User talk:Bobobrien

Discussion at Talk:Naked short selling

As a result of the edit war at Naked short selling, the page has been temporarily protected to encourage discussion on the talk page. Please help us come to a consensus about the best version of this article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Naked short selling

Thanks for your comment, and I was glad to see that you edited the page to reflect this information - I cleaned up the wording a little bit as it seemed awkward to say "Berlin Exchange" three times in one short paragraph. Feel free to make other tweaks or more major improvements (preferably with citations, of course). (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have including the statement at all is that it seems apropo of nothing - as originally worded it was clearly designed to create a false impression, but correctly worded to reflect the limited context of Berlin, it resonates with a resounding....."and?"

I tried to make another edit following the passage wherein the SEC claims naked short sales do not result in counterfeit shares, something to the effect of: "Critics argue that buyers see "shares" represented on their statements/screens, but the naked short sale has no voting rights or other rights that imbue a genuine share with value, thus the "facsimile" represented as a share is actually not a share at all - rather an IOU - with none of the attendant rights. Representing a facsimile as the genuine article is their (and the law's) definition of counterfeit." That is verbose and clunky, and I had a better rev on the talk page under another person's comments, but I am unclear how to use the talk feature with competence just yet. Bobobrien 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)bobobrien

I would suggest moving this discussion to the Talk: Naked Shorting, so that others can see and weigh in. The "counterfeiting" matter, incidentally, is controversial and needs to be balanced by SEC and other POV reaction.--Mantanmoreland 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)