Should the market determine that, Jim? Or should it be, "The market determines it, but one group gets to print up millions of fake shares that never deliver"?
More to the point of this slashdot thread: Why is it that on this subject alone (well, virtually alone), all the normal rules of Wikipedia are suspeended regarding POV, citations, records of the discourse being disappeared, etc? And why does the woman involved in that, SlimVirgin, also so up in a select few other subjects as one for whom the rules of Wikipedia do not apply? What about Gary Weiss, a one-time Mob reporter who now posts thousands of times per year on stock message boards, and Wikipedia, under a variety of sock-puppets? Why did Gary feel it necessary to defend notorious Russian mafia leader Berezovksy and trash (anonymously) the work of journalist Paul Klebnikov, before Paul was murdered in Moscow (and days before Gary left BusinessWeek under mysterious circumstances)? What do Herb, Linda Mack, and Gary, along with David Rocker and Jim Cramer, all have in common?
Regulation SHO requires, "...a broker-dealer, prior to effecting a short sale in any equity security, to 'locate' securities
available for borrowing...Specifically, the rule prohibits a broker-dealer from accepting a short sale order in any equity
security from another person, or effecting a short sale order for the broker-dealer's own account unless the broker-dealer has
(1) borrowed the security, or entered into an arrangement to borrow the security, or (2) has reasonable grounds to believe that
the security can be borrowed so that it can be delivered on the date delivery is due. The locate must be made and documented
prior to effecting a short sale." See Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 CFR Parts 240, 241 and 242, Release No. 34-
50103; File No. S7-23-03, http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-50103.pdf.
"As with other provisions of Regulation SHO, this provision requires good faith conduct by where the broker-dealer did not in good faith believe that the customer would deliver the securities in time for settlement, the broker-dealer cannot borrow or lend securities to deliver when the customer fails," ibid, footnote 112.
Regulation SHO goes on to state that, "Bona-fide market making does not include activity that is related to speculative
selling strategies or investment purposes of the broker-dealer and is disproportionate to the usual market making patterns or
practices of the broker-dealer in that security. In addition, where a market maker posts continually at or near the best offer,
but does not also post at or near the best bid, the market maker's activities would not generally qualify as bona-fide market
making for purposes of the exception. Further, bona-fide market making does not include transactions whereby a market
maker enters into an arrangement with another broker-dealer or customer in an attempt to use the market maker's exception
for the purpose of avoiding compliance with Rule 203(b)(1) by the other broker-dealer or customer."
That will be all.
"If you truly wish to clear up this issue, why not respond to each of my questions individually in a clear, unambiguous, and truthful manner?"
Ummm, could it be because collecitvely they number in the thousands, and I cannot say I've ever actually read one of your postings closely?
I really want to help you here, Sam, but I just need to know how you are using the English language, because it seems a little disjoint to me. When you answer this question, I will be able to understand your verb tenses, and general sense of reality, enough to answer your questions. So let us try again:
When I, on May 9, said that I was the first CEO to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena, was I telling the truth about being a CEO who had received a subpoena, or not?
Get back to me with an answer, and I'll be able to make sense of your questions, Sam.
Patrick
PS In case any member of the public wanders by, please understand that this guy I am conversing with is a convicted felon who ratted out his own family to reduce his own jail time. Recently he was kicked off of YAHOO (no easy feat, that) for threatening children (see below). Because he apparently has absolutely no moral center, Sam has in recent months become a favorite of hedge fund choagies like Herb Greenberg, who is promoting Sam so he can have someone new with whom to practice crony journalism. Next will be, I am sure, a flattering pieces in DJ by Carol Remond, a write up in NYPost by Roddy Boyd, a Fortune cover by Bethany McLean, and a special WSJ profile by Karen "We-can-do-this-the-hard-way-or-the-easy-way" Richardson (that is, that pack of independent journalists who randomly happen to cover precisely those firms shorted by Rocker, Cohodes, Ackerman, Steve Cohen, Einhorn, Dan Loeb/Jim Caruthers, etc., over and over with complete regularity in a way that is, all observers are clear, entirely coincidental). Seriously, check it out:
http://antisocialmedia.net/070714-antar.jpg
I forgot I was dealing with the lunatic fringe here. Let me see if I got this straight: The Chairman of the SEC, a lawyer and former Congressman, with numerous fellow Commissioners and staffers around him, including the head of market regulation, testifies under oath to the United States Senate to the effect that something is illegal, and the Connecticut state securities regulator says it is illegal, and a Senator drills in on the clear fact that our nation's settlement system is broken due to these illegal practices, and you say it is not illegal because, well, just because. Because this guy is a clown, and that guy is a politician, and someone else is a dweeb.
Did I miss anything?
Tough to argue with that type of logic.
Returning to the real world, Jimmy, there is a laundry list of regs being broken (e.g., the affirmative determination rule). But I am out of here because I am confident that the average reader who has followed will understand by this point that you have been flattened, and that you are not debating, you are typing. I suggest you read today's release from the AMEX regarding the precise regulatory violations which you have been instructed to assert are all imaginary (let me guess the content of your counterargument: "But the AMEX are all ugly!" Did I get it?)
NEW YORK, July 31/PRNewswire/ -- The American Stock Exchangeà (AmexÃ) today announced two final disciplinary actions for violations of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation SHO short sale rules in connection with trading activity in threshold securities, which occurred on various options and equity exchanges. In the first action, Scott H. Arenstein and his firm SBA Trading, agreed to a fine of $3.6 million, disgorgement of $1.4 million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or association with an Amex member or member organization during such period. In the second action, Brian A. Arenstein and his firm ALA Trading, LLC agreed to a fine of $1.2 million, disgorgement of $1.8 million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or association with an Amex member or member organization during such period.
SEC Regulation SHO generally requires market participants to locate shares to borrow prior to effecting a short sale transaction. However, options market makers receive a limited exemption from this requirement when selling an underlying equity security short to hedge options positions established during the course of bona fide options market making activity.
Despite the fact that neither respondent was acting as a bona fide options market maker in the particular securities in question, each of them improperly utilized this market maker exemption to impermissibly engage in naked short selling by failing to locate securities to borrow and then engaged in a series of close out transactions designed to circumvent his Regulation SHO delivery obligations in such securities by creating the appearance of a bona fide repurchase of the securities he initially sold short. As a result of this violative trading activity, they were able to maintain impermissible naked short positions in a number of Regulation SHO threshold securities for a virtually unlimited period of time.
"Regulation SHO is a critically important framework of regulatory requirements designed to prevent and deter abusive short selling and reduce persistent fails to deliver. The respondents' circumvention of these requirements was egregious and improperly contributed to persistent fails to deliver in certain Regulation SHO threshold securities," said Claudia Crowley, Senior Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer of the Amex. "This settlement should send a strong message to other market participants that trading which involves the improper use of the Regulation SHO market maker locate exemption and circumvention of the requisite delivery obl
"Where did you ever get the idea that naked short selling is illegal?"
Maybe from the whacky guy who runs the SEC, Chris Cox: "Selling short without having stock available for delivery, and intentionally failing to deliver stock within the standard three-day settlement period, is market manipulation that is clearly violative of the federal securities laws."
Let us start with something simple and work up, Jim: What does "is clearly violative of the federal securities laws" mean to you?
More of the "Because I Said So" School of Argument. Unsubstantiated assertion piled on top of unsubstantiated assertion piled on top of questions begged. I've seen the routine before: Someone says that breaking the law by naked shorting is bad, the shills reply "But this company sucks," someone makes the mistake of suggesting that maybe the company doesn't suck, then the shills reply that it does, round and round. All the economic analysis is on my side: SEC Economist Boni says it is "endemic," former Undersectrary of Commerce for Economics Dr. Robert Shapiro describes it as disastrous, Professors Finnerty etc. all confirm this, and the SEC itself says on their website that they had to grandfather it lest cleaning up the mess create too much volatility (pretty hard to explain in the case of something that allegedly has no effect). But how about we skip all that and start at the basics: it is "illegal." It has been illegal for 70 years. SEC Chairman Cox says it is illegal. What part of "illegal" is so difficult to grasp? And, of peculiar interest to this thread: why is it that Wikipedia will not permit to appear on its site any information from exposing this situation, even in the form of links to reputable news articles at Bloomberg, Fortune, WSJ, speeches by Senators, statements by SEC Commissioners, etc? Why are all such links disappeared down an Orwellian Memory Hole on Wikipedia? If some enterprising reporter digs into that, and discovers who it is that connects Linda, Gary, and Jimbo Wales, along with Rocker, Cramer, and Herb..... that will become the stuff of legend.
Here you go, James. Hot off the press: a news release from AMEX about that thing you say doesn't happen.
American Stock Exchange News Release
Exchange Release
Media Contact: Mary Chung
American Stock Exchange
212-306-1641/ mary.chung@amex.com
AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE ANNOUNCES TWO DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF REGULATION SHO SHORT SALE RULES
NEW YORK, July 31, 2007 - The American Stock Exchange® (Amex®) today announced two final disciplinary actions for violations of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation SHO short sale rules in connection with trading activity in threshold securities, which occurred on various options and equity exchanges. In the first action, Scott H. Arenstein and his firm SBA Trading, agreed to a fine of $3.6 million, disgorgement of $1.4 million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or association with an Amex member or member organization during such period. In the second action, Brian A. Arenstein and his firm ALA Trading, LLC agreed to a fine of $1.2 million, disgorgement of $1.8 million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or association with an Amex member or member organization during such period.
SEC Regulation SHO generally requires market participants to locate shares to borrow prior to effecting a short sale transaction. However, options market makers receive a limited exemption from this requirement when selling an underlying equity security short to hedge options positions established during the course of bona fide options market making activity.
Despite the fact that neither respondent was acting as a bona fide options market maker in the particular securities in question, each of them improperly utilized this market maker exemption to impermissibly engage in naked short selling by failing to locate securities to borrow and then engaged in a series of close out transactions designed to circumvent his Regulation SHO delivery obligations in such securities by creating the appearance of a bona fide repurchase of the securities he initially sold short. As a result of this violative trading activity, they were able to maintain impermissible naked short positions in a number of Regulation SHO threshold securities for a virtually unlimited period of time.
"Regulation SHO is a critically important framework of regulatory requirements designed to prevent and deter abusive short selling and reduce persistent fails to deliver. The respondents' circumvention of these requirements was egregious and improperly contributed to persistent fails to deliver in certain Regulation SHO threshold securities," said Claudia Crowley, Senior Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer of the Amex. "This settlement should send a strong message to other market participants that trading which involves the improper use of the Regulation SHO market maker locate exemption and circumvention of the requisite delivery obligations are unacceptable and will result in serious sanctions."
Scott H. Arenstein, SBA Trading, Brian A. Arenstein and ALA Trading consented to findings that they violated SEC Rule 203, Article V, Sections 4(h) and (i) of the Amex Constitution and Amex Rule 958 - ANTE. In settling these matters the respondents neither admitted nor denied the charges.
This violative activity was detected and investigated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), formerly the NASD, acting on behalf of the Amex's Regulatory Division.
The Decisions and related Stipulations of Facts and Consent to Penalty can be viewed at the following link:
Someday, I hope, the tech community of Slashdot is going to get that until this problem is corrected, they are just energy-pods powering a Matrix, kept docile with dreams generate
You mean, the same few tired hacks whose deep analytic insight somehow causes them to variously and independently come to write hatchet jobs on precisely those firms that about 5 hedge funds short, over and over again and with complete predictability, wand ho are facing exposure in what could turn into the most massive financial scandal of our lifetime... THOSE tired hacks come out and denounce me? Wow, what a surprise.
I see, JimmyB, that you have ably demonstrated mastery of the ability to parrot the party line (or should I call it "The 'Because I say So!' defense?). But somehow I missed something: your answer to SEC Chairman Cox, Commissioner Atkins, Dr. Leslie Boni, and Former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economics Dr. Shapiro is... what exactly?
SEC Chairman Chris Cox (July, 2006): "abusive naked short sales...can be used as a tool to drive down a company's stock price to the detriment of all of its investors. The Commission is particularly concerned about persistent failures to deliver in the market for some securities that may be due to loopholes in the Commission's Regulation SHO... The need for Regulation SHO grew out of long-standing and growing problems with failures to deliver stock by the end of the standard three day settlement period for trades..... Selling short without having stock available for delivery, and intentionally failing to deliver stock within the standard three-day settlement period, is market manipulation that is clearly violative of the federal securities laws."
Dr. Robert Shapiro, former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economics: "There is considerable evidence that market manipulation through the use of naked short sales has been much more common than almost anyone has suspected, and certainly more widespread than most investors believe." "This type of stock manipulation has occurred in many hundreds and perhaps thousands of cases over the last decade... Illicit short sales on such a scale or anything approaching it point to grave inadequacies in the current regulatory regime."
Bradley Abelow, a former DTCC director: FTD's "occur as a matter of course with great regularity," adding "fails to deliver of securities is endemic."
SEC economist Leslie Boni described the FTD problem as "pervasive," calculated the average persistency of failures as 56 trading days, and showed that the ailures are intentional (as their distribution is highly non-random).
SEC website: "The grandfathering provisions of Regulation SHO were adopted because the Commission was concerned about creating volatility where there were large pre-existing open positions" (those are the same "large pre-existing open positions" whose existence they were denying only a year previously).
SEC Commissioner PAUL ATKINS: "Other recent rulemakings by the SEC can be neatly described by a single four-letter word that is the source of many nightmares for securities operations professionals. That word is 'fail.' Fail is an especially appropriate word to describe the substance of one of these rulemakings and the process and theory of the others. The first rule making is the pending proposal to amend Regulation SHO. And this relates to the noun form of the word 'fail', as in 'fail to deliver.'... The need to act was clear. From all the reports, the backlog of unconfirmed trades, which, of course, essentially are fails, and the widespread and unchecked use of innovations in the credit derivatives markets had crippled risk management efforts and set the stage, really, for a massive meltdown in certain defaults scenarios."
Bloomberg Markets' Bob Drummond: "A robust market for stock loans puts into circulation billions of borrowed shares that can create multiple votes that corrupt corporate elections." As a result, "In close contests with little room for error, the results of high-stakes company decisions may hinge on the invisible influence of millions of votes that shouldn't be counted." According to Thomas Montrone, CEO of Registrar & Transfer Co., "It is an abomination... A lot of the time we have no idea who's entitled to vote and who isn't. It's nothing short of criminal." Another securities consultant notes, "There are votes cast twice on almost every matter of substance... It definitely can and does, in my experience, affect the outcome of corporate elections and proposals." "Securities Transfer Association, a trade group for stock transfer agents, reviewed 341 shareholder vote
Hi Sam,
Since you continue to use English in an odd and idiosyncratic way, I'll need you to clear up something you said, and then I will be able to answer you in short order.
You correctly state that on May 9, 2006, I issued a press release that included this quote:
"Overstock.com Chairman and CEO Patrick Byrne said, 'I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena.'"
Now Sam, when I issued that, was the assertion I was making true or false? Set aside whether other CEO's before me had celebrated or not: was the assertion that I had received an SEC subpoena true or false?
Let me know your answer, then I can clear up your confusion in about 25 words.
Patrick
I LOVE IT! If that is, indeed, Jim himself, on the record, now preaching that Pary Line, it not ties together a great deal that has not been crystal clear, while giving us something we can easily demonstrate is false.
The Party Line that Jimmy so ably parroted (that this is just some fringe issue, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) is now wearing a little thin, given the people who are now confirming what we have been trying to expose:
SEC Chairman Chris Cox (July, 2006): "abusive naked short sales...can be used as a tool to drive down a company's stock price to the detriment of all of its investors. The Commission is particularly concerned about persistent failures to deliver in the market for some securities that may be due to loopholes in the Commission's Regulation SHO... The need for Regulation SHO grew out of long-standing and growing problems with failures to deliver stock by the end of the standard three day settlement period for trades..... Selling short without having stock available for delivery, and intentionally failing to deliver stock within the standard three-day settlement period, is market manipulation that is clearly violative of the federal securities laws."
As Bloomberg Markets' Bob Drummond reported: "A robust market for stock loans puts into circulation billions of borrowed shares that can create multiple votes that corrupt corporate elections." As a result, "In close contests with little room for error, the results of high-stakes company decisions may hinge on the invisible influence of millions of votes that shouldn't be counted." According to Thomas Montrone, CEO of Registrar & Transfer Co., "It is an abomination... A lot of the time we have no idea who's entitled to vote and who isn't. It's nothing short of criminal." Another securities consultant notes, "There are votes cast twice on almost every matter of substance... It definitely can and does, in my experience, affect the outcome of corporate elections and proposals." How big is the problem? Bloomberg wrote that the "Securities Transfer Association, a trade group for stock transfer agents, reviewed 341 shareholder votes in corporate contests in 2005. It found evidence of overvoting--the submission of too many ballots--in all 341 cases." Arbitrageurs are exploiting this crack, suggests Drummond: one of his sources notes, "It appears to be the case where there are opportunities to game the system." Bloomberg concluded that until these problems are fixed, "double and triple voting on one share will continue to make a mockery of shareholder democracy."
Dr. Robert Shapiro, former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economics, has written, "There is considerable evidence that market manipulation through the use of naked short sales has been much more common than almost anyone has suspected, and certainly more widespread than most investors believe." His research into death-spiral converts (a type of financing often accompanied by naked shorting) turned up at least 200 companies that appear to have been more or less destroyed, posting "a combined market loss of more than $105 billion." A 2006 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response from the SEC regarding the 2004 FTD's of one national market company revealed days where over 40% of the volume did not deliver. A grim view is suggested by subsequent FOIA responses, records from transfer agents, and the persistence of firms on the SEC's Reg SHO threshold list. Concerning the general topic of "massive naked short sales" Dr. Shapiro writes, "this type of stock manipulation has occurred in many hundreds and perhaps thousands of cases over the last decade... Illicit short sales on such a scale or anything approaching it point to grave inadequacies in the current regulatory regime."
Bradley Abelow, a former DTCC director questioned under oath for confirmation as New Jersey Treasurer, described failures within our settlement system as "occur[ing] as a matter of course with great regularity," adding "fails to deliver of securities is endemic." A paper by SEC eco
More Chewbacca Defense, Mr. Coward, ventured (as always, without accurate and supporting quotes) in an attempt to confuse the casual passby with Big Lies.
Check it out:
Overstock.com Celebrates Receipt of SEC Subpoena
SALT LAKE CITY, May 9, 2006/PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Overstock.com(R) (Nasdaq: OSTK) announced that today it received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning issues and requesting information outlined below.
Overstock.com Chairman and CEO Patrick Byrne said, "I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena. Some of the requests suggest the whispering of the blackguards, but I remain unconcerned about their hokum. In truth, I am gratified to see that the SEC is looking into the issues about which I have been speaking: I believe our capital markets are broken in a deep way, our system of corporate voting and governance is a hoax, the savings of Americans are being drained through our financial system's fissure of unsettled trades, and the system appears to be cracking around Overstock.com (of course, I could be proved wrong if they would force the settlement of, or even reveal the size of, all unsettled trades in OSTK, which I believe number from 7 to 30 million shares). While some of the miscreants file frivolous delaying motions, and others schmooze with hedge funds and write what they are told to write (yet call themselves 'journalists' to shield their perfidy behind the First Amendment), I on the other hand applaud the SEC's actions and eagerly anticipate my chance to get these issues into court."
The subpoena requests a broad range of documents, including, all documents relating to the Company's accounting policies, targets, projections, estimates, recent restatement, new technology systems and their implementation, and communications with and regarding analysts. In addition, the subpoena requests all information relating to the filing of its complaint against Gradient Analytics, Inc., communications regarding shareholders who did not receive the Company's proxy statement in April 2006, communications with shareholders, and communications regarding short selling, naked short selling, purchases and sales of Company stock, obtaining paper certificates, and stock loan or borrow of Company shares. The Company intends to review the subpoena and respond in due course.
When I put that out, the shills made a big fuss about a CEO "celebrating" such with the SEC. A year later (this June) the Party Line they were instructed to parrot shifted, and now they were supposed to pretend I hid it. Which is pretty hard, given the existence of that press release from last year, but they manage just by repeating it over and over, as you have done.
You guys just fabricate new allegations like that, over and over, without ever putting up: you folks, on the other hand, have been unmasked time and again, and so just create new sock puppets when you do.
Coward,
One cannot be "outed" for something about which is ethically just and which one is open. Just like all these stories last week treating as some grand expose the fact tht I post on the Internet, when in fact I identify myself widely when I do. It is just the Big Lie: rant about it loudly, you think, and hope no one checks the facts.
Now as far as credibility goes... Let's see: I came out two years ago telling the world that our markets were hopelelssly rigged, that a group of hedge funds had some bozo reporters doing their shilling, and that our clearing and settlement systemw as largely broken, that small companies were being destroyed by it, etc. Have you noticed that Jim Cramer himself has come out and confessed to taking part in the first (right down to the "bozo reorters" he mentioned), and now the SEC, including Christopher Cox, has come out confirming the second?
What was that you were saying abotu "credibility"? I cannot go into a bar in New York without people sending me a drink to thank me (even the bartenders). Everyone gets it. You cannot stop that by inane blather posted in an attempt to keep the realization from crystallizing for all. The markets are deeply rigged, the rigging is protected by a bunch of tired hacks in the public press, they are the ones who have been "exposed," and now they are trying to smoke it all up to make it hard for the averag viewer to follow.
www.businessjive.com
Patrick Byrne
Dear Anonymous Coward,
You should be old enough to know that just repeating something a lot will not make it so. By "nailed by the media" I suppose you mean that the same few journalists whom we are accusing of being in cahoots with the hedge funds and their shills wrote stories "exposing".... precisely what Judd was disclosing on the home page of his site. Yes, quite a scoopo, that. Returning the the real world for the moment, Judd has done a laudable job of unveiling how a tightly-organized group of shills works to hijack the discourse on a narrow band of subjects. And then when anyone starts to put together how they are doing that, they show up to hijack THAT discourse. "Turtles all the way down..." Alas, it appears some folks at Slashdot have noticed the wig slipping in their corner of the world, and so we'll see how well those techniques work against them. My guess is, not very well.
Your claims about the SEC are pretty off-base, but I am sure you know that. "Shifting blame" is just another page out of the shill handbook (it seems folks notice that as often as you folks make that claim, you never do anything so crass as to give an example, in quotes).
Here's a question: if we start making money, will that make me RIGHT about naked short selling and the threat it poses to our country?
Since I cannot find anything of substance in your message to which to reply, beyond what I have written above, I'll sign out.
Patrick
This is not "a new low" at all: Slashdot has done a great service. What is happening is a set of interrelated cover-ups have persisted due to the ability of some folks to hijack the public discourse. The Slashdot community has stumbled upon trace evidence of that, and now will be badgered, bullied, and clogged in an effort to keep you folks from putting the pieces together. That's how it works when they see that the wig is beginning to slip.
It is far too long a story to tell here, so I will just plant signposts for those interested:
1) There is a massive hedge fund scandal ("naked short selling") boiling to the surface of our capital markets. Since it is terribly pernicious for entrepreneurs it should be of special interest to the tech community, but so far you nerds have not tuned into it that I can tell. Some mainstream financial publications have begun exposing it. Bloomberg Television (the most "elite" news service in the country) recently did a shocking 25 minute Special Report on it, and articles have been appearing this year in Forbes and Bloomberg magazine:
2) The guilty parties in the aforementioned crime are hedge funds with essentially bottomless purses, and through means once may only surmise, they have hijacked the mainstream media's discourse. Even though some serious economists and scholars began publishing data suggesting a financial crime of epic proportions might be occuring in our capital markets, of such scale that the SEC has quietly aknowledged that it could lead to "a massive meltdown in certain default scenarious" (SEC Commissioner Atkins), no financial publication would touch the issue. That is because the hedge fund beat is covered by a small number of reporters who have grown extremely close to the half-dozen hedge funds that are actually committing the crime ("The Wall Street Journal" is to Wall Street as "Sports Illustrated" is to sports). Anyone who tried to raise it to the awareness of the public was dismissed as a whacky conspiracy theorist, or a malcontent CEO (that would be I), without any attempt to grapple with the data whatsoever. (However, since Bloomberg and Forbes came out with their pieces, the Wall Street Journal has been forced into some good but rather anodyne coverage of the subject.)
3) Social media presents and expecially thorny issue for the bad guys. There exists a huge set of data points which, when put together, create a vivid picture of the crime. They can keep their compliant half-dozen reporters from putting those pieces together, and they can keep their captured regulator (the SEC) from putting them together, but how do they prevent the swarm of participants in social meda from putting their individual piecs of the puzzle together? They have two strategies: they clog message boards, and they hijack Wikipedia (one of the central crossroads of social media).
Wikipedia is fine, of course, if one wants to know the name of every actor who guest starred on "Friends," but on a small number of subjects none of the normal rules of Wikipedia apply because a tight group of super-users suspend all the normal rules of settling disputes. As a matter of fact, on these select subjects even the record of contrary opinions is disappeared down an Orwellian memory hole. Links to articles and exposés that appear in major, mainstream publications are not allowed to appear, thus curtailing the ability of the public to accumulate knowledge.
At the the crossroads of all this hijacking of the discourse is one user: Linda Mack, a.k.a. "SlimVirgin." And first and foremost of the subjects for which the normal rules of Wikipedian discourse are hijacked is the financial scandal that I referred to a
Slashdot Mirror
More to the point of this slashdot thread: Why is it that on this subject alone (well, virtually alone), all the normal rules of Wikipedia are suspeended regarding POV, citations, records of the discourse being disappeared, etc? And why does the woman involved in that, SlimVirgin, also so up in a select few other subjects as one for whom the rules of Wikipedia do not apply? What about Gary Weiss, a one-time Mob reporter who now posts thousands of times per year on stock message boards, and Wikipedia, under a variety of sock-puppets? Why did Gary feel it necessary to defend notorious Russian mafia leader Berezovksy and trash (anonymously) the work of journalist Paul Klebnikov, before Paul was murdered in Moscow (and days before Gary left BusinessWeek under mysterious circumstances)? What do Herb, Linda Mack, and Gary, along with David Rocker and Jim Cramer, all have in common?
Answer: XXXXXXXXX
Patrick Byrne
Regulation SHO requires, "...a broker-dealer, prior to effecting a short sale in any equity security, to 'locate' securities available for borrowing...Specifically, the rule prohibits a broker-dealer from accepting a short sale order in any equity security from another person, or effecting a short sale order for the broker-dealer's own account unless the broker-dealer has (1) borrowed the security, or entered into an arrangement to borrow the security, or (2) has reasonable grounds to believe that the security can be borrowed so that it can be delivered on the date delivery is due. The locate must be made and documented prior to effecting a short sale." See Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 CFR Parts 240, 241 and 242, Release No. 34- 50103; File No. S7-23-03, http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-50103.pdf. "As with other provisions of Regulation SHO, this provision requires good faith conduct by where the broker-dealer did not in good faith believe that the customer would deliver the securities in time for settlement, the broker-dealer cannot borrow or lend securities to deliver when the customer fails," ibid, footnote 112. Regulation SHO goes on to state that, "Bona-fide market making does not include activity that is related to speculative selling strategies or investment purposes of the broker-dealer and is disproportionate to the usual market making patterns or practices of the broker-dealer in that security. In addition, where a market maker posts continually at or near the best offer, but does not also post at or near the best bid, the market maker's activities would not generally qualify as bona-fide market making for purposes of the exception. Further, bona-fide market making does not include transactions whereby a market maker enters into an arrangement with another broker-dealer or customer in an attempt to use the market maker's exception for the purpose of avoiding compliance with Rule 203(b)(1) by the other broker-dealer or customer." That will be all.
http://antisocialmedia.net/070714-antar.jpg
Hi Sam the Crook,
"If you truly wish to clear up this issue, why not respond to each of my questions individually in a clear, unambiguous, and truthful manner?"
Ummm, could it be because collecitvely they number in the thousands, and I cannot say I've ever actually read one of your postings closely?
I really want to help you here, Sam, but I just need to know how you are using the English language, because it seems a little disjoint to me. When you answer this question, I will be able to understand your verb tenses, and general sense of reality, enough to answer your questions. So let us try again:
When I, on May 9, said that I was the first CEO to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena, was I telling the truth about being a CEO who had received a subpoena, or not?
Get back to me with an answer, and I'll be able to make sense of your questions, Sam.
Patrick
PS In case any member of the public wanders by, please understand that this guy I am conversing with is a convicted felon who ratted out his own family to reduce his own jail time. Recently he was kicked off of YAHOO (no easy feat, that) for threatening children (see below). Because he apparently has absolutely no moral center, Sam has in recent months become a favorite of hedge fund choagies like Herb Greenberg, who is promoting Sam so he can have someone new with whom to practice crony journalism. Next will be, I am sure, a flattering pieces in DJ by Carol Remond, a write up in NYPost by Roddy Boyd, a Fortune cover by Bethany McLean, and a special WSJ profile by Karen "We-can-do-this-the-hard-way-or-the-easy-way" Richardson (that is, that pack of independent journalists who randomly happen to cover precisely those firms shorted by Rocker, Cohodes, Ackerman, Steve Cohen, Einhorn, Dan Loeb/Jim Caruthers, etc., over and over with complete regularity in a way that is, all observers are clear, entirely coincidental). Seriously, check it out: http://antisocialmedia.net/070714-antar.jpg
I forgot I was dealing with the lunatic fringe here. Let me see if I got this straight: The Chairman of the SEC, a lawyer and former Congressman, with numerous fellow Commissioners and staffers around him, including the head of market regulation, testifies under oath to the United States Senate to the effect that something is illegal, and the Connecticut state securities regulator says it is illegal, and a Senator drills in on the clear fact that our nation's settlement system is broken due to these illegal practices, and you say it is not illegal because, well, just because. Because this guy is a clown, and that guy is a politician, and someone else is a dweeb.
Did I miss anything?
Tough to argue with that type of logic.
Returning to the real world, Jimmy, there is a laundry list of regs being broken (e.g., the affirmative determination rule). But I am out of here because I am confident that the average reader who has followed will understand by this point that you have been flattened, and that you are not debating, you are typing. I suggest you read today's release from the AMEX regarding the precise regulatory violations which you have been instructed to assert are all imaginary (let me guess the content of your counterargument: "But the AMEX are all ugly!" Did I get it?)
NEW YORK, July 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Stock Exchangeà (AmexÃ) today announced two final disciplinary actions for violations of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation SHO short sale rules in connection with trading activity in threshold securities, which occurred on various options and equity exchanges. In the first action, Scott H. Arenstein and his firm SBA Trading, agreed to a fine of $3.6 million, disgorgement of $1.4 million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or association with an Amex member or member organization during such period. In the second action, Brian A. Arenstein and his firm ALA Trading, LLC agreed to a fine of $1.2 million, disgorgement of $1.8 million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or association with an Amex member or member organization during such period.
SEC Regulation SHO generally requires market participants to locate shares to borrow prior to effecting a short sale transaction. However, options market makers receive a limited exemption from this requirement when selling an underlying equity security short to hedge options positions established during the course of bona fide options market making activity.
Despite the fact that neither respondent was acting as a bona fide options market maker in the particular securities in question, each of them improperly utilized this market maker exemption to impermissibly engage in naked short selling by failing to locate securities to borrow and then engaged in a series of close out transactions designed to circumvent his Regulation SHO delivery obligations in such securities by creating the appearance of a bona fide repurchase of the securities he initially sold short. As a result of this violative trading activity, they were able to maintain impermissible naked short positions in a number of Regulation SHO threshold securities for a virtually unlimited period of time.
"Regulation SHO is a critically important framework of regulatory requirements designed to prevent and deter abusive short selling and reduce persistent fails to deliver. The respondents' circumvention of these requirements was egregious and improperly contributed to persistent fails to deliver in certain Regulation SHO threshold securities," said Claudia Crowley, Senior Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer of the Amex. "This settlement should send a strong message to other market participants that trading which involves the improper use of the Regulation SHO market maker locate exemption and circumvention of the requisite delivery obl
Maybe from the whacky guy who runs the SEC, Chris Cox: "Selling short without having stock available for delivery, and intentionally failing to deliver stock within the standard three-day settlement period, is market manipulation that is clearly violative of the federal securities laws."
Let us start with something simple and work up, Jim: What does "is clearly violative of the federal securities laws" mean to you?
More of the "Because I Said So" School of Argument. Unsubstantiated assertion piled on top of unsubstantiated assertion piled on top of questions begged. I've seen the routine before: Someone says that breaking the law by naked shorting is bad, the shills reply "But this company sucks," someone makes the mistake of suggesting that maybe the company doesn't suck, then the shills reply that it does, round and round. All the economic analysis is on my side: SEC Economist Boni says it is "endemic," former Undersectrary of Commerce for Economics Dr. Robert Shapiro describes it as disastrous, Professors Finnerty etc. all confirm this, and the SEC itself says on their website that they had to grandfather it lest cleaning up the mess create too much volatility (pretty hard to explain in the case of something that allegedly has no effect). But how about we skip all that and start at the basics: it is "illegal." It has been illegal for 70 years. SEC Chairman Cox says it is illegal. What part of "illegal" is so difficult to grasp? And, of peculiar interest to this thread: why is it that Wikipedia will not permit to appear on its site any information from exposing this situation, even in the form of links to reputable news articles at Bloomberg, Fortune, WSJ, speeches by Senators, statements by SEC Commissioners, etc? Why are all such links disappeared down an Orwellian Memory Hole on Wikipedia? If some enterprising reporter digs into that, and discovers who it is that connects Linda, Gary, and Jimbo Wales, along with Rocker, Cramer, and Herb..... that will become the stuff of legend.
Patrick
American Stock Exchange News Release
Exchange Release
Media Contact: Mary Chung
American Stock Exchange
212-306-1641/ mary.chung@amex.com
AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE ANNOUNCES TWO DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF REGULATION SHO SHORT SALE RULES
NEW YORK, July 31, 2007 - The American Stock Exchange® (Amex®) today announced two final disciplinary actions for violations of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation SHO short sale rules in connection with trading activity in threshold securities, which occurred on various options and equity exchanges. In the first action, Scott H. Arenstein and his firm SBA Trading, agreed to a fine of $3.6 million, disgorgement of $1.4 million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or association with an Amex member or member organization during such period. In the second action, Brian A. Arenstein and his firm ALA Trading, LLC agreed to a fine of $1.2 million, disgorgement of $1.8 million in trading profits, a censure and a five-year suspension from Amex membership in any capacity, including employment or association with an Amex member or member organization during such period.
SEC Regulation SHO generally requires market participants to locate shares to borrow prior to effecting a short sale transaction. However, options market makers receive a limited exemption from this requirement when selling an underlying equity security short to hedge options positions established during the course of bona fide options market making activity.
Despite the fact that neither respondent was acting as a bona fide options market maker in the particular securities in question, each of them improperly utilized this market maker exemption to impermissibly engage in naked short selling by failing to locate securities to borrow and then engaged in a series of close out transactions designed to circumvent his Regulation SHO delivery obligations in such securities by creating the appearance of a bona fide repurchase of the securities he initially sold short. As a result of this violative trading activity, they were able to maintain impermissible naked short positions in a number of Regulation SHO threshold securities for a virtually unlimited period of time.
"Regulation SHO is a critically important framework of regulatory requirements designed to prevent and deter abusive short selling and reduce persistent fails to deliver. The respondents' circumvention of these requirements was egregious and improperly contributed to persistent fails to deliver in certain Regulation SHO threshold securities," said Claudia Crowley, Senior Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer of the Amex. "This settlement should send a strong message to other market participants that trading which involves the improper use of the Regulation SHO market maker locate exemption and circumvention of the requisite delivery obligations are unacceptable and will result in serious sanctions."
Scott H. Arenstein, SBA Trading, Brian A. Arenstein and ALA Trading consented to findings that they violated SEC Rule 203, Article V, Sections 4(h) and (i) of the Amex Constitution and Amex Rule 958 - ANTE. In settling these matters the respondents neither admitted nor denied the charges.
This violative activity was detected and investigated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), formerly the NASD, acting on behalf of the Amex's Regulatory Division.
The Decisions and related Stipulations of Facts and Consent to Penalty can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.amex.com/?href=/atamex/regulation/dis cipline/at_regdiscipline.html
Someday, I hope, the tech community of Slashdot is going to get that until this problem is corrected, they are just energy-pods powering a Matrix, kept docile with dreams generate
Patrick
SEC Chairman Chris Cox (July, 2006): "abusive naked short sales...can be used as a tool to drive down a company's stock price to the detriment of all of its investors. The Commission is particularly concerned about persistent failures to deliver in the market for some securities that may be due to loopholes in the Commission's Regulation SHO... The need for Regulation SHO grew out of long-standing and growing problems with failures to deliver stock by the end of the standard three day settlement period for trades..... Selling short without having stock available for delivery, and intentionally failing to deliver stock within the standard three-day settlement period, is market manipulation that is clearly violative of the federal securities laws."
Dr. Robert Shapiro, former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economics: "There is considerable evidence that market manipulation through the use of naked short sales has been much more common than almost anyone has suspected, and certainly more widespread than most investors believe." "This type of stock manipulation has occurred in many hundreds and perhaps thousands of cases over the last decade... Illicit short sales on such a scale or anything approaching it point to grave inadequacies in the current regulatory regime."
Bradley Abelow, a former DTCC director: FTD's "occur as a matter of course with great regularity," adding "fails to deliver of securities is endemic."
SEC economist Leslie Boni described the FTD problem as "pervasive," calculated the average persistency of failures as 56 trading days, and showed that the ailures are intentional (as their distribution is highly non-random).
SEC website: "The grandfathering provisions of Regulation SHO were adopted because the Commission was concerned about creating volatility where there were large pre-existing open positions" (those are the same "large pre-existing open positions" whose existence they were denying only a year previously).
SEC Commissioner PAUL ATKINS: "Other recent rulemakings by the SEC can be neatly described by a single four-letter word that is the source of many nightmares for securities operations professionals. That word is 'fail.' Fail is an especially appropriate word to describe the substance of one of these rulemakings and the process and theory of the others. The first rule making is the pending proposal to amend Regulation SHO. And this relates to the noun form of the word 'fail', as in 'fail to deliver.' ... The need to act was clear. From all the reports, the backlog of unconfirmed trades, which, of course, essentially are fails, and the widespread and unchecked use of innovations in the credit derivatives markets had crippled risk management efforts and set the stage, really, for a massive meltdown in certain defaults scenarios."
Bloomberg Markets' Bob Drummond: "A robust market for stock loans puts into circulation billions of borrowed shares that can create multiple votes that corrupt corporate elections." As a result, "In close contests with little room for error, the results of high-stakes company decisions may hinge on the invisible influence of millions of votes that shouldn't be counted." According to Thomas Montrone, CEO of Registrar & Transfer Co., "It is an abomination... A lot of the time we have no idea who's entitled to vote and who isn't. It's nothing short of criminal." Another securities consultant notes, "There are votes cast twice on almost every matter of substance... It definitely can and does, in my experience, affect the outcome of corporate elections and proposals." "Securities Transfer Association, a trade group for stock transfer agents, reviewed 341 shareholder vote
Hi Sam, Since you continue to use English in an odd and idiosyncratic way, I'll need you to clear up something you said, and then I will be able to answer you in short order. You correctly state that on May 9, 2006, I issued a press release that included this quote: "Overstock.com Chairman and CEO Patrick Byrne said, 'I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena.'" Now Sam, when I issued that, was the assertion I was making true or false? Set aside whether other CEO's before me had celebrated or not: was the assertion that I had received an SEC subpoena true or false? Let me know your answer, then I can clear up your confusion in about 25 words. Patrick
The Party Line that Jimmy so ably parroted (that this is just some fringe issue, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) is now wearing a little thin, given the people who are now confirming what we have been trying to expose: SEC Chairman Chris Cox (July, 2006): "abusive naked short sales...can be used as a tool to drive down a company's stock price to the detriment of all of its investors. The Commission is particularly concerned about persistent failures to deliver in the market for some securities that may be due to loopholes in the Commission's Regulation SHO... The need for Regulation SHO grew out of long-standing and growing problems with failures to deliver stock by the end of the standard three day settlement period for trades..... Selling short without having stock available for delivery, and intentionally failing to deliver stock within the standard three-day settlement period, is market manipulation that is clearly violative of the federal securities laws."
As Bloomberg Markets' Bob Drummond reported: "A robust market for stock loans puts into circulation billions of borrowed shares that can create multiple votes that corrupt corporate elections." As a result, "In close contests with little room for error, the results of high-stakes company decisions may hinge on the invisible influence of millions of votes that shouldn't be counted." According to Thomas Montrone, CEO of Registrar & Transfer Co., "It is an abomination... A lot of the time we have no idea who's entitled to vote and who isn't. It's nothing short of criminal." Another securities consultant notes, "There are votes cast twice on almost every matter of substance... It definitely can and does, in my experience, affect the outcome of corporate elections and proposals." How big is the problem? Bloomberg wrote that the "Securities Transfer Association, a trade group for stock transfer agents, reviewed 341 shareholder votes in corporate contests in 2005. It found evidence of overvoting--the submission of too many ballots--in all 341 cases." Arbitrageurs are exploiting this crack, suggests Drummond: one of his sources notes, "It appears to be the case where there are opportunities to game the system." Bloomberg concluded that until these problems are fixed, "double and triple voting on one share will continue to make a mockery of shareholder democracy."
Dr. Robert Shapiro, former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economics, has written, "There is considerable evidence that market manipulation through the use of naked short sales has been much more common than almost anyone has suspected, and certainly more widespread than most investors believe." His research into death-spiral converts (a type of financing often accompanied by naked shorting) turned up at least 200 companies that appear to have been more or less destroyed, posting "a combined market loss of more than $105 billion." A 2006 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response from the SEC regarding the 2004 FTD's of one national market company revealed days where over 40% of the volume did not deliver. A grim view is suggested by subsequent FOIA responses, records from transfer agents, and the persistence of firms on the SEC's Reg SHO threshold list. Concerning the general topic of "massive naked short sales" Dr. Shapiro writes, "this type of stock manipulation has occurred in many hundreds and perhaps thousands of cases over the last decade... Illicit short sales on such a scale or anything approaching it point to grave inadequacies in the current regulatory regime."
Bradley Abelow, a former DTCC director questioned under oath for confirmation as New Jersey Treasurer, described failures within our settlement system as "occur[ing] as a matter of course with great regularity," adding "fails to deliver of securities is endemic." A paper by SEC eco
Check it out:
Overstock.com Celebrates Receipt of SEC Subpoena
SALT LAKE CITY, May 9, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Overstock.com(R) (Nasdaq: OSTK) announced that today it received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning issues and requesting information outlined below.
Overstock.com Chairman and CEO Patrick Byrne said, "I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena. Some of the requests suggest the whispering of the blackguards, but I remain unconcerned about their hokum. In truth, I am gratified to see that the SEC is looking into the issues about which I have been speaking: I believe our capital markets are broken in a deep way, our system of corporate voting and governance is a hoax, the savings of Americans are being drained through our financial system's fissure of unsettled trades, and the system appears to be cracking around Overstock.com (of course, I could be proved wrong if they would force the settlement of, or even reveal the size of, all unsettled trades in OSTK, which I believe number from 7 to 30 million shares). While some of the miscreants file frivolous delaying motions, and others schmooze with hedge funds and write what they are told to write (yet call themselves 'journalists' to shield their perfidy behind the First Amendment), I on the other hand applaud the SEC's actions and eagerly anticipate my chance to get these issues into court."
The subpoena requests a broad range of documents, including, all documents relating to the Company's accounting policies, targets, projections, estimates, recent restatement, new technology systems and their implementation, and communications with and regarding analysts. In addition, the subpoena requests all information relating to the filing of its complaint against Gradient Analytics, Inc., communications regarding shareholders who did not receive the Company's proxy statement in April 2006, communications with shareholders, and communications regarding short selling, naked short selling, purchases and sales of Company stock, obtaining paper certificates, and stock loan or borrow of Company shares. The Company intends to review the subpoena and respond in due course.
http://investors.overstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131 091&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=858248&highlight=
When I put that out, the shills made a big fuss about a CEO "celebrating" such with the SEC. A year later (this June) the Party Line they were instructed to parrot shifted, and now they were supposed to pretend I hid it. Which is pretty hard, given the existence of that press release from last year, but they manage just by repeating it over and over, as you have done.
You guys just fabricate new allegations like that, over and over, without ever putting up: you folks, on the other hand, have been unmasked time and again, and so just create new sock puppets when you do.
Patrick
Coward, One cannot be "outed" for something about which is ethically just and which one is open. Just like all these stories last week treating as some grand expose the fact tht I post on the Internet, when in fact I identify myself widely when I do. It is just the Big Lie: rant about it loudly, you think, and hope no one checks the facts. Now as far as credibility goes... Let's see: I came out two years ago telling the world that our markets were hopelelssly rigged, that a group of hedge funds had some bozo reporters doing their shilling, and that our clearing and settlement systemw as largely broken, that small companies were being destroyed by it, etc. Have you noticed that Jim Cramer himself has come out and confessed to taking part in the first (right down to the "bozo reorters" he mentioned), and now the SEC, including Christopher Cox, has come out confirming the second? What was that you were saying abotu "credibility"? I cannot go into a bar in New York without people sending me a drink to thank me (even the bartenders). Everyone gets it. You cannot stop that by inane blather posted in an attempt to keep the realization from crystallizing for all. The markets are deeply rigged, the rigging is protected by a bunch of tired hacks in the public press, they are the ones who have been "exposed," and now they are trying to smoke it all up to make it hard for the averag viewer to follow. www.businessjive.com Patrick Byrne
Dear Anonymous Coward, You should be old enough to know that just repeating something a lot will not make it so. By "nailed by the media" I suppose you mean that the same few journalists whom we are accusing of being in cahoots with the hedge funds and their shills wrote stories "exposing".... precisely what Judd was disclosing on the home page of his site. Yes, quite a scoopo, that. Returning the the real world for the moment, Judd has done a laudable job of unveiling how a tightly-organized group of shills works to hijack the discourse on a narrow band of subjects. And then when anyone starts to put together how they are doing that, they show up to hijack THAT discourse. "Turtles all the way down..." Alas, it appears some folks at Slashdot have noticed the wig slipping in their corner of the world, and so we'll see how well those techniques work against them. My guess is, not very well. Your claims about the SEC are pretty off-base, but I am sure you know that. "Shifting blame" is just another page out of the shill handbook (it seems folks notice that as often as you folks make that claim, you never do anything so crass as to give an example, in quotes). Here's a question: if we start making money, will that make me RIGHT about naked short selling and the threat it poses to our country? Since I cannot find anything of substance in your message to which to reply, beyond what I have written above, I'll sign out. Patrick
Sorry dude, wrong on that one. Read the story.
This is not "a new low" at all: Slashdot has done a great service. What is happening is a set of interrelated cover-ups have persisted due to the ability of some folks to hijack the public discourse. The Slashdot community has stumbled upon trace evidence of that, and now will be badgered, bullied, and clogged in an effort to keep you folks from putting the pieces together. That's how it works when they see that the wig is beginning to slip.
It is far too long a story to tell here, so I will just plant signposts for those interested:
1) There is a massive hedge fund scandal ("naked short selling") boiling to the surface of our capital markets. Since it is terribly pernicious for entrepreneurs it should be of special interest to the tech community, but so far you nerds have not tuned into it that I can tell. Some mainstream financial publications have begun exposing it. Bloomberg Television (the most "elite" news service in the country) recently did a shocking 25 minute Special Report on it, and articles have been appearing this year in Forbes and Bloomberg magazine:
http://images.overstock.com/f/102/3117/8h/www.ov erstock.com/07-0313Bloom_PhantomShares_NSS.wmv .
http://images.overstock.com/f/102/3117/8h/www.ov erstock.com/06-09BloomMarket_NSS.pdf]Bloomberg Magazine
http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0212/068.h tml]Forbes.
2) The guilty parties in the aforementioned crime are hedge funds with essentially bottomless purses, and through means once may only surmise, they have hijacked the mainstream media's discourse. Even though some serious economists and scholars began publishing data suggesting a financial crime of epic proportions might be occuring in our capital markets, of such scale that the SEC has quietly aknowledged that it could lead to "a massive meltdown in certain default scenarious" (SEC Commissioner Atkins), no financial publication would touch the issue. That is because the hedge fund beat is covered by a small number of reporters who have grown extremely close to the half-dozen hedge funds that are actually committing the crime ("The Wall Street Journal" is to Wall Street as "Sports Illustrated" is to sports). Anyone who tried to raise it to the awareness of the public was dismissed as a whacky conspiracy theorist, or a malcontent CEO (that would be I), without any attempt to grapple with the data whatsoever. (However, since Bloomberg and Forbes came out with their pieces, the Wall Street Journal has been forced into some good but rather anodyne coverage of the subject.)
3) Social media presents and expecially thorny issue for the bad guys. There exists a huge set of data points which, when put together, create a vivid picture of the crime. They can keep their compliant half-dozen reporters from putting those pieces together, and they can keep their captured regulator (the SEC) from putting them together, but how do they prevent the swarm of participants in social meda from putting their individual piecs of the puzzle together? They have two strategies: they clog message boards, and they hijack Wikipedia (one of the central crossroads of social media).
Wikipedia is fine, of course, if one wants to know the name of every actor who guest starred on "Friends," but on a small number of subjects none of the normal rules of Wikipedia apply because a tight group of super-users suspend all the normal rules of settling disputes. As a matter of fact, on these select subjects even the record of contrary opinions is disappeared down an Orwellian memory hole. Links to articles and exposés that appear in major, mainstream publications are not allowed to appear, thus curtailing the ability of the public to accumulate knowledge.
At the the crossroads of all this hijacking of the discourse is one user: Linda Mack, a.k.a. "SlimVirgin." And first and foremost of the subjects for which the normal rules of Wikipedian discourse are hijacked is the financial scandal that I referred to a