A man who identifies himself as the general counsel for basketball great Shaquille O'Neal has sent a "cease and desist" letter to a fellow resident of this not-really-a-place we call the econoblogosphere.
The lawyer is Dennis A. Roach and the recipient of his nastygram isTim Sykes.
I'm not a big fan of Sykes' blog. He's a self-promoting penny-stocks guru who was featured in a program called Wall Street Warriors back in the day. He came to my attention only because they had some fun with him over at Dealbreaker which, as you known I follow religiously.
Anyway, this isn't about fandom. Its about an effort to censor an internet blowhard. We can't let that happen. So, let me be plain: Sykes has been saying unflattering things about a stock called NXT Nutritionals Holdings Inc., with stock symbol NXTH. Shaq has become a spokesman for NXTH, and thus has put himself in the line of fire.
Sykes has said things like this:
By the end of 2012, regulatory filings show, NXTH must give O’Neal 3 million shares of company stock in exchange for his publicity services. He was scheduled to receive the first 1 million shares back in November, filings show, and can start selling them at the beginning of February. At that point, he will be free to sell up to 20,000 NXTH shares a day (but no more than 100,000 shares a month) if he chooses to do so.
Clearly, NXTH could face some intense selling pressure – potentially crushing ordinary shareholders – if private investors like O’Neal start dumping their stock next month.
C’mon Shaq, aren’t you rich enough? Don’t you have any better financial advisors than your current ones who got you into bed with such snakes?
That is what has produced the cease-and-desist letter. Well ... now those same words are on this blog too. Let us see if I have the honor of receiving such a letter. There is safety in numbers.
Props to Gary Weiss for his blog entry on point here.
Showing posts with label Gary Weiss. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gary Weiss. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Wikipedian nonsense
On January 4 I participated in a discussion on a wikipedia Talk page concerning journalist/author Gary Weiss.
The Weiss article is something of a hot potato for many wikipedians, because Weiss is the author of a controversial book, Wall Street Versus America: The Rampant Greed and Dishonesty That Imperil Your Investments (2006).
This book is critical of hedge funds, mutual funds, and the Wall Street securities arbitration process, as well as the New York Stock Exchange. It is especialy critical of former Securities and Exchange Commission chairmen Arthur Levitt and William H. Donaldson.
But none of that is the reason it is such a bone of contention in wikipedia. The key to that is that Weiss' book is strongly critical of the campaign against naked short selling, because Weiss believes it threatens the ability of short sellers to deflate pump-and-dump schemes, thus providing cover to the scam artists behind such schemes. [I've adapted some of the wikipedia description of that book in writing these last two paragraphs -- but then, I helped edit it there in the first place, at least two years ago, as wiki editor Christofurio.]
Specifically, Weiss wrote passages such as this: "Suffice to say ... that there's no question that naked shorting bends, or even breaks, the rules that govern short-selling. That is not because naked shorting is wrong. It is because the rules are wrong....Naked shorting breaks a window that lets in some fresh air and lets out the stench."
The anti-nakedness crusade is very vocal on wikipedia, and the crusaders want to see Weiss look bad, by for example referring in the article on him to a long-ago and quickly-resolved matter as if it were some evidence of wrong-doing on his part. That is the point that led to the latest nonsense.
On January 4, as noted above, I participated in the discussion, and expressed some skepticism about the value of adding that bit about the long-ago matter. It violates the key wiki principle of "Neutral Point of View" to do so, IMHO.
The anti-nakedness crusaders would not have it so. On the morning of July 6, I awoke to find that I had been blocked from further editing. And then unblocked. This all happened rather quickly, literally as I slept through the night of Jan. 5-6. Someone with admin powers in wikipedia named Alison wrote on my personal talk page: "Hi there. Your account was inadvertently blocked as a sock of another editor today. I have removed the block now, having reviewed the situation in detail. I understand that there has been some canvasing in the areas in which you've been editing and I recommend in future that you steer clear of the topic area lest you be accused of editing on behalf of someone else - Alison ❤ 05:09."
To which I of course replied: "Codswallop. I am nobody's sock, nobody is my sock, and although I suppose your caution is kind-hearted enough, I will continue to make my contributions where I think they are needed."
So, no harm was done, and indeed some good was done, in that the editor who initiated the block on inaccurate grounds may have been somewhat embarrassed into more honest behavior in the future. (Okay, that last sentence was obviously typed by Pollyanna -- how did she sneak into the room?) Still, some lessons about wikipedia may be drawn: first, that the debate over naked short selling is one in which some of the participants are willing to silence dissent and call the result consensus; second, that as promising as Wikipedia sounds (and it can be a helpful first step in research) it must still be treated with some caution; finally, that some debates have more value as entertainment than as enlightenment.
The Weiss article is something of a hot potato for many wikipedians, because Weiss is the author of a controversial book, Wall Street Versus America: The Rampant Greed and Dishonesty That Imperil Your Investments (2006).
This book is critical of hedge funds, mutual funds, and the Wall Street securities arbitration process, as well as the New York Stock Exchange. It is especialy critical of former Securities and Exchange Commission chairmen Arthur Levitt and William H. Donaldson.
But none of that is the reason it is such a bone of contention in wikipedia. The key to that is that Weiss' book is strongly critical of the campaign against naked short selling, because Weiss believes it threatens the ability of short sellers to deflate pump-and-dump schemes, thus providing cover to the scam artists behind such schemes. [I've adapted some of the wikipedia description of that book in writing these last two paragraphs -- but then, I helped edit it there in the first place, at least two years ago, as wiki editor Christofurio.]
Specifically, Weiss wrote passages such as this: "Suffice to say ... that there's no question that naked shorting bends, or even breaks, the rules that govern short-selling. That is not because naked shorting is wrong. It is because the rules are wrong....Naked shorting breaks a window that lets in some fresh air and lets out the stench."
The anti-nakedness crusade is very vocal on wikipedia, and the crusaders want to see Weiss look bad, by for example referring in the article on him to a long-ago and quickly-resolved matter as if it were some evidence of wrong-doing on his part. That is the point that led to the latest nonsense.
On January 4, as noted above, I participated in the discussion, and expressed some skepticism about the value of adding that bit about the long-ago matter. It violates the key wiki principle of "Neutral Point of View" to do so, IMHO.
The anti-nakedness crusaders would not have it so. On the morning of July 6, I awoke to find that I had been blocked from further editing. And then unblocked. This all happened rather quickly, literally as I slept through the night of Jan. 5-6. Someone with admin powers in wikipedia named Alison wrote on my personal talk page: "Hi there. Your account was inadvertently blocked as a sock of another editor today. I have removed the block now, having reviewed the situation in detail. I understand that there has been some canvasing in the areas in which you've been editing and I recommend in future that you steer clear of the topic area lest you be accused of editing on behalf of someone else - Alison ❤ 05:09."
To which I of course replied: "Codswallop. I am nobody's sock, nobody is my sock, and although I suppose your caution is kind-hearted enough, I will continue to make my contributions where I think they are needed."
So, no harm was done, and indeed some good was done, in that the editor who initiated the block on inaccurate grounds may have been somewhat embarrassed into more honest behavior in the future. (Okay, that last sentence was obviously typed by Pollyanna -- how did she sneak into the room?) Still, some lessons about wikipedia may be drawn: first, that the debate over naked short selling is one in which some of the participants are willing to silence dissent and call the result consensus; second, that as promising as Wikipedia sounds (and it can be a helpful first step in research) it must still be treated with some caution; finally, that some debates have more value as entertainment than as enlightenment.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A few words about Mark Cuban
I can't say I've admired Mark Cuban in recent years. His public persona is that of the standard-issue billionaire big-mouth, a real-like Tony Stark without the titanium suit, and the ideas behind Cuban's "Sharesleuth" project seem to me entirely misguided.
Gary Weiss explained the problems with Sharesleuth welll in several items posted on his blog in 2007, when that project (supposedly a new model for finance journalism) was at its peak. I'll just link you to one of those items, thereby taking that task off my own shoulders.
Instead I'll say this: unimpressed though I am with Cuban, I suspect he is in the right in his latest fight. The SEC has chosen him as its newest target for its intermittent anti-insider campaign.
I've never been impressed with the idea that punishing insider trading makes sense. Some deterrent for breaches of fiduciary duty is appropriate of course, but that's rather hard to find here.
So I'm rooting for Cuban. Fight the power, MC!
Joe Nocera’s recent book, Good Guys & Bad Guys, makes a related point. It’s in a reprinting of a story Mr. Nocera wrote for GQ in December 1992, concerning Drexel Burnham and Michael Milken.
For the record, Mr. Nocera occupies a ‘moderate’ position on the spectrum of reactions to Mr. Milken [who was in prison when the story was first written]: Nocera argues that the infamous financier was guilty of some crimes, but not of the worst of those of which he was accused, and that his sentence was excessive.
But that isn't what intrigued me about the article. The passage I have in mind quoed an unnamed associate of Milken's saying: “”When a Drexel salesman heard that the corporate-finance department was buying a stock – for what reason he didn’t know – and then advised a client wanting to sell that same stock that he might be better holding on to it, was that an example of insider trading? Or was it something more innocent?”
Good question. Indeed, it’s a better question than Mr. Nocera (who soon drops the query) may understand. There is nothing extraordinary about such an instance, and since given existing law and prosecutorial practices there is no good answer to that question, then the courts and prosecutors who punish insider trading are in effect telling traders, brokers, bond salesmen, etc. that they have to drive 55 miles per hour or below – and that they can’t use a speedometer, because none are available.
That’s wrong.
Personally, when I use the phrase “free markets,” I don’t mean the word “free” as an adjective. I mean it as a verb. Let’s free markets.
Gary Weiss explained the problems with Sharesleuth welll in several items posted on his blog in 2007, when that project (supposedly a new model for finance journalism) was at its peak. I'll just link you to one of those items, thereby taking that task off my own shoulders.
Instead I'll say this: unimpressed though I am with Cuban, I suspect he is in the right in his latest fight. The SEC has chosen him as its newest target for its intermittent anti-insider campaign.
I've never been impressed with the idea that punishing insider trading makes sense. Some deterrent for breaches of fiduciary duty is appropriate of course, but that's rather hard to find here.
So I'm rooting for Cuban. Fight the power, MC!
Joe Nocera’s recent book, Good Guys & Bad Guys, makes a related point. It’s in a reprinting of a story Mr. Nocera wrote for GQ in December 1992, concerning Drexel Burnham and Michael Milken.
For the record, Mr. Nocera occupies a ‘moderate’ position on the spectrum of reactions to Mr. Milken [who was in prison when the story was first written]: Nocera argues that the infamous financier was guilty of some crimes, but not of the worst of those of which he was accused, and that his sentence was excessive.
But that isn't what intrigued me about the article. The passage I have in mind quoed an unnamed associate of Milken's saying: “”When a Drexel salesman heard that the corporate-finance department was buying a stock – for what reason he didn’t know – and then advised a client wanting to sell that same stock that he might be better holding on to it, was that an example of insider trading? Or was it something more innocent?”
Good question. Indeed, it’s a better question than Mr. Nocera (who soon drops the query) may understand. There is nothing extraordinary about such an instance, and since given existing law and prosecutorial practices there is no good answer to that question, then the courts and prosecutors who punish insider trading are in effect telling traders, brokers, bond salesmen, etc. that they have to drive 55 miles per hour or below – and that they can’t use a speedometer, because none are available.
That’s wrong.
Personally, when I use the phrase “free markets,” I don’t mean the word “free” as an adjective. I mean it as a verb. Let’s free markets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
