Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Emperor

Starting new thread where we can investigate the possibility that perhaps the ArbCom is right.

Come on, we've got accusers putting together cute little charts and graphs and submitting them as "evidence", self-appointed do-gooders poring over edit histories, investigating trips to India, stuff that would make Durova herself embarrassed to admit to.

On the other hand we have Overstock.com, a company that, as ED might say, is full of fail.

Some "evidence": http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=OSTK&t=2y

If we must play amateur sleuth, or follow the money, or do whatever it is that investigative web forum participants are supposed to be doing, shouldn't we consider the possibility that Overstock.com, a multimillion dollar company with a financial interest in discrediting Wikipedia, is behind some of this drama?

Look again at the timing of this story and Wordbomb's latest crusade vs. the stock price of OSTK. It's no wonder they feel like Wall Street doesn't like them. The company clearly has nothing to offer its investors except excuses.

Posted by: One

How can ArbCom be right when they haven't really said anything at all?

What exactly are they right about?

Posted by: jorge

It's OK, Emperor's just an idiot.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Supposing that's true, how does it in any way bear on the fact that Mantanmoreland has been abusively socking Wikipedia? And how would it abrogate our obligation to write from a neutral point of view, or to avoid using Wikipedia as an attack platform against living persons?

Posted by: gomi

Moderator's note: Moved to appropriate forum

Posted by: WordBomb

Emperor may or may not be an idiot, but he's entitled to his opinion. I'd like to engage him a bit here, but I tend to not talk about Overstock.com in settings like this -- particularly on topics relating to share price.

However, if I were going to engage in this conversation, I'd likely do so by first repeating my earlier request that he do something as simple as back up his comments with something.

Posted by: jorge

Personally I think Emperor is just here for the purpose of stirring shit up for the sake of it, but anyway. He asks whether "we can investigate the possibility that perhaps the ArbCom is right". Right about what? The only thing they are right about is that Wordbomb and Piperdown are in some way connected to Overstock, and this is something they freely admit to. The Arbcom is still stating they are not sure that Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are Gary Weiss. Are they right about that? Obviously not.

Posted by: WordBomb

And if they said that much they were wrong. I don't believe Piperdown has any connection to Overstock.com. I got the impression he was an investor in another company attacked by the naked shorts, and his interest in the subject and familiarity with Overstock.com are based only on Overstock's status as illegal NSS poster child and Patrick Byrne as the primary anti-NSS standard bearer.

But to your larger point, I tend to agree that Emperor is probably a kid who enjoys anonymously lobbing grenades to spark flame wars.

And who hasn't done that before?

(before 1996, that is)

Posted by: D.A.F.

Do you mean right about the proposed finding of fact? Because they did not take any position, they voted on a representation of the community position in that regard.

Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal

I think you have to seperate two things here. The first is that Gary Weiss is basically correct about the naked short seller conspiracy theorists being loons. The second is that he clearly breaks Wikipedia policy in using various socks (and lots of other forums) for blatant self promotion and agenda pushing. The first does not concern us, the second does. We are, after all, the Wikipedia Review. That's why we tend to be so critical, I wouldn't say anyone here that isn't connected with them in some way is pro Overstock as such.

Posted by: jorge

Would I be right in recalling that you work in the financial markets yourself?

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=OSTK&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=c


Here is a chart of Citigroup versus Overstock.

The largest bank in the U.S. has not done any better.

Try another angle.

Posted by: Kato

IT News from InformationWeek

In Post-Holiday Online Surge, Success--And Some Turkeys

A Web site overhaul helped Overstock.com avoid the transaction slowdowns that plagued some other sites.
By Mary Hayes Weier
InformationWeek
December 1, 2007 12:00 AM (From the December 3, 2007 issue)

http://www.informationweek.com/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204400391

Posted by: Piperdown

whoa whoa whoa. I am in no way connected to overstock and have never claimed so either. none what-so-ever. I have never even owned their stock. I could give a crap about overstock as a company and its stock. I do wish the best in life for good people like byrne and bagley though. And their efforts on NSS aren't about their own stock price, so you guys here playing the "bait the evil corporate smear campaigners into a sarb-ox offence" game aren't going to get very far with byrne/bagley. got it emperor? you've stunk like rotten fish since your first post here. you have an agenda and it isn't good.



The Commissioner of the SEC is an "naked short seller conspiracy theorist loon" then. Enjoy all the loons taken your loon-callers to the cleaners in the courts soon. I'm sure you'll disregard all the WP:OR facts on the matter because a bunch of imbedded "journalists" have their careers on the line in feeding people like you that big lie.

And I do reserve my somey-given right to defend myself when my editing activity has been questioned, and intentional disinformation about WP article related issues I edited from the likes of UV. The latest on JW just further confirms my resolve to stay away from it and I can't see how anyone else would want to contribute there either.

Posted by: WordBomb

yeah, at the risk of appearing to be inflexible and always "on message" here, I have to back up Piperdown and call UV on his imperialism (imperialism being the act of emulating an emperor).

There are loons in every bunch, without exception, pro-market reformers included. I believe you said what you did because Gary Weiss told you it was true.

I would urge you to consider your source.

See, it's no longer a conspiracy theory. It's very much a conspiracy fact. You might consider reading http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0446331920080304: Got anything else, UV?

Posted by: Milton Roe

It's still possible that Mantanmoreland (MM) is not Gary Weiss (GW), but rather a relative. Remember, all we know is that MM went to India with Weiss when Weiss got married there, and they both mentioned Varkala, a small town there where Weiss' wife's family is obviously from, making it obvious that if MM is not GW, MM is a close-enough family member to vacation to India with Weiss. Which means either Mrs. Weiss or a father, brother, cousin, who knows?

The other salient thing we know about MM is that he edited the article on the NYC cathedral, which he started, from the DTCC (Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation) office building in NYC. Now, given security there, it's highly unlikely that a visitor would be using a computer from inside the DTCC firewall (which only has two outside ISP numbers). Quite obviously MM either works at the DTCC or has an internship there or something close enough to get him logged in on a building computer.

Now. That STILL does not mean MM is GW. Wordbomb/Overstock has used the connection to make the argument that GW has some nefarious relationship with the DTCC, despite all their lawyer's denials of knowing of any formal one, and the GW is somehow acting as a DTCC agent in a huge plot by the DTCC to cover up scandles about naked short selling (NSS), which is something the DTCC is supposed to be regulating or at least concerned with. Why? Because the six DTCC corps are essentially the "market makers" for the entire equities, bond and money market in the US. http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php They make sure everything is settled up at the end of the trading day, a bit like the CME does for pork belly and soy futures in Chicago. But it's not at all clear to me why the DTCC should want to whitewash NSS, since they're the ones left holding the bag if it ever doesn't work (as I understand it). So if Overstock has a theory about all this, they need to lay it out better. I will admit to only modest financial savvy.

Now, where does this leave us? Well, DTCC is VERY interested in NSS, and MM obviously has some kind of day job at the DTCC, and may be (as he claims) a business student or intern tasked with writing about NSS and explaining it (even the bosses at the DTCC may need some brush up). I can't see GW being terribly interested in this arcane subject in and of itself, given his very broad range of interests in writing. Instead, I think it can make a better case that MM is a younger relative of GW who works at the DTCC and is doing a study of NSS (which is why all his edits are on the subject) and he's the guy who got GW interested in the subject, not the other way around. I would suggest that MM is the future Ms. Weiss, except that HER day job was supposed to be at the UN. And I can't see her being so interested in film and Catholic cathedrals while she's supposed to be working at the DTCC.

Or, GW really is MM and has some nefarious interest which gets him onto the DTCC computers, which he uses to make WP articles about cathedrals. Which do YOU believe? Somehow this just isn't jelling for me, sorry. Yes, MM created the GW bio, but that still may mean that MM is a close family member, say a son for placeholder, not GW himself.

Now, most of the other evidence Wordbomb presents really doesn't bear on this. He sent stuff to SlimV and it got forwarded to MM's IP. That doesn't mean it was forwarded to GW if he isn't MM.

Now, you say-- who cares? If these two people are joined at the hip and vacation together and have the same interests, what does it matter?

Answer: it matters technically. For one thing, it may well be that SH = MM (explaining their similar edit tics and vacation pattern in late Nov, 2007, a year after India). But since neither one of them is actually GW, they may even have convinced Jimbo and some Arbcom members of the existence of a family member.

And of course MM being a younger GW family member, who is a business student and has a job at the DTCC, completely blows Overstock's conspiracy theory about the DTCC. Though it still means that Wordbomb might be perfectly right about the cavalcade of COI editors (SH, MM, Tomstoner, Lastexit) romping though these articles with SlimV's help. Sometimes conspiracy theories are only partly right.

As a last thing, reading some of SH's longer posts on TALK pages, SH doesn't really have MM's writing style. MM is completely American colloquial, though perhaps not up to journalist ease with the language. SH is also, occasionally, but also sometime quite stilted and, well, East-Indian sounding. If I had to pick a sock for the putative Mrs. Weiss, it would be SH. That's not very helpful, is it?

Feel free, all to point out obvious bits of evidence I missed totally, so that my ideas have no chance of being right. I can take it. I'm not pushing one particular conclusion over another there, but still confused and somewhat unsure a bit (and don't mind admitting it).

The beginning of wisdom is admitting you're still out to sea on some aspects. Since of course we all are. Those who tell you they aren't, have an even bigger problem than ignorance.

-- Milt

Posted by: jorge

Sorry I have to say that I just assume you haven't really looked at this case in any detail if you think that MM might be Gary Weiss' nephew. There really is a vast amount of evidence that MM/Samiharris/Tom Stoner is Gary Weiss, but the Arbcom will just not listen to it or admit the blatantly obvious truth, mainly because it shows that their judgement and the judgement of other senior admins and Jimbo Wales to be severely flawed. That is of course AGF and not assuming that most of them in fact know that Weiss has been sockpuppeting for years with Wales' approval.

Posted by: guy

So they're meatpuppets. That's as bad as sockpuppetry in Wikipedia land (unless you have protection).

Posted by: Emperor

Are you serious? The banking industry had some other things going on this year, if you remember.

Try comparing to another online retailer, say Amazon.com - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AMZN&t=2y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=ostk

Hmm, 60% up for Amazon, vs. 50% down for Overstock. No wonder Overstock needs an excuse!

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

The fact is that the thread started as a hurtful testimony about a company and their respective stock price, which may or may not be reflective of what is happening at the company. I have been in the investment business for 30 years; very few charts, if any, tell the correct story about the long term valuation and / or prospects of anything. The fact is this: very few companies outside of gold or oil have done well in the time horizon that was used above. In the long run...50 years...bonds have outperformed most common stocks. The DJIA 30 since inception has returned about 5%. Most individuals have not performed better than the indices.

Maybe I should give a legal disclaimor here...? Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

That is, in fact, since the 1920's.

Your Amazon peaked 8 years ago...btw. Most kids in our business forget that the NASDAQ is still down over 50% since 2000.

Japan is still down 75% from 1985.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=OSTK&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=c

Here is the comparison again...Citigroup vs. Overstock. Both big downers this last year.

One is a "Blue Chip" having cut their dividend by 40%! The other is a speculative retailer.

How has StarBucks done? Take a look.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=OSTK&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=sbux

Posted by: Timp

This from the guy begging for anyone to come to his pet encyclopedia?

I wonder how much that one's made...

Posted by: WordBomb

Excellent points, but unlikely. Weiss lives with his wife and cat. Several years ago, before he got married, his cousin briefly lived with him, but moved because he was allergic to the cat. Weiss's parents are dead. His one sibling is (or was, until recently) in prison.

Actually, I was open to a myriad of explanations for Weiss using a computer on the DTCC network. It was their over-the-top lies about never even having met Weiss (which we know to be untrue) that convinced me there's something nefarious afoot.

The DTCC is owned by the same broker-dealers whose stock loan desks are making a ton of money (under the table) lending mega hedge funds non-existent shares. Their reps on the Chicago Exchange, meanwhile, are also selling married put options to the hedgies at premium rates (the two transactions always go together).

The DTCC's owners have a tremendous financial disincentive to stop NSS.

Occam says no way. Also, GW is quite non-technical.

You got it backward: I sent something to SlimVirgin, which was opened by Gary Weiss. I knew Gary Weiss's IP at the time...not Mantanmoreland's.

Not too helpful, no. Remember: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15518. To be more specific, I have proven that the person who opens Gary Weiss's email is Samiharris. Could that be his wife? Maybe. But I'd bet against it.

Amen. Good questions, all.

Posted by: tarantino

I wonder if the http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2008/03/05/News/Russian.Mafia.In.Bed.With.Wall.Street.Ceo.Says-3252089.shtml edits Wikipedia?

Posted by: Milton Roe

Sorry, but I have looked at this in detail. Enough detail that if you'll just mention to me the smoking gun proving GW is anybody on WP, that will do it. I have read the entire case made by Overstock and WP, and don't see it. We know LE is MM, for example, because they edited the same post (forgetting who they were). Wordbomb says GW had the same IP as SH, briefly, but that only means they used the same computer. If they are husband and wife, of course they probably use the same computer. Or they could be the same person and that still would not prove that GW is MM, or connect either SH or GW to MM. And it's SPECIFICALLY the GW=MM connection, not any of the others, that you need to prove a financial conspiracy OUTSIDE WP (ie, the DTCC thing). That connect rests on a trip to India, and so far as I'm concerned, proves only family relationship, not identity. The rest of the connections only amount to an editing/sock/meat conspiracy within WP to do COI editing on financial articles, which is quite a different thing.

Are YOU saying that Gary Weiss took time off during the day from his secret computer at the DTCC to start an article on a Catholic Cathedral for Wikipedia? Took his laptop into the DTCC building, logged onto their intranet, and then STARTED that article on the cathedral on WP?? Say what? If he's not even supposed to be in the building, let alone using their computer net, why in the HELL is he using his spare time to do something like THAT? On the other hand, if this is just a bored DTCC employee who is supposed to be there, interested in Catholicism, and who is studing short selling for work and school project, and is GW's relative, it's quite understandable. But not very conspiratorial.

-- Milt

Posted by: WordBomb

At this point, I think I'm safe in saying enough people have looked at this and agree that GW=MM=SH that the burden of proof falls on those who question the relationship. Please head over to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence, find something you think fails to advance the ball toward the goal line, mention it here and let's discuss it.

Weiss is not a DTCC employee per se. He's more of a contract consultant.

When I was in PR, I contracted with all sorts of organizations. Typically, there were weekly meetings, almost always held at the client's "place". One client had very intense security, for which I'd have to sign in with security, get a badge, be escorted to the meeting room, escorted out, etc. An additional bit of info I got last year suggests Weiss has this sort of a relationship with the DTCC. That's what he was doing there.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

Agreed.

Much about the way you describe the operations in New York work is, in fact, not even close. I am want to tell you that the operations at DTC (DTCC) are really quite legitimate and open, and above all, highly scrutinized. Whereby, it is not like mortgage banking (e.g., having an appraisal of a house based on the purchase price. duh!)

Short selling is legal and it is a necessary part of the investment / lose the investment, process.
Without it, bubbles would occur far more frequently and more people would be wiped out than we would want to think about. Naked selling "short" occurs all of the time in the commodities markets and should in fact be allowed in stocks, provided the stock can ultimately be delivered. That would, however require a distinct contract date.

Wall Street represents sell side economics (the public buys from the insider sellers.) Going short is not un-American, it is very Wall Street. Salesmen /women sell securities to the public.

Posted by: One

Are you LessHeard vanU?

EDIT: I ask because he's the one who seems to be upholding a principled line of, "we can't prove he's Weiss, but we can surmise bad behavior anyway." It's a respectable position (for privacy and epistemological concerns and whatnot), but up until now I thought he was an iconoclast.

Posted by: thekohser

Here's some perspective:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=OSTK&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=ebay

I see an Overstock equity that spent half of the past two years outperforming Ebay, and for some time, spectacularly outperforming. Meh.

Posted by: One

This is not Yahoo finance. This is Wikipedia Review.

The stock price doesn't really matter unless you're a partisan in this fight, or a wannabe like David Gerard. It simply does not make sense to dismiss years of Mantanmoreland's behavior on the basis of Bagley theoretically being really pissed about January's price drop. "Overstock is a crappy stock, ergo the ArbCom is right"? I think this is trolling.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Well, I think I just did that. The problem is a lack of really good evidence. The best we have for the MM=GW connection is the India trip, and unless we have some evidence he went there alone (or with his cat) we're sort of stuck. At best we still have Ms. Weiss to account for, and her family. GW has no children from prior marriages, you say? I thought he was a guy in his 40's? Is this is first marriage? Are you sure he has no adult children? You said he had a relative living with him. Okay, just because the guy was allergic to his cat, does not mean he didn't go to India with him, unless Weiss really did take the cat. Perhaps this guy is just who we're looking for. Know anything about him? Might he not work for the DTCC, or in the building?



Okay, thank you; now we're getting somewhere. And Weiss, you think, had this kind of high security consulting job, and when he showed up Friday Jan 19, 2007, to work at the DTCC, badge and all, having passed the retinal scan, and having been thinking about St. Joseph's church ever since the previous Christmas morning when he'd been moved enough to start an article on it (one supposes after attending Christmas mass there, hey?), he just can't keep his mind off the economic subjugation of the western world by short sale bandits at the DTCC 3 weeks later, enough to keep himself from using the DTCC computer and internet to continue the editing on the St. Joseph's Church Wiki for an hour, as you so well documented. http://antisocialmedia.net/?page_id=105 Boy, this guy is some piece of work. What do you suppose he said in Catholic confession that NEXT weekend, before continuing on with the St. Joseph's Church article, the next Monday morning? All the while not knowing that we'd be scrutinizing this here, as a series of Mantanmoreland edits. So this charade is not for us. Really, if this is GW, the man must have the most guilty of consciences. As befitting his Jewishness, one supposes. Probably thinking about all the horrors he was causing for that just and profitable company, Overstock.com. The cad. Come Yom Kippur 9 months later, this is going to cause him further pain.

Of course I'm overstating, for effect. But as you can see, I just don't buy it, and I have reason. It just doesn't make any SENSE. In fact, it fits better with the "persona" that Mantanmoreland lays out for himself on his userpage, more than it does with what we know of Weiss and his interests Judaical. If it's a cover, it's so clever that it out-clevered itself. It certainly has ME, even yet. I suppose you see through it, though.

Now, I will admit that I read your article in which you did allege that GW had had a contract relationship with the DTCC, but we never found out what it was, or how you knew. The DTCC itself asked you to provide it (yes, they shouldn't have asserted a negative, but you can't blame them for trying to figure out what the hell you were on about), and you said you couldn't, due to confidentiality. But that sort of leaves them, and me, in the cold. It's not that we doubt your word, but without any specifics, how can we check to see if this was just something that "we" missed, or if it is a genuine conspiracy. I mean, if he'd worked there at a part time job, there'd be W-2 forms. And even as a consultant there'd be 1099 forms and stuff that any lawyer could have checked, IF you'd provided what you knew. But if we don't know what he did or how he was paid (bags of cash?), how can you, or we, confront anybody for not knowing what they "should" have known?? You see the point? Never blame conspiracy for the fact that everybody doesn't know everything they could possibly know. Or for them pretending to have knowledge on a topic they couldn't possibly have full knowledge OF (such as all the people DTCC had had "contact" with). Maybe it's a genuine case of a relationship that went unnoticed. How the hell do you expect the DTCC people to comment on it further, if you won't give them your side? The fact that they made claims of no connection when they couldn't possibly have been able to rule out ANY connection, only means that they're human and arrogant. But geez, that's the normal state of lawyers. And, in truth, most people in power anywhere.

-- Milt

Posted by: Lar

I believe LessHeard is LessHorrid vanU here. I could be wrong of course.

Posted by: WordBomb

I have a source at the SEC, as well as two sources formerly with the DTCC, one of which actually used to handle clearing several stocks, including Overstock.com, and another who was in administration there, and all three tell a very different stories.

Agreed. Shorting is fine. Uncovered shorting (where a single share is lent out many, many times concurrently) is illegal, manipulative, and wrong.

Well then, Milton, if really did read that page and still feel there's no good evidence then certainly nothing I'll write here will change your mind. So...agree to disagree.

Posted by: D.A.F.

Milton, what do you think of the relation between Mantanmoreland and Samiharris? Do you think one is the sock of the other? If yes why was a sock used?

Posted by: Emperor

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, Milton.

Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal

Nope, on the internet whoever feels strongest about the issue always "wins". And I don't really care at all. I also have absolutely no opinion on OSTK's price because a) I have no expertise in this area (p.s. almost no one has any expertise in this area... have you seen the record of most stock analysts... might as well toss a coin) and if I did I couldn't really give it without compliance issues.

In any case it simply isn't relevant as this website is about Wikipedia and all that needs to be said about this controversy is that it exists and Weisz and his sock/meatpuppets are on one side, Wordbomb/Piperdown/Patrick Byrne on the other and that it impacts negatively on the project. I think we can all agree about that.

P.S. I do think there's something unusual about Weisz's obsession with Naked Short Selling but wouldn't speculate as to what

Posted by: jorge

Well, you obviously haven't looked at it in that much detail as the account that was caught by fixing a previous edit was Tom Stoner not LastExit . Would you like to tell us whether you are an editor/Arbitrator on Wikipedia? However hard you claim to have looked at this evidence I think you came to the conclusion which you had wanted to come to, not the one that the evidence suggests is true.


Do you not realise that it is known that Weiss has admitted in emails that he is Mantanmoreland/Samiharris? I think the problem is that you approached this case thinking it was "just another conspiracy theory". Why don't you actually think about it for a minute? Does Gary Weiss have motive to use sockpuppets to fix his own Wikipedia article and the ones related to Naked short selling and Overstock? Of course he does. Weiss has a record of reviewing his own books on the net and attacking those of his competitors- his editing on Wikipedia is just a step on from that.

Posted by: Emperor

Wikipedia Review as a group has gone way past the point of speculating about his motivations, and his protectors' motivations. What still remains relatively unexplored are the motivations of his accusers. I think that this is fair game given that they've put this person under a microscope for months now.

Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal

Both sides are scarily obsessed with each other and there's acres of material written by each side about the other, no need for us to get involved.

You want to attack people as fair game become a scientologist.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I don't think that is a fair characterisation. Over time, plenty of people have tested to see if WordBomb's motivation and case are sound. There are plenty of drive-by moaners who do not gain support.

Without having an opinion on who started it, it is clear that both sides are locked into a fight. My feel is that WordBomb is locked in due to the belief of being unable to walk away from a moral high ground, not being able to let a wrong doer get away with it, whereas Gary Weiss seems to be far more on a personal vendetta. It is not like Gary has let up in his childish and unprofessional abuse, so it is hard to see how WordBomb could walk away, especially if you accept that there is a factual basis to his position, which I do, even though I know not a lot about the American stock market.

But again you are, as they like to say Over There, poisoning the well without making any useful observation as to what the issues might be: produce some specific information that you feel marks WordBomb down as being acting with malice and disinformation rather in defence of a pretty offensive and at times childish real world attack from someone with a track record of deception.

Posted by: BobbyBombastic

That is correct.

Posted by: Emperor

Ok you got me. On the one hand I want to agree with UV, and lay off the personal stuff. On the other I think it's important to consider the source. The specific information you are looking for is out there, I just don't want this thread to be tarpitted if I lay it out. It's easy enough to find if you look for it.

Posted by: Milton Roe

That's a good question. Of course, the last part of it is easier to answer. Samiharris (SH) is a very sophisticated sock, one never used anyplace other than with a proxified anonymizer, and thus immune to checkuser. There's only one reason to create such an account on WP: fear of checkuser. Which you have no need of, unless you're posting from another account, too. Thus, SH is a second generation sock-- one created by somebody on WP who's been caught by checkuser before.

SH is also a VERY specific sock, created with a single purpose: to edit short-selling/Overstock/Weiss/Bagley related articles in a neutral tone, with very careful citation. SH works hard not to have any fancy language or violate any WP rules. The only other topics SH edits are a few financial/investment guru bios.

SH is also created rather late-- in Jan, 2007. A year after Mantanmoreland (MM) first shows up, and sometime after MM's proven socks LE (Lastexit) and Tomstoner (TS) have been caught by conventional means. LE when Bauder nailed him with checkuser. TS when he and MM were caught editing each other's comments, forgetting who they were. So SH learns from this, and never makes any of these mistakes. Nevertheless, in edit summaries, where there's less time to think because the edit is waiting to be saved, SH and MM have very similar styles, and were caught using the same tics. Not so much when they get to writing prose. But SH is a very spare and economical writer. Almost as though afraid to say too much.

Now, WordBomb claims to have evidence that once, SH was caught using an IP at the same time GW was. The SH evidence being his logging into a webpage AS SH, and the GW evidence being from his being teased into looking at something on the web that only GW would be interested in, right then. So if you believe this, SH is certainly operated at least by GW. This is in keeping with his relative absense in editing in Oct 2007, when Weiss also almost disappears from his blog. Neither one quite goes away, but the gap is noticable.

That doesn't mean SH is entirely GW's sock. SH appears only a few months AFTER GW goes to India with MM to marry, and the socks operated by "MM" and LE have been nailed. It's quite possible SH is operated by both GW and his wife. Also the same for MM, which also takes a later mini-vacation in Nov 2007 (a year after the marriage), when editing of SH and also the Weiss blog drop.

Okay, why do I bring in the wife? Well, because I've probably been wrong about MM's origins, and certainly about the DTCC IP origins. I knew some (not all) of MM's postings didn't fit with GW. And I rejected MM and the DTCC IP as the Indian wife because according to Wordbomb she was busy working at the UN. But apparently she was busy doing other stuff also.

Remember how we know MM and GW are very close: they both mention Varkala, a dinky town in the south of Kerala state in southwest India. Varkala, population 40,000 is the seashore area of Kerala state. Weiss and wife marry there. Obviously the wife, an Indian national, is from that area. MM's edit times shift to India when Weiss (as we know from his blog) goes there to marry in Oct 2006. So they're either the same person or family. This I've said.

But, there's the matter of MM editing the St. Joseph's Church article Dec 25, 2006 and Jan 19, 2007. The last time apparently from the IP address of 207.45.43.68, which is the DTCC building. From this, Wordbomb infers a Weiss conspiracy with the DTCC to shortsell the Western world. I didn't believe it.

Well, I already looked at that IP's history, and noted that whoever operates it has been interested in film and India (lately, India economics). The first is Mantanmoreland's passion, and the second, of course is the wife's.

Now, couldn't GW, having married an East Indian wife, simply be interested in Indian topics? Yes, but we need to find out how that DTCC IP started. What was it interested in, on WP, before anybody knew it, or it knew it would be looked AT? It's like looking at the first murder of a serial killer-- often it's somebody personally known to them. So I just did what I should have done before, and Wordbomb should have done also (neener, neener, Wordbomb). I looked at that IP's first edit from the DTCC building, which occurs on April 11, 2005, a year before MM appears. It's to the TALK section of a long-renamed article on the "Namboothiri" (now renamed the Nambudiri for the WP article). Who were these? Why, they were the Brahmin lords of Kerala. You know, that state where Weiss wife is from, and where they got married? Wups, crap. This IP was originally the account of the not-yet-to-be Ms. Weiss. Who was working in the DTCC and editing WP from it, on the topic of the history of her home state, in April 2005, a year and a half before going back to Kerala to marry Weiss. The only other alternative is to imagine that Weiss way back in 2005, with his consultant badge and all, was using DTCC computers in 2005 to edit India articles, in just the way Wordbomb has suggested he's editing Catholic Church articles in 2007. This gets to be a very tall tale.

Other edits are also interesting from this early 2005 pre MM period (remember, MM only appears in Jan 2006). There's one about Tata Consultancy, an Indian software and business firm located not to far from Kerala, with offices in Mumbai on the West coast of India. And there's an entry from EGL, a computer development language. It's possible Ms. Weiss was in the DTCC doing student study on business. But it was also possible that she was on their computer system because she was coding for them. Just because Weiss may not be a tech type, doesn't mean his wife isn't. It would explain a lot about how much better SH is than Weiss' previous socks.

Now, who is Mantanmoreland, who first comes along (knowing all the ropes of WP, BTW) in Jan 2006, 9 months after the first DTCC IP edit? Well, by 2007 it's both the Weisses. There exist late MM comments (after the marriage) where the MM account switches back and forth the between colloquial American language, and stilted British India snideness (calling somebody's edit "nonsensical," for instance), within a space of 8 hours. A single account doesn't mean there's one person running it! Just because we usually look for two accounts and one person, doesn’t mean we sometimes won't find two people and one account. but I don't know who started the MM account originally in Jan 2006, because even though we know it went to India with the Weisses later that year in October 2006, it could have gone to India because of either of them.

In the early period (2005), the IP that we think is the-now-Ms. Weiss was interested mostly in Kerala, India, which makes me think it was originally Ms. Weiss. By the end of 2006, when both the DTTC IP and MM (which now had existed for a year) were editing the Catholic Church article, MM actually asks the DTCC IP to edit on a name-user basis. Then apologizes, saying he's "figured it out". I'll bet he has, since he's already married to the IP user, and now realizes who it is, duh. But I think here they're editing from different sites on the same topic (perhaps a place they'd both visited for Christmas), using the same account, without realizing the other is on. Or else it's a really clever ruse for MM to try to cover his DTCC IP. But that IP was interested in non-Weiss topics long before MM arrived. It may even be that here, in Dec or Jan 2006, is where Weiss and future wife meet.

So that's where I am. No firm conclusions, except that I think we can put Weiss' future wife in the DTCC in April 2005, long before Weiss is supposed to have been there. And doing that, we have no need for Weiss to go there in 2007. What's the point? If he wants to know what's going on in there, he's got a spy already. One busily studying the fine points of short selling for business school, and pillow-talking about it, with hubby.

-- Milt

Posted by: Random832

I don't think anyone has claimed he was since the disastrous ANI thread back in January. I certainly don't think anyone believes so now. I think jorge may have meant to say "PatrickByrne".

Posted by: Milton Roe

LE and Tombstoner (TOMBSTONER) are both essentially MM socks (though I think that LE was actually set up originally by Weiss for his elderly uncle in New Mexico), and yes, I had them backwards. TS was caught by edit and LE by checkuser. So what?

Nope, I didn't realize this is "known". Cite your sources.

It think Weiss has plausable deniability for SH because his wife often operates that account. And they created it together after getting married. Same for the MM account before they got married, though I don't really know who that belonged to originally. Since it was probably created after they met, they may have put this one together also.

-Milt

Posted by: WordBomb

I don't know how it became accepted that they got married during the 10/2006 trip to India. They were married two or three years earlier. Mantanmoreland was created within the bonds of matrimony. Samiharris was a little bit of a surprise caboose. But those things happen.

Just for you, Milt, I'm posting something I was saving for a special occasion.

So we know from CHL's analysis of Mantanmoreland's WP editing times that while GW was in India, his volume slowed dramatically and his offline time shifted about 11 hours. So we know that about MM.

What do we know about GW during the same time?

How about his blogging output?

The following graph (rotated 90 degrees relative to CHL's) looks at GW's blog post timestamps over a 14 month period, beginning with his first post on 1/19/2006.

Note the period corresponding to MM's timeshift and drop in editing volume is highlighted yellow here, and corresponds precisely with a distinct timeshift and drop in GW blog output.
[imgx]http://antisocialmedia.net/media/weissblog-time.gif[/imgx]
Interesting, no?

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

re: Your data tracking

I wonder if it has occurred to GW that he pissed off the wrong person.

Posted by: Emperor

Yet more circumstantial evidence from an accuser.

Posted by: D.A.F.

Thanks for the reply, which makes sense. But I don't see how this makes Weiss situation any better. As even in your version he is implicated.

Posted by: Milton Roe

It should have occured to SlimVirgin that she pissed off the wrong person (Bagley), since her real name and location and former identities and spy jobs and so on are now all over the net, when none of that had to be. But it will never occur to her that she shot herself in the foot by stepping on some "little person." She'll just feel persecuted, like all those people in prison convinced they got a bad rap from the Man. You can't really PUNISH a person without their consent, which consists of acknowledgement that at some level, they did something to put them in a situation where they had it coming. You cannot punish a sociopath-- all you can do is HURT them. But they learn nothing from it.

If you go around stepping on "little people" (and to WP admins in their own artificial world, everybody who doesn't have their D&D level looks like an insect), you've eventually going to find one you should have stepped on. It's a fact of nature. Thus, it behooves you to treat everybody with respect, hard as that might be. If you're a cop, you never know when the guy you rough up might be the favorite son of the mayor or the comissioner, or somebody else who has some connection that is going to make you wish you could live that day over again.

But I suppose I'm talking to myself.

--Milt

Posted by: WordBomb

Actually she can credit pissing off Daniel Brandt for that. He and the folks here on WR had established her identity and written extensively about it a few months before I arrived.

Posted by: WordBomb

Hey UV, just thought you'd want to know http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468499197912561.html?mod=googlenews_wsj. As you read it, keep in mind this rule is proposed to deal with the problem Gary Weiss (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=176740742&oldid=176729924) insists does not exist.
SEC Proposes Teeth for Short-Selling Rules
By JUDITH A. BURNS
Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- Securities regulators voted 3-0 to propose a rule intended to crack down on lingering abuses involving so-called naked short sales and failures to deliver shares that have been used in such sales.

The proposal is part of a continuing attack by the Securities and Exchange Commission on short-sales abuses, an effort begun four years ago with the adoption of rules known as Regulation SHO.

Separately, the SEC voted to propose changes that could speed the introduction of exchange-traded funds, without review by federal regulators.

Short selling involves sales of borrowed shares, producing profits when prices decline, allowing the short seller to replace borrowed shares at a lower price.

In contrast, "naked" short sellers don't borrow shares before engaging in short selling, and they may have no intention of borrowing them.

Regulation SHO sought to curb such practices by requiring short sellers to locate shares for borrowing before engaging in short sales, but it did not include any new mechanism to enforce the requirement.

Under the proposal, the SEC would create an antifraud rule targeting those who knowingly deceive brokers about having located securities before engaging in short sales, and who fail to deliver the securities by the delivery date.

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said the proposal would bring needed teeth to Regulation SHO and address concerns about short-selling abuses, particularly in the market for small-cap stocks. "Reg SHO can't be effective without enforcement," Mr. Cox said.

Even with the regulation in place, the SEC received hundreds of complaints last year about alleged abuses involving short sales. While most trades settle within three days, as required, the SEC estimates about 1% of shares that change hands daily, or about $1 billion, are subject to delivery failures.

The SEC's move last year to close off a "grandfather" exception to Regulation SHO, has done little to reduce longstanding delivery failures, according to preliminary data analyzed by SEC staff.

The SEC has yet to announce its plans for a separate pending proposal to scale back or eliminate an exemption for options market-makers.

Brokers who engage in short selling for customers would not face any new obligations under the proposed antifraud rule, and the SEC said it wouldn't apply to market makers engaging in market-making activities.

Although the SEC already has authority to sue illegal short sellers, SEC officials said a new rule explicitly targeted to naked short sales might affect behavior. SEC Commissioners Paul Atkins and Kathleen Casey expressed support for the crackdown on abusive sales but said they want to be sure it doesn't result in unintended consequences, such as driving legitimate short sales offshore.

Posted by: Piperdown

didn't you hear? UV and Emperor believe Gary Weiss and the Hedge Funds, Broker-dealers, their moneychangersintheDTCCtemple scam, not the Chairman of the SEC, the California Supreme Court, and the mountains of FOIA WP:OR evidence that is emerging.

'cause Weiss wrote a book. Byrne hasn't. Case closed, you must wikiacquit!

yet more evidence that your cheese is rotten.

Posted by: Amarkov

Well, yes; obviously someone who doesn't think he's GW won't come up with evidence for that fact, and unless someone wishes to install surveillance equipment on his computer, all evidence will be circumstantial. It seems to me that you wouldn't be satisfied with anything short of a clear, unambiguous confession.

Posted by: Piperdown

well then he in theory would be satisfied when the emails come out. I already am, because I know over my own verify-not-trust experiments and what disclosures on WR/WP they have already made, in general, and specifically about those emails, that JB doesn't bluff or lie. PB hasn't either.

these guys would make lousy poker players. GW and JW could probably take them for the whole pot in vegas.

One of GW's (and more painfully for his friends who have done much worse than his minor transgressions) lessons learned from his PB affair:

1 - Don't fuck with Mormons with journalism/PR/webskilz backgrounds. Honest, drug-free, and able to rock your weblies world, lol

2 - Don't fuck with Zen Buddhist CEO's who aren't in it for the money. The CEO's who are, are easy targets for the Small Company Destruction Machine (a very profitable one). They hooked on the wrong boxer. They "snagged a nuclear submarine" during their otherwise-very-succesful tuna net fishing exploits.

Posted by: guy

Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk. (Thoreau)

Posted by: Piperdown

Let's summarise for those who either choose to ignore or haven't been paying attention to what Byrne and Bagley have been slowly revealing to you:

1 - They have emails. A shitload of them. Thousands include GW's own. Thousands others include matter and persons that are tangentially or directly in gw's sphere. I think GW is a small sideshow, but that sideshow is what this site and WP is about, so focus on that small part.

2 - Bagley says he has emails showing GW was on board with the DTCC to some extent. That wasn't his wife, cat, or friend trying to retro-justisfy his catholicism-diversion-profile by editing a cathoilc church from a dtcc ip on xmas day. lol.

3 - Bagely says he has emails showing GW, in real time, commenting on his edits on WP as Mantanmoreland.

4 - Byrne says he went to school with SlimVirgin, and it did not go well.

5 - Bagley has done several IP tracing experiments showing years of evidence of GW's IP's, the IP's of his socks MM and SH among others that match his.

You can choose to ignore this, or choose to call Bagley and Byrne liars and the likes of GW, SV, and JW as honest.

You can also choose to be made to look very foolish as this unwinds further. Good luck with your choosing, lol.

I choose to believe Bagley and Byrne and have very good sound reasoning for doing so. I hope others have also assessed the soundness of their reasoning, and not other more worldy and less noble reasons, in how they have assessed what they have been shown, and what they have been told will be shown.

There is very serious Journalism situation going on, and a very credible, distinguished journalist that has been REAL WORLD HARRASSED, THREATENED, STALKED, and had his real life and his loved ones threatened, and if media 2.0 rumblings are true, not going to keep on taking it lying down in media 1.0

When i read this crap on WP/WR (especially from GW and SV) about 'harassment' and 'stalking' when in fact these liars are being exposed, it makes me vomit when real journalists are actually having this happen in real life. Neither of those two are journalists, they are both discredited castoffs from organisations that employ real journalists with ethics, morals, and professional decency (for the most part).

Posted by: One

Look, I get being skeptical of all of the non-public information Piperdown recounts above. And sure, WordBomb is a corporate shill, so maybe in some universe it makes sense for him to fake IP logs. Let's doubt everything we can't personally confirm. Doubt is healthy.

But the problem is that it's all corroborated by publicly available available stuff. Yeah, maybe you can argue like Milton Roe that it's really his wife or something, whatever, but the time shift is legit. Varkala is on the record. It's circumstantial in the same way as DNA evidence; he's got some connection to Weiss. Corporate "smear campaigns" cannot explain it away unless you think WordBomb has hacked into Wikipedia and inserted edits.

So, Emperor, I think you are either an idiot, trolling for fun, Gary Weiss himself, or some combination of the three.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Well, I got it from Overstock's message board, where they said the incriminating Weiss blog was a self-described "honeymoon" post, datelined Varkala.
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3532&mn=3163&pt=msg&mid=1123661
Perhaps he took his "honeymoon" years late (this happens too), but the guy said he was in India then for a honeymoon (Oct 2006). That his blog post timing that you just gave also suggests he was on vacation around the world, only means he indeed probably wasn't lying in his blog about his location, then. Okay.

Posted by: WordBomb

Good point. I did write that. As I recall, it was in that column in Forbes that Weiss first revealed that he was married. Many of us assumed that he got married there. We've since learned otherwise. Very easy to see now why so many have made that mistake.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

The main point is that the people at Overstock know it does exist and they have been a victim of some of the activities that the board is seeking to curtail.

Unlike the short selling in commodities, where there is a distinct date for delivery, and thus, naked positions are allowed and, in fact, are a large part of the hedging business...rules regarding short selling in common stocks and some other securities are very antiquated.

The real equation here is price fixing and illegal manipulation and multiple anonymous accounts.
The Fed. will gain the upper hand; many a short seller will eat their lunch. Believe it or not, money laundering and "Homeland Security" is involved in all of this.

Overstock might win some litigation very soon. Mr. Byrne was, and is, correct in much of his thesis about all of this.

Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal

Again, I'm not sure whether Emperor is trolling or not (I don't see any evidence of it in this thread but I'm not familiar with his general behaviour)... But his point as I understand it is more about whether it is more likely that the share price of Overstock is kept down by a massive conspiracy of almost everyone on wall street, or whether it is because rightly or wrongly legitimate consensus is that Overstock really isn't worth all that much. Quotes by random figures from the DTCC are irrelevant, especially without context.
Of course I could be wrong, in which case I do wish Overstock good luck with their campaign.

And again I just don't see the relevance either way to Wikipedia Review.

P.s. Lee there are a few errors in that but I assume they're just for simplifying things.

Posted by: Emperor

Thanks UV. That's pretty much it.

Posted by: One

I'm confused then. According to you, this thread exists to investigate the possibility that "ArbCom is right." Which part of the ArbCom proposal says that Overstock's campaign against naked short sellers is an excuse for poor performance? Where do they say that naked short selling harms neither Overstock.com nor the market?

If this is really your point, then I think you're looking for http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/OSTK (or wherever the kids discuss stocks these days).

Posted by: Emperor

Patrick Byrne is now calling for people who disagree with the ArbCom decision to go and edit articles related to naked short selling. Of course the ArbCom is not going to come right out and say they think he's full of crap, and why. They're doing what they can.

Posted by: gomi

Well, it is supposed to be the encyclopedia (cough) that anyone can edit, regardless of competence or ability.

Posted by: D.A.F.

You forgot, regardless of the ulterior motives.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

I believe that the financial markets are normally, and ultimately, very efficient, accept when there is the ability for individuals or corporations to break laws. Further, when there is a "bear raid" on any company, rightly or wrongly, the end result can sometimes become a self fulfilling prophecy.
A stock taken under certain price levels may, in fact, make the stock not marginable and therefore it can no longer be recommended for purchase by many investment firms. That particular corporate stock can be de-listed for the above reasons. See what I mean? All this can happen before any wrong doing can be proven...if there is any wrong doing.

If it can be established that there is illegal activity in Overstock, someone will fall...and fall big time.

The culprits...bad guys; crooks, may be found and prosecuted, yet the damage may be done and a turn around may not be possible for some companies. I would rather see investigations come to fruition before innocent victims are made incapable of resolving their problems.

Byrne is on the right track, in my opinion, and he should be encouraged to fight any corruption out there. That includes asking more people to edit anything about the topic of short selling, etc.
Maybe we can get real live people from the industry to contribute. Maybe even people with law degrees ???

Posted by: One

Actually, that does make a lot of sense. The evidence is very strong. I doubt even you can look at it without concluding that there's a strong probability that Mantanmoreland is both Weiss and the puppetmaster of Samiharris (or do you still deny this?)

So why does ArbCom wink at apparent abuse? Quite possibly because they think that Weiss is right and Overstock.com is wrong, and because ArbCom can't overtly make content decisions. Their weak findings might really be based a content decision ("he's full of crap"), as you suggest.

That said, this whole episode has made me re-evaluate my preconceptions. A couple of months ago, if someone told me about naked short selling hurting the stock price of Overstock.com, I would have replied with something like, "um, I think that their share price is a function of their shitty performance." I mean, it's a much easier story to understand. Some sketchy corporation makes excuses for itself by inventing insane conspiracy theories involving a "Sith Lord."

But they had another conspiracy theory: that a financial author was maligning them on Wikipedia. This seemed improbable--especially because Weiss and Mantanmoreland repeatedly denied it. Why would a professional author risk his own reputation to push this agenda online? It really makes no sense, but the evidence looks quite damning right now, so it's a potent question.

One plausible answer is that Weiss is aligned with those who naked short sell stocks, whether financially or just ideologically. He's just about the only person who publicly declares that manipulative naked short selling can be a good thing.

So if someone asked me today, I would say that maybe Overstock.com is on to something. They are always on the FTD list, which is puzzling because they're not an illiquid security; their volumes are sometimes enormous relative to shares outstanding. In fact, most hated-upon companies land on that list, which suggests that somebody is shorting them for long periods of time without borrowing the security. Without more volume details, it's hard to estimate how big a problem it is, but we can at least reject MM's hardline POV that NSS is never abused. Incidentally, it makes sense that naked short sellers would target shitty companies--no reason for them to fight the fundamentals. Plus it makes a nicer story when they casually dismiss the allegations. Like you, they can handwave and say that the company is simply full of fail.

At any rate, it's clear that Wikipedia shouldn't let such an extremist WP:OWN the article on naked short selling. ArbCom's latest proposal issuing a topic ban for MM suggests that maybe they're slowly admitting to the obvious.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

As it is so often said..."you cannot judge a book by the cover."

Well put. "Bear raids" all have several things in common...the intiation phase is very often done with inuendo, accusations of wrongdoing, negative hype, statistics that many people cannot understand, and publicity from sources "deemed" or believed to be reliable...the bigger the better.

Many times the motive is money, but sometimes the "MO" is revenge, resentment, envy, and all the other deadly and nasty sins.

Many times, the raid is unsuccessful because the short sellers get caught trying to borrow stock.

I know nothing about the financials of Overstock, but I would not want to be short a stock that may have the potential for positive earnings or legal surprises coming very soon. I have seen many people get their "you know whats" handed to them very quickly by being on the wrong side of a short squeeze.

Posted by: Piperdown

Both sides of the Register/Byrne stories take a MP3 tag-team interview. I believe the first reporter is the fella who took a shot a Byrne some years ago, an article which was surpressed by some allegedly pro-Byrne editors, the other is none other than Cade meetthe Metz, who's articles on Byrne have been supressed by the other "side" on WP.

So the Register has been accused of being unreliable, and reliable, by both sides of L'Affair D'Weiss when it suited them, lol.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/scc_14_patrick_byrne/

There's several links to MP3 versions. Byrne is quite chipper.

http://go.theregister.com/podcast/2008/03/10/scc_14_low_pb.mp3

Listening to it now, and the teaser said Wikipedia is discussed, so i post this here, not as some sort of byrne pumping.

Vance says Byrne was once on Charlie Rose. Why is that not linked to on Byrne's bio? Prolly because Charlie Rose is a fantastic journalist, not a drive-by-shooter editorialist who is old friends with weiss. That's based on my personal experience of what qualifies as NPOV on WP.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

How did the stock do on Friday? Up 6.8%? When the market was down 1.2%?

Like I said, I would not want to be short any stock if ... if there could be something in the wings that would change the course of events against me... like ...yikes! You mean I have to find the stock and borrow it and pay margin interest? The Fed. is going to tighten the rules? Byrne could be right?

Posted by: Milton Roe

Your broker is supposed to have located somebody willing to sell you the stock, before they let you short it. That's so that it's there and you have to buy it, even if it later goes up and nobody wants it, since you and your broker already "borrowed it" hoping to buy it back (and return it) for less than you sold it for, leaving it exactly where it was in the first place, but you richer. And yes, the price for this if the dead fish goes up in value, not only can exceed your cash, but even your margin, in which case you get the dredded margin call, saying you're short on a stock which is up so much that your "bank" (your broker) won't even let you borrow enough to buy it, even though you have to. That's normally is something like twice your cash, as you know. There's no limit to how much you can get screwed this way, which is why few ordinary investors dare do it, especially for volitile never-made-a-profit companies like Overstock, which might leak that they are suddenly to post their first profitable quarter, any time, and then you've had it.

Now, as I'm (still) trying to understand this turkey, present law allows "market makers" (those giant brokerage houses that act as brokers-of-last-resort for the smaller brokers and brokerages) to have a temporary "out" on these rules-- they don't really need to have first located a stock in the seconds between the time you order it, and they send you notice that you "bought it" and now "own" it (but your little brokerage house does have to do this). The big guys only need to locate it in the 3 business days they have between when you order the thing, and when it needs to be formally "delivered" to the little brokerage (Which used to be when some peice of paper traded hands, but now I think is purely electronic, like money transfer). So "naked shorting" (which is where you short, or agree to buy in the future, a stock your broker is supposed to have "borrowed," even when you and your broker haven't even located it yet), is something that isn't legal for you and me, or even our little brokerages, but is legal for 3 days for the big market-makers, in the interests of market liquidity. In other words, they can tell the little broker that they "have" the stock, even if they don't (yet), and have no idea where they'll eventually find it to buy. Then the little broker can tell YOU that they have "borrowed" it, so you can short it (sell a borrowed stock now, hoping to buy it back cheeper later and return it then) if you feel lucky. If all goes well and it goes down in value, nobody ever has to actually find it to buy. But come judgement day, if it goes up, THEN you have to "buy" it (come up with the money to buy it, anyway). By which time somebody will certainly have found it for you to buy. Your dead fish. Or so the theory goes.

Again, if I understand this, the claim is that market-makers are abusing this, by shorting stock they haven't located, and never intend to locate. If the price drops, they never have to locate them, and they make money. If it rises, they just say: "Hey, I never was required to find the stuff right at the moment, and as it turned out, I couldn't find it later, either. There was a failure to deliver, so I don't HAVE to buy it at the higher price." And they get away with this as a "failure to deliver" thing. Particularly in cases where they've shorted so much stock that the market couldn't be expected to deliver it, anyway.

Now, the opponents argue that this doesn't happen very often. They cite stats that only tiny fractions of failures to deliver are on short sales, and that only tiny fractions of short sales fail to deliver. The DTCC, which owns the DTC (Depository Trust Corp) which keeps most of the stocks (electronically these days, I suppose), says it hardly ever happens. The critics say it happens enough to hurt their companies when it happens involving their company stocks. I'm still not clear on HOW it hurts the company which is the "victim" of it. If somebody shorts more Widget Corp shares (say) than there are out on the market to buy, then there may be a failure to deliver ultimately to the DTC, but the demand on the market for the stock that the DTC should be coming up with, should result in a short-squeeze which, if it doesn't punish DTC because they plead (legal) inability to find the shares in 3 days or 15 days or whatever, at least should make share prices go UP, not down. But rising share prices are not (or historically have not) been the problem for complaining companies like Overstock.

All this is admitedly off-topic, but as long as it's being discussed, perhaps somebody will enlighten me on what I missed.

Milt

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

This is all fairly confusing for me too. One thing you missed is what Byrne refers to as "strategic failure to deliver." As far as I can tell from several of his presentations, there's an aspect to the scenario in which small-cap companies can be targeted, and the process of an organized failure-to-deliver almost guarantees that the company's stock will go down. The end result is a company that eventually reaches penny-stock status through no fault of its own — it bites the dust only because certain "insider" speculators target them so that they can get rich off of strategically shorting its stock.

This works only on small-cap companies. Presumably that's because too many people are watching the bigger companies.

I might be wrong, but that's my impression of what Byrne has said.

Posted by: Count DeMonet

Further to Mr Brandt's comments above, N.S.S. is frequently associated with some very disreputable tactics known as 'short & distort' to drive the victim stock price down. See http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/030102.asp for further info.

Posted by: One

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5665/is_200503/ai_n23701769. Charlie Rose is indeed an admirer of Byrne. Some excerpts:

Incidentally, by "market makers" http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/07/sec-options-cboe-biz-wall_cx_lm_0607options.html. That is, the traders who are designated market makers in the options markets (like where Jimbo used to work). As I understand it, MMs are required to give ask and bid prices for any option in their series, thus "making" the market. Options traders need to hedge risk by going long or short on the underlying stock to bring delta (the risk of price movements) close to zero. It might make sense to allow such people to naked short if they were suddenly required to hedge a bunch options. That said, it's difficult to imagine situations where they would have to do this for weeks at a time, so I'm not sure why regulation SHO cuts such a big hole for them.


At the risk of making this thread even more like a stock board, Overstock has posted some (mildly) profitable quarters even though their Wikipedia article has often suggested otherwise.

Posted by: WordBomb

Holy cow, One...you're a quick study. I suspect you are ready to take the next step...

http://antisocialmedia.net/media/nss-primer.pdf, most of which you seem to understand already, but might be worth looking at anyway, as it will provide context for http://antisocialmedia.net/media/reverseconverts-primer.pdf, which explains the actual mechanics of the trade and how the options market maker exemption is abused in the process.

They're both quite pithy and short (2-3 pages each) by the way.

And again, I recommend that everyone seeking to understand the basics of NSS take a look at the first 10-15 minutes of http://www.businessjive.com, created and narrated by Patrick Byrne.