (“persistent”) fails are more likely the result of strategic fails rather than inadvertent delivery errors or delays. " "...when stocks are expensive to borrow...strategic fails (i.e., naked short sales)" ......."It is the first paper to our knowledge that documents the pervasiveness of delivery failures (i.e., naked short sales) for the entire cross-section of U.S. equities".........See also: http://sec.gov/rules/final/34-50103.htm 2004

• Angel, Christophe and Ferri (Georgetown and GMU): A Short look at Bear Raids ..this should rather be added to the Uptick rule, me thinks.

• Knepper, Zach (Berkeley): Future-Priced Convertible Securities & The Outlook For “Death-Spiral” Securities-Fraud Litigation .......... "this paper will argue at some length that naked short selling should be declared to be market manipulation if (more likely, when) this issue arises in a death spiral action".....

Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. A review of Leslie Boni (2004):

• Discusses "strategic delivery failures," credits introduction of concept in equity markets to Evans, Geczy, Musto, and Reed (2003).
• Clarifies that "fail to deliver" is assigned after 3 days.
• Finds increase FTD's where borrowing costs are high, along with where shares are illiquid and where options are listed.
• Argues that long-lived or persistent fails are more likely intentional.
• Notes NYSE and NASDAQ requirements for delivery pre Reg SHO.
• Quotes Knight Trading Group as saying that market makers may take "months" to cover short positions in illiquid stocks.
• Predicts that Reg SHO will reduce liquidity particularly in stocks that are expensive to borrow.

Of course, this leaves out many of the complexities, and tries to stick to points that may be useful here. Mackan79 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Angel and Ferri is indeed more about the uptick rule (and a draft paper), but a couple of relevant points:

• Regarding naked shorts, states that the seller “might expect to cover the shares later in the day, borrow the shares later, or else rely upon the leniency of the settlement system for failures to deliver.”
• States that in a “few extreme cases," reluctance from brokerage firms to force buy ins “has led to short positions outstanding far greater than the number of shares issued.”

--Mackan79 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And here is Knepper:

• Argues that it is unclear whether courts would find NSS to be market manipulation, but that they should, primarily arguing that it is manipulative to sell short in violation of the exchange rules because this “inject[s] false information into the market place.”
• Notes that the lender’s incentive generally is the cash transferred by the borrower, usually 100% of the share price, giving the lender “free money.”
• States that shares are borrowed only when the trade settles, "which can be up to five business days after execution."
• Repeats that an FTD is still a valid trade, and only means that no payment will be made until the seller’s broker “acquires the securities, delivers them to the purchaser, and settles the trade.”
• States that the NYSE rules mandate that all brokers locate stock before executing.
• States that although naked short selling “implicitly violates a selling broker’s locate-and-delivery obligations” under the NYSE rules, NSS is not per se illegal, because sometimes shares are not available even when it is reasonably believed they will be.
• Cites sources both arguing that NSS is per se illegal under the 1934 Act and arguing that it is not.
• States that brokers who arrange a short sale do not target specific shares, but rely on lists that identify the availability of shares to borrow.
• States that “there is ordinarily no limit on how long the short may remain unsettled,” and accordingly that “naked shorts may linger and accumulate at the securities clearing agencies.”

Reading through these has definitely been informative. I'll try to incorporate some of it as I have time. Mackan79 (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mackan - You ask, "Has anyone linked other papers available on line? Maybe it would help to get them out here." As it happens, the paper you cite above (Culp and Heaton) appeared in Regulation Magazine, opposite a paper that presented a very different point of view about Naked Short Selling. (Full disclosure: the other Regulation paper was written by an LSE-trained economist, John Welborn, who is a former student of mine, and who has been my colleague in the fight to expose NSS.) In order to present the debate fairly, Regulation decided to publish both papers, back-to-back. While I applaud the decisions of you and other editors to move to serious sources (and away from the echo-chamber of New York financial journalism), glossing just one of those two Regulation Magazine papers creates, literally, a one-sided case. Regulation thought it most intellectually honest to present both sides of the debate - I respectfully suggest that in the interest of helping Wikipedia do the same, you should read the Welborn paper. It was, after all, published in the same issue of Regulation, back-to-back with the paper you cite. PatrickByrne (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, but please keep in mind that it needs to be made palatable to a general readership. Much has happened on this subject in recent weeks so as to change the entire character of the subject matter.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, but if anything the events of the last few weeks have have shifted the center of gravity away from the academics who argued that this is a non-issue, and towards those argued that it was: after all the SEC created more emergency orders and bans in mid-September. This makes quoting the Culp and Heaton work, and not Welborn's, even more untenable. Why side just with an article that says something does not exist, when the federal government now takes extraordinary steps to stop it? PatrickByrne (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Patrick, I wasn't aware of the dual publication. As I said earlier I'm also not great at predicting when I'll edit here, so all the better if anyone else wants to look through it to see what might be added. Even the fact that they published it in this way could be interesting if it were included as context. Mackan79 (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tone of discussion on this page

As a Wikipedian who has followed this article and the related Arbitration Committee case for some time, I have periodically reviewed the progress made on the article and the discussions on this page. Wearing my administrator hat, I am becoming concerned that the level of discourse is getting unduly person-oriented rather than content-oriented in recent days.

I can see that there is also a rather serious content discussion going on here. I encourage all editors to stay focused on the content issues and hammer things out, and to remember that consensus doesn't mean "everyone agrees". Given the rapidly changing situation with respect to NSS in the United States, perhaps the regular editors of this article might want to consider adding a "current events"-type template to the top of the article. At this point, much of the content is rather moot, given the emergency provisions that have come into effect. There is something to be said on the side of skeletonizing the article and starting again from scratch, with the focus on current information, and a section on historical perspectives (even though that history is very recent).

I'll continue to keep an eye. Risker (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that at this point it is so obviously skewed you'd probably be better off junking it and starting again. I don't know if that answer counts as an "intense rant" per Janeyryan. Incidentally, I assume everyone here knows who that is (again), right? PatrickByrne (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to skeletonize this article

There is something to be said on the side of skeletonizing the article and starting again from scratch, with the focus on current information, and a section on historical perspectives (even though that history is very recent). [Separated out from my comments immediately above.] Risker (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. For the 18th, it's like 75% as much traffic as the article on Obama. I agree with skeletonizing. Cool Hand Luke 07:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the tone, but I would like to see some even-handedness is that regard. This page, for example, should not be used for lengthy essays by the CEO of a company involved in litigaiton with naked shorters. Participation by that CEO is one thing, abuse of the talk pages for intense rants on the general subject is another.

I don't quite see the point of skeletonizing, unless there is something terribly wrong with the article as it is. It is certainly dated, but this is a subject and controversy that has been extant for some time.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is out of date and much of what is here is, for lack of a better term, of historical interest only. The US regulations have changed, essentially forbidding naked short selling, but one would hardly know that by this page. It is poorly focused - why exactly is there a huge section on "normal shorts" when that is not the subject here? - and presents much information suggesting that it remains an acceptable practice. To be blunt, it is a poor source of general or specific information for our readers, the people we are supposed to be informing. My opinion and suggestion to skeletonize and "reboot" the article is based on the quality of the article itself. I doubt any of us would find someone with real-world knowledge of this subject who would think this article in its current state is of much use to an average reader, and many who would think it misleading. That was the opinion I was given back in the spring by financial market professionals of my acquaintance, and the article isn't much better now than it was then. Several experienced WP editors who work in the financial markets in RL and with whom I have communicated, also agree that this article is of poor quality, but feel they have a real or potential COI in editing it. I can skeletonize it for people to start over, but otherwise I do not intend to edit this article.

As to what Janeyryan refers to as "intense rants", Byrne's posts are focused on the content of the article and do not serve to impugn the character of any of the participating editors. Some of his suggestions have been incorporated, and many others have not, which is typical for a consensually edited article. Unlike everyone else on this page, he is not permitted to edit the article directly so he has far less control over what is included than just about any other Wikipedia editor. As long as he (and other editors) stays more or less on topic, this is the proper place for him to discuss the content of the article and propose edits to it. Other editors have no obligation to include any of his suggestions, although I hope people will continue to engage in discussion of them even if it is to opine that his proposed additions or edits would not be helpful. I suggest that is the appropriate response to proposed edits from any editor. Risker (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would almost put a tag on it stating that the article is being changed by current events, but I didn't see one that seemed exactly right. I'll leave that up to others. Mackan79 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put an {{update}} template on the article for now, at least it acts as a bit of a caveat. Risker (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Extent of naked shorting

If anyone has sources on the extent of naked shorting, I think the section could use the help. Currently we don't say much more than that the SEC downplays the extent of it, which at least historically seems accurate; many of their statements seem geared toward suggesting that it isn't a big deal (I'm also curious if those statements have noticeably changed, or if they continue to say the September action was just preventative). However, I notice the papers I read through discuss the theory and effects more than they discuss the extent. If anyone has more on this, I think we should try to expand it. Mackan79 (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Status

Having gone through it in some detail, I think the article is much closer to where it needs to be. The text has almost entirely been updated, unbalanced and repetitive material has been removed, articles and studies have been added, and in general I think the article is much more helpful to readers. If those who've had concerns want to look through it again, I won't say it's "done" by any means, but I think it's now basically an acceptable article. I've mentioned a couple of other issues above, but if I make any additional changes, they'll probably be minor. Mackan79 (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is much, much better. Thanks for all the good work.--Stetsonharry (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reg SHO

Re this change, do we know that Reg SHO is superseded in full? I'm not sure. I had changed the accompanying statements to the past tense, but left the requirements in present tense since I assumed it was still at least partially in effect. Possibly we'd need more precise language, like "created the requirement." Mackan79 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I´m not sure if the Reg SHO is superseded in full,- but parts of it is certainly no longer relevant. E.g. the Sept. 17 regulation very specifically mentions that marked makers are no longer exempt. But please rearrange my edits as you please! (I am not a native English speaker, and I know my English has "room for improvement" to put it diplomatically ;-P)

And I think you have done a very nice job in a difficult area, Mackan! Regards, Huldra (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Some scurrilous context from El Reg

The Register has a long article containing a lot of information regarding the actions of Patrick Byrne and Gary Weiss in relation to articles about Short Selling on Wikipedia cojoco (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's good to know that my suspicions, arduously laid out in a Wikipedia arbitration, were correct. It's also good to know that the arbitrators were correct to suspect gaming on this article. That said, this is an article about naked short selling. This is not an article about the Wikipedia article about naked short selling. Unless that topic is published beyond a specialty journal, I think it would be undue weight here. That's no knock to The Register or Cade Metz who I respect for covering such an esoteric topic. It's just beyond our scope at this time.

It's more directly relevant to some BLPs, but we should show restraint in adding this source on those, possibly waiting for independent confirmation. Cool Hand Luke 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, my understanding is that GW was not wed at that time, but was on a regular vacation he took to India, which was confirmed by his byline. But then, it doesn't really matter whether it was a wedding or not: he was in India. Cool Hand Luke 23:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing the Register article alledges is that Weiss' manipulation of this article in Wikipedia discouraged financial publications from writing about the dangers of naked short selling, thus, contributing to the recent financial meltdown. I would say that this may relate to this article, especially if this angle gets picked up by any financial publications. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If I read it carefully Metz never actually asserts this, but only quotes Byrne as such. Certainly to keep in mind though if there is further activity. I have taken the liberty to add this as a media mention at the top of this talk page, assuming that is appropriate? Joshdboz (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree generally with you and Joshdboz. Could be an important story later, but CRYSTAL for now. Cool Hand Luke 03:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) WP:CRYSTAL, sorry for my obnoxious labels. Cool Hand Luke 13:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. P.S. What is "crystal" in this context?--Stetsonharry (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The register has another thing at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/24/byrne_back_conspiracy_theory_with_cash/ which is not about Weiss, but about a wikipedia and wall street conspiracy. Unfortunately, there's no mention of the current Wall Street conspiracy of how the US government wants to give $700 billion and likely trillions more not to stimulate the economy but to purely to inflate the salaries of rich CEOs who are friends of the Bush administration and both Obama and McCain support it (but not Ron Paul). Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the allegations made in The Register article is that the very presence of the WikiPedia article on short selling, with its apparently biased content, made it very difficult for Patrick Byrne to make any headway in his pursuit of naked short sellers because of the credibility Wikipedia has achieved among many journalists. If this is accurate (and I don't know how to verify that it is), then the Wikipedia article itself has seemingly participated in the whole sorry affair and bears some of the responsibility. If true, this fact should perhaps be noted in the Naked Short Selling article. cojoco (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Register is always the paper writing tons of stories on Wikipedia. I think they're by different people, too, but I don't look at the authors much. I know Andrew Orl-something writes a lot on the subject. Outside of the register, there's rarely that much coverage on all the details of wikipedia bickerings. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's questionable whether the Register can really be considered 'press coverage,' particularly with articles such as this. While commentators disagree as to the extent of NSS and the wisdom of the SEC restrictions, neither the SEC nor anyone apart from a lunatic fringe are claiming that the liquidity crisis was in any way caused by NSS. Taking that one step further and claiming that Wikipedia somehow caused this crisis because Byrne's p.r. director did not have his way with an article, well, that puts it in the 'rubbish' class. I've taken the article out of the 'mentioned in media' header, as per policy on links to potentially defamatory material.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

<--(unindent) I have reverted your removal of the mention in the media header. Please do not do that again, Janeyryan. The Register is considered a reliable source for thousands of articles on Wikipedia, and this article is very specifically mentioned in it. That is exactly the appropriate use of that header. Risker (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Risker is right. Note that neither WP:BLP nor WP:EL is BADSITES. (Since you claim this is your first account since the beginning of time, I should explain that BADSITES was a rejected proposal to ban links to certain sites—never clearly defined—that mention Wikipedia editors unfavorably.) Anyhow, it is coverage on the article itself, so should stay, even though we should not use it as a source on a BLP. Cool Hand Luke 13:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Janeyryan, you will benefit from a thorough review of policy here, given that you are new. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Janeryan, from your statement above I believe that you have misinterpreted two aspects of this discussion. Firstly, although I agree with you that The Register has little impact in the wider world, the point it was making was that the Wikipedia article on naked short selling had undue influence in the mainstream media, which, while debateable, seems to be a possibility. Secondly, I do not understand why you are arguing against the hypothesis that NSS has precipitated the economic crisis: as far as I can see, nobody on The Register or this thread has actually suggested this.cojoco (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That absurd claim was made in the secondary headline that was on the Register page at the top for some hours. CBDunkerson reacted with similar incredulity on that point in the discussion of the article in the Signpost page. It was to the effect that speculators were the cause of the late troubles, which is rubbish. Lar, your point on policy is well taken. I shall have chapter and verse at hand in the future, so that I might quote from same.--Janeyryan (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You miss my point. You should review policy so that you are informed by it and can gently speak to those who are not. However you should not plan to "quote chapter and verse". We have enough rules lawyers already, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, JaneRyan, I have looked really hard, but I cannot find the "absurd claim" of which you speak. I'd appreciate it if you could point to it, and perhaps include more links for people who are less experienced with Wikipeda? Thanks! cojoco (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be because the secondary head (which most people read even if not the entire article) was significantly shortened when the article was moved down the Reg main page. That had stated flat-out that 'manipulation' or 'speculators' had caused the current financial calamity. I can't quote it and you can't see it because it is not there anymore. However, the article itself is not much better. --Janeyryan (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

<--(unindent) I disagree with you, I found the main article to be quite entertaining and informative. As far as the secondary headline is concerned, perhaps you have not noticed that The Register's sensibilities are very tabloid, and the secondary head is often quite humorous and exaggerated. As there is no such allegation in the main article, I think you are drawing too long a bow. Let's concentrate on the meat of the allegation, not the fairy floss, which actually has very little to do with The Register: Did the (confirmed) manipulation of the Naked Short Selling article on Wikipedia influence the Media's portrayal of the issue, or not? If so, then this should be of real interest to all Wikipedia's users and editors. cojoco (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A very interesting question. But also one that I suspect would be very hard to determine one way or the other. If it was determinable, what would be done with the answer? I think perhaps it's unfortunately a question to let go, absent clear evidence that there was significant influence. Regrettably. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

International section?

Question, I saw this link elsewhere, on Australia's ASX exchange recommending that the ban on naked short selling be made permanent, or at least indefinite.. Does any one know of any other exchanges (I'm thinking specifically in Europe) that has a restriction/ban of naked short sales, or is there enough information to support an International section? (see [6] for the link, thanks to Piperdown on WR for pointing this out) SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned above that the ASX was considering such a move. It appears to have been a major story there all year. Cool Hand Luke 06:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands and Belgium banned naked shorting, according to the main article on short selling. That sounds vaguely familiar to me but I can't confirm that it's true.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Netherlands [7].. looking for info on Belgium (so far, not seen anythign that says specifically that they banned the practice. SirFozzie (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• "...In Switzerland the bourse and regulators reminded investors that naked short-selling was not allowed on the Zurich-based SWX exchange."(More countries put bans on short selling September 19, 2008 IHT)

• "Australia slapped a ban on naked short sales, effective on Monday." (More countries put bans on short selling September 19, 2008 IHT) (More regulators move to curb short-selling by Matthew Saltmarsh September 21, 2008 IHT), Regards, Huldra (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Huldra, that helps. Would any one object to the following being added to the article?

Several nations have either partially or fully restricted the practice of naked short selling of shares. They include Australia <ref>http://news.smh.com.au/business/asx-ban-on-short-selling-is-indefinite-20081003-4t16.html</ref>, the Netherlands <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_netherlands_short_selling</ref>, and Switzerland <ref>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/19/business/sell.php</ref><ref>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/21/business/short.php </ref>.

Of course, if there's further examples, we can add them in. SirFozzie (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I can get you a much better reference for Ausralia. Ottre 05:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can, that would be much appreciated :) SirFozzie (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs

Regarding changes to the lead, I don't think it's a good idea to simplify things so far as to render them inaccurate. The structure of the current lead is to explain naked short selling as a subtopic of short selling. Of course one can ignore that and just explain what happens in a naked short, but I don't think that helps the reader. For instance, a reader probably shouldn't think in general that "selling something you don't have" is naked short selling; it's only naked short selling to the extent this is done with pretensions of being a short sale, and also where the person hasn't made efforts to locate the shares. Simplifying is good, but I think this glossed over a good deal too much. Mackan79 (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree as far as that goes, but a broader problem is a lack of balance and a kind of general naivete. I added a sentence in the lead but I think you need more work to achieve balance in this article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't agree with the sentence you added. Please see the points I raised below in the section on Risker's protection if you'd like to respond. Mackan79 (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Byrne, An Involved Party, Comments

Out of respect to my fellow Wikipedians, I have decided to draw my more lengthy contributions together into one area. This should deflate the concerns of those who have been my opponents on this page (or he who has been). I understand one could go further and say, because I am an involved party I should have no presence here. To which I would respectfully respond, it has become clear to all that the other side has not been held to the same standard. Lengthy has been the Wikipedia war on that issue, and it seems to have been resolved to the point that there is no serious disagreement about attempts to hijack the discourse. As is described in a section above, it has become a feature story in the press. So while I am not claiming any special right for myself by posting here, I do respectfully suggest, given the extraordinary history of this article, and its importance, I should be allowed to make my voice heard on this discussion page. That I have erased many of my (admittedly frustrated) posts from earlier days, brought them into this one section, and then will confine future comments to this section, is intended as an indication of good sportsmanship.

In short, we have won the battle to convince the world that a certain journalist was manipulating this page, and now I assume he will remain gone (but that if any new strangers show up spewing the angry non sequiturs we have all come to recognize, the rest of this community will take care of him). In return, I will (with the possible exception of brief ripostes above) confine future comments on this issue to this section, to make ongoing notes about this as it evolves, and to dialogue with any that wish. This should reduce such concerns as remain concerning my participation in this discussion page.

Again, I hope the community sees this move as I intended: an olive branch, unrequested but delivered in good faith.

The Entarte Kunst Posts

Some time ago I became convinced there were news stories that were being unjustly ignored. I was reminded of the Nazi term "degenerate art" (entarte kunst) so I posted them as such.

Ruh-roh. Time to add The Economist to the list of entarte Kunst

The Economist gets added to the list of verbotten literature, along with The Register, The Washington Post and about 100 other US dailies which have reported on NSS:

It is impossible to know how big this problem is, but regulators accept it exists. The American Stock Exchange fined two market-makers for precisely this violation in July 2007. A month later the SEC proposed limiting or eliminating the exemption, but momentum stalled in the face of opposition from banks and exchanges.

The anti-short lobby, emboldened by the July ban, is again pushing for an end to the market-makers’ exemption. It has even grander ambitions. A group called American Entrepreneurs for Securities Reform has launched a ballot initiative in South Dakota that, if passed in November, would ban all naked shorting in the state, and force all brokers registered there to comply across the United States.

Opponents worry that the language is vague enough to outlaw all short-selling, though the initiative’s backers deny this is their intention. They have threatened action in a further 18 states if the SEC ban is not permanently extended to all shares this year.

How much does all this matter? Deliberate naked shorting has no place in a well-run market...

Does the fact that the press is doing stories on the bias of this page, along with the bizarre set of rules under which it operates, distinct from the other 2 million English-language Wikipedia pages, seem odd to anyone? Because it seems odd to me. Not as odd as the fact that, on an encyclopedia that everyone can edit it, everyone chooses not to raise a finger to stop a cover-up that essentially everyone sees, but odd still, just the same. PatrickByrne (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruh-roh. More entarte Kunst:

Naked shorting's early critic starts to see some vindication Byrne's Battle Helps Bring Curbs on Naked Short-Selling Practices By Steven Oberbeck The Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10079510 Saturday, August 2, 2008 Over the past several years, Patrick Byrne's campaign to clean up Wall Street and end a practice that has destroyed companies and cost unwary investors billions of dollars generated plenty of publicity for him, mostly the wrong kind. Critics labeled him nuts, a conspiracy theorist, a complete wack job. Byrne, the chief executive of the Utah-based discount online retailer Overstock.com, even found himself tagged a member of the "tin-foil hat" brigade, a reference to the flying saucer fanatics of the 1950s who adorned their heads with aluminium to ward off, or enhance, thoughts from aliens in outer space. These days, when people talk of Byrne, the word "vindication" comes up a lot. "You can always tell who the pioneers are -- they're the ones with all the arrows sticking out of their backs," said James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University. "You really can't understate what Byrne has accomplished."PatrickByrne (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And now more:

"Experts: 'Naked' short-selling impacted Colonial stock - Birmingham Business Journal - by Crystal Jarvis Staff"

"The huge swell of activity surrounding Colonial BancGroup’s common stock is evidence that the company fell prey to “naked” short sellers, experts say." —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickByrne (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

More entarte Kunst, this time from Associated Press: "Naked short-selling blamed in Wall St crisis" 11:00AM Tuesday Sep 16, 2008 WASHINGTON - With Wall Street engulfed in crisis, the Securities and Exchange Commission is planning measures to rein in aggressive forms of short-selling that were blamed in part for the demise of Lehman Brothers and which some fear could be turned against other vulnerable companies. During emergency meetings between federal officials and investment bank executives over the weekend, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox indicated to the bankers that the agency plans in a few days to impose new permanent protections against abusive "naked" short-selling, a person familiar with the matter said Monday.PatrickByrne (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the story is out there now everywhere from Time Magazine to today's William Safire piece in the New York Times, I am assuming that the days of entarte kunst are over here.PatrickByrne (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Full protection of article - 6 October 2008 - for one week

I note multiple reverts occurring with respect to the lead of the article; it is clear there is a content dispute happening here. I request that all editors involved please discuss the proposed changes here. I hope to see some consensus on what can be improved from the (undoubtedly) wrong version that is currently displayed. Longtime editors of this article are reminded that sometimes a new editor can bring useful and fresh ideas to an article; editors new to this article are reminded of the editing sanctions placed on this article by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee (see link at the top of the page). I will continue to follow; once it appears there is a consensus version, I or any other administrator can unprotect. Risker (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker, for stepping in. I think the large change is pretty clearly not an improvement for reasons listed above (though I grant it was well-intentioned and your point about new editors). Less importantly, I'm not sure that JohnnyB256's added sentence helps either.[8] The sentence ends with hyperbole ("at best"), and raises an issue with two sides (whether the regulations are a good idea) but only from a critical perspective. If we were going to address commentary on the regulation in the lead (not really necessary in my view), this could be done without emphasizing one view or the other. Mackan79 (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Characterising four edits by four separate editors that were very cordial in their elucidative edit summaries (one even apologised for reverting!) as an edit war [9] seems to me to be an overstatement. The most they reverted was once. Even if they had been two editors reverting rather than four (i.e. the two for the change were one entity and the two against the change were another entity) the most times they would have reverted would have been twice. No policies or committee sanctions [10] were broken and there was no demonstration of bad faith. Based on the evidence, full page protection was premature. It's possible it may have been needed later but to protect now requires a presumption of future (or past) bad faith editing Ha! (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ha!. There has been past bad faith editing of this article, hence the Arbitration Committee sanctions. Four reverts of the same content in 24 hours, without any discussion on the talk page of the article, is a sign of an incipient edit war, if not a true edit war. The page has recently been the subject of considerable media attention, had been slashdotted within the same period, and is a high traffic article. I considered all of these factors, as well as a few others, in determining that a brief period of full protection would be appropriate. Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts on the content proposed by the other editors? Do you think it is an improvement in the lead of the article? Is there a middle ground between the current lead and that proposed by the editors new to the page? It would be good to have the perspectives of editors who have not worked on this article to find the best balance. Risker (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of the correct representation of facts rather than a wish to engage in an argument I'll make a small correction: there were three reverts of the same content, not four Ha! (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Claim by former Lehman Brothers CEO about NSS

(Former Lehman Brothers CEO Richard) Fuld points the finger at a host of other factors that have dogged the finance industry, including "naked short selling, which I believe contributed to both the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers." [11]. Not sure I believe him, mind you, he sounds like a man trying to grab any life raft before he goes under, but definitely sounds like this needs to go in to the article, once consensus is reached, or when protection expires.

Perhaps such a section can be put in on the "Recent Developments" section. Suggested text would be. "In hearings on the [[2008 financial crisis]] before the [[House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform]], former [[Lehman Brothers]] CEO [[Richard Fuld]] said that naked short selling had contributed to the collapse of Lehamn Brothers and [[Bear Sterns]]. <ref>http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/06/news/companies/lehman_hearing/?postversion=2008100612</ref>"

Any problems with that section? SirFozzie (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this was also something I'd come across and intended to source. I think the proposal is good. Mackan79 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If we can get consensus for this, anyone want to submit an editprotected request? SirFozzie (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. If it were much more than this modest statement, I would be concerned about undue weight, but I imagine this story might develop over time. For now, this is enough. Cool Hand Luke 22:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A link to his testimony is here [12]. Note that he's pretty clear he's referring to naked short selling along with market manipulation. He's quite expansive on that second part (see the 25th paragraph; "followed by false rumors", "spread rumors and false information", naked short sellers pulling business and encouraging others to pull business, "rumor mongers", "unsubstantiated rumors", "market manipulation") so it might be worth including that to genuinely reflect his views. If, as you say, you think there's a good chance he's just using shorts as a life line to apportion blame it might be worth checking if there's a reliable source that also has those same doubts about his motives so a balancing opinion can be added. Ha! (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We do state that objection generally, although I wouldn't oppose some additional response to this (equally appropriate would be anything suggesting he's incorrect). Other clarifications could be helpful, it's just hard to say in the abstract. But I think SirFozzie's proposal is a good fit, and probably the most relevant point for the recent developments section. Mackan79 (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Only thing I can find so far (and I'm shocked, or maybe I've become a touch too cynical these days), is In a session on the collapse of Lehman Brothers before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Chairman Henry Waxman said the committee received thousands of pages of internal documents from Lehman and these documents portray a company in which there was “no accountability for failure. [13] which I don't think is quite a countervailing view. Despite my personal view on it, I think that if we can't find anything to support my suspicions, we go with what we got. SirFozzie (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some other views

[14] "Lehman, once the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank, succumbed to the subprime mortgage crisis it helped create. The 158-year-old company collapsed after concern about losses from its mortgage portfolio spooked investors and creditors" ... "Fuld wrote, “The naked shorts and rumor mongers succeeded in bringing down Bear Stearns. And I believe that unsubstantiated rumors in the marketplace caused significant harm to Lehman Brothers.” When Fuld was questioned about the shorts’ connection to Goldman, he grumbled that he had no evidence but didn’t sound convinced. It isn’t clear, though, how Fuld rationalized that with the appearance that the shorts were attacking Goldman, too"

[15] "Lehman executives understood the seriousness of the firm's dire financial state but "didn't act fast enough" to prevent the collapse, Waxman said"

[16] He blamed the short-sellers. He blamed the government, as well as what he characterized as an “extraordinary run on the bank.” But the chief executive of Lehman Brothers Holdings, the bankrupt remnant of a once-great investment house, never really blamed himself.

[17] Blaming short-sellers, meanwhile, is the icing on Fuld's cake of excuses. David Einhorn, one public and highly analytical critic of Lehman's book-keeping, appears to have been vindicated – yet Fuld is still banging on about "false rumours"

I noticed there's a problem with using the money.cnn.com source to reference the statement "Fuld said that naked short selling had contributed to the collapse of Lehamn Brothers and Bear Sterns": that particular source doesn't say that. The most the source says (in reference to what Fuld said about naked short selling) is "Fuld pointed the finger at a host of other factors, including so-called naked short selling, that have dogged the finance industry". His testimony did say naked shorts contributed so it should be easy to include other sources that reflect that testimony, but as it stands that particular source doesn't back up the text it's next to.

You could try an expansion that includes some more facts; that he blamed many factors (he blamed a lot; rumors, widening credit default swap spreads, naked short attacks, credit agency downgrades, a loss of confidence by clients and counterparties, strategic buyers sitting on the sidelines waiting for an assisted deal, the lack of a buy out), that a primary blame was confidence and that naked short selling attacks were in the context of rumours and market manipulation

In hearings on the 2008 financial crisis before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, former Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld said a host of factors including a crisis of confidence and naked short selling attacks followed by false rumors contributed to both the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers [18][19][20]

Ha! (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This works for me.. good rewrite. SirFozzie (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)