Investing 101 - Aug 5, 2004 - Printable Version
- He Said, She Said: SEC, NASD At Odds Over Status of Proposal
by Mark Faulk In March of 2004, the NASD filed a proposed rule change with the SEC designed to curb the illegal practice of naked short selling in the stock market. The new regulations would replace existing rules (Rule 3210 and Rule 11830) with a new rule "requiring that clearing firms make delivery, or take affirmative steps to make delivery, within 10 business days after settlement date for all short sell transactions" http://www.nasdr.com/pdf-text/rf04_44.pdf . The proposal has languished there for the past five months while the SEC passed their own version of a "reform package", Regulation SHO (which had been in the works since 1999, and was finally released for public comment in October of 2003), and then promptly gutted it just before passing it last month, citing, as the SEC's Annette Nazareth so eloquently put it, "overwhelming comments from the industry." www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Investing101/1006.html
Instead of the sweeping reforms that investors had hoped for, Regulation SHO is a watered-down version that does absolutely nothing to curtail the rampant fraud that has plagued the stock market for decades. The SEC, which promises in it's mission statement to "to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the securities market", instead caved in to pressure from the industry: the brokers, clearing houses, and market makers who have pocketed massive profits from the lack of oversight on short selling, at the expense of the same investors that the SEC is pledged to protect.
Protect investors? Maintain the integrity of the securities market? Regulation SHO does absolutely nothing to accomplish either goal. So what else is new?
To investors who have been victimized by fraudulent short selling for years, the NASD rules awaiting approval from the SEC seemed in many ways to be their "last hope". It actually promised to adopt the "zero tolerance" approach that NASD Executive Vice President Barry Goldsmith vowed to take against stock market fraud when he spoke at a congressional hearing in September of 2000. The guidelines were clear and addressed the very issues that have plagued the market for years (unlike the SEC's Regulation "no-SHO").
NASD "Reconsidering" It's Rule
Indeed, it looked as if there was still hope for investors - until three days ago, when the SEC cast a cloud of doubt over the fate of the NASD proposal when Peter Chepucavage said, in response to a question from Dave Patch at www.investigatethesec.com regarding the status of the NASD rule application, "It is my understanding that the NASD is reconsidering its rule and you need to speak to them."
It was a stunning statement, especially since the NASD website still has the rule listed on their site as "awaiting SEC approval". Patch also told me that "sources at the NASD were amazed that I would receive something like this since it is not public information".
As they always seem to do when trying to get a straight answer out of either the SEC or the NASD, things get a bit murky from there. Let's let the exchange of emails speak for themselves, and I'll try to separate the wheat from the chaff as we go along (unfortunately, there's very little usable wheat in this crop):
Monday, August 02, 2004 10:30 AM
To: Peter Chepucavage, SEC
From: Mark Faulk, The Faulking Truth
Subject: NASD short selling rules
Peter,
I am currently working on an article concerning the proposed NASD short selling rules. I just received a copy of an email from you stating that the "NASD is reconsidering" the rule package. Can you confirm this for me? I have a call in to the NASD as well, but I would like to have confirmation from you that this is indeed your email. Also, has the request that the NASD filed for review with the SEC on March 9 been officially withdrawn? If not, why do you state that it is being "reconsidered", and do you have any idea why? This issue is very important, and judging from our increased readership (over 65,000 direct hits a month, and hundreds of thousands more through reprints and distribution by financialwire.net and other news services), I am not alone in that opinion.
Mark Faulk
His reply was short and to the point:
Monday, August 02, 2004 11:14 AM
To: Mark Faulk, The Faulking Truth
From: Peter Chepucavage, SEC
I must defer to the NASD.
Monday, August 02, 2004 12:34 PM
To: Peter Chepucavage, SEC
From: Mark Faulk, The Faulking Truth
Peter,
I just spoke with Maurine Hawkins at the NASD, and she told me that the official status is that they are waiting on approval from the SEC. I'm writing this article, so I need your take on this. Why did you make your earlier statement, and what information was that based on?
Thank you, Mark Faulk
Again, Peter is a man of few words (although by the time this was over, he probably wished he was a man of no words):
Monday, August 02, 2004 12:52 PM
To: Mark Faulk, The Faulking Truth
From: Peter Chepucavage, SEC
That is incorrect and you should tell her to call me.
Monday, August 02, 2004 2:29 PM
To: Peter Chepucavage, SEC
From: Mark Faulk, The Faulking Truth
Peter,
Thanks, I just spoke with her again, and she got off the phone for a minute, and then came back and told me that she had the same information that I did, which is that it is "officially pending approval from the SEC". She then said she would look into it further and call me back. I relayed your email message to me, so she might be calling you shortly. I am writing this tonight, but I'd like to find out what the real story is before I do. Otherwise, I have to go with the information I have in hand. Here is her phone number in case you want to call her and get your stories straight:
Maurine Hawkins
Office Of General Counsel,NASD
(301) 590-6500
Thanks again, Mark Faulk
Then, a different approach, instead of answering me directly, Peter sent me a copy of an email he received from Terri Reicher at the NASD. Apparently, they followed my advice and "got their stories straight", even though the question they answered wasn't the question I had been asking:
Tuesday, August 03, 2004 1:35 PM
To: Mark Faulk, The Faulking Truth
From: Peter Chepucavage, SEC
As for the short sale rule filing, you asked whether NASD had withdrawn the
rule filing from the SEC, I told you that we had not. Your most recent
voicemail indicates that the SEC now confirms what I told you. If NASD
withdraws or amends the rule filing, that action will be publicly available.
Terri L. Reicher
Associate General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
NASD
1735 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
So apparently, the SEC now agreed with the NASD that the rule filing had not been "officially" withdrawn, which we all knew from the very beginning, and wasn't even the the question I had asked, which was: Is the NASD "reconsidering it's rule", if so, why, and if not, why did Peter Chepucavage say that they were?
Finally, I received a phone call from Nancy Condon at the NASD, who apparently inherited the task from Maurine Hawkins. According to Condon, "Rule 3370 is not withdrawn, but in light of the passage of the SEC's Regulation SHO, we are going to have to reconsider it. There is some duplication between SHO and the NASD proposal". Interesting point, but once again, it only raises more questions: If the NASD was worried about duplicating the regulations contained in SHO, why did they file the application at all, instead of waiting for the SHO regulations to go into effect? SHO was officially opened for public comment in October of 2003, a full five months before the NASD filed their rule package. When asked that question, Condon said, "I'm not going to comment on that. SHO has been passed, and we're taking a look at the NASD rule".
So is it being reconsidered or isn't it? Condon says that no official action has been taken, and in response to Peter Chepucavage's statement that it was currently being "reconsidered", and that the NASD's statement that they are "waiting on approval from the SEC" is "incorrect", Condon said simply, "I have no idea where the guy at the SEC got his information".
But, we're not quite done yet. Just to change things up a bit, I called Peter Chepucavage's direct line, but sadly, he wasn't available to take my questions. However, I did leave him a message relaying what the NASD had told me. He never returned my call, but, low and behold, I came home to find one last email from Mr. Chepucavage:
Tuesday, August 03, 2004 2:30 PM
To: Mark Faulk, The Faulking Truth
From: Peter Chepucavage, SEC
Mark, the filing is not waiting sec action. The NASD has told us they are
taking additional action before we put it out for comment.
He Said, She Said
Okay, let's summarize:
He said: The NASD is reconsidering its rule
Then he said: Talk to the NASD
She said: The NASD is waiting on approval from the SEC
He said: She's wrong, have her call me.
She said: Officially, the NASD hasn't withdrawn the rule filing (Duh!)
Then she said: I have no idea where the guy at the SEC got his information.
And finally, he said: The filing is not waiting sec action. The NASD has told us they are
taking additional action before we put it out for comment.
The Investor's Advocate
According to Dave Patch, "The Securities Act of 1934 (Section 17A) specifically addresses the needs for prompt and accurate settlement of all trades. The SEC and NASD have both admitted that trade settlements are not taking place, or being enforced, and those failures are resulting in abuse and manipulation in our marketplace. The SEC went so far as to say that 4% of all publicly traded companies have some level of abuse on their stock (600+ companies). Where is the Zero Tolerance?"
So, where does that leave investors? Once again, this issue, and "efforts" by the SEC and the NASD to deal with it, has raised more questions than it has answered. Is the NASD rule package awaiting approval, as the NASD contends, or has it been "unofficially" put on hold, as the SEC claims? In the end, will they cave in to the same industry pressure that the SEC succumbed to when they gutted Regulation SHO, or will they stick to their guns and do the right thing for the American investor? And why has the SEC dragged their feet for years on this issue, and even hindered efforts by the NASD to stop the corruption that has cost investors literally hundreds of millions of dollars?
In the end, these are the questions that every investor, in fact every American, needs to ask, and that the SEC (and the NASD) needs to answer. Only then can they ever hope to live up to the SEC's self-proclaimed title: "The Investor's Advocate". And that is the Faulking Truth.
Take a look at the NASD Rule filing:
http://www.nasdr.com/pdf-text/rf04_44.pdf
Questions or comments for the SEC or NASD? Here's who to contact:
Peter Chepucavage, Attorney Fellow, Division of Market Regulations, SEC
phone: (202) 942-0163 email: chepucavagep@sec.gov
Nancy Condon, Public Relations, NASD
phone: (202) 728-8379
Terri Reicher, Associate General Counsel, NASD
phone: (202) 728-8967
And here's some fun reading from the SEC website (in case you've forgotten what they are supposed to be doing):
The Investor's Advocate: How the SEC Protects Investors and Maintains Market Integrity
http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml
Add your name to our "Stockgate activist list" at info@faulkingtruth.com. We will email you only when we have new articles or information dealing with this issue. Please link the articles everywhere you can, post them on stock message boards, and send them to the appropriate public entities. To enact positive change requires positive action.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post), or post in our guestbook.
Investing 101 Archives:
Financial Terrorism in America (Mark Faulk, Mar 19, 2004)
Pump and Dump or Short and Distort? (Mark Faulk, Apr 18, 2004)
Response From Berliner Freiverkehr and The Berlin-Bremen Stock Exchange (The Faulking Truth, Jun 3, 2004)
The Berlin Connection? SEC and NASD to Meet With German Brokerage Firm Tomorrow (Mark Faulk, Jun 3, 2004)
Is Dateline Losing Credibility Over StockGate Story Delays? (Mark Faulk, Jun 11, 2004)
Who's Looking Out For You? SEC Critics Seeking Investigation (Mark Faulk, Jun 27, 2004)
He Said, She Said: SEC, NASD At Odds Over Status of Proposal (Mark Faulk, Aug 5, 2004)
The Berlin Connection: 250 Companies Out (And Counting) (Mark Faulk, Aug 30, 2004)
Jag Media Case Dismissed by Judge, Citing Filing Deficiencies (Dave Patch, Sep 9, 2004)
A Twelve Step Program to Clean up the OTC Stock Market (Mark Faulk, Sep 14, 2004)
Is Time Running Short in StockGate Scandal? (Mark Faulk, Oct 5, 2004)
Dateline: The Waiting is the Hardest Part (Mark Faulk, Nov 16, 2004)
Death of an Investment Class (Dave Patch, Dec 30, 2004)
Elgindy Trial Illustrates Incompetence at the Federal Levels (Dave Patch, Jan 4, 2005)
The Year of the Investor (Mark Faulk, Jan 5, 2005)
Regulation SHO’s Threshold Lists Leave More Questions than Answers (Dave Patch, Jan 11, 2005)
Feeding the Stock Market Beast (Mark Faulk, Jan 11, 2005)
Economic Corruption US Style (Joel S. Hirschhorn, Feb 27, 2005)
Stockgate Goes to Congress (Mark Faulk, Mar 10, 2005)
The Old Shell Game (Bob O'Brien, Mar 25, 2005)
FINALLY! Dateline to Air Stockgate Segment April 10th (Mark Faulk, Mar 28, 2005)
Dateline Stockgate Update: POSTPONED YET AGAIN! (Mark Faulk, Apr 6, 2005)
Time to Boycott GE, Dateline, and NBC? (Mark Faulk, Apr 6, 2005)
Pink Sheets CEO Calls for Reform in OTC Stock Market (Mark Faulk, May 2, 2005)
National Counterfeit Conspiracy Days, June 6th and 7th! (Mark Faulk, May 15, 2005)
Ninety-Four Trade Days and Counting (Dave Patch, May 25, 2005)
Stockgate: Turning up the Heat (Mark Faulk, May 31, 2005)
Stockgate: Donaldson out......Cox in (Mark Faulk, Jun 2, 2005)
SEC's Donaldson out, Cox in: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (Mark Faulk, Jun 13, 2005)
President Bush’s Social Security Agenda - Steal your Money the Easy Way (Dave Patch, Jun 17, 2005)
Global Links Corp: The Real Story (Mark Faulk, Jun 26, 2005)
Forget SEC "Regulations".... This is Good Old-Fashioned Fraud (Mark Faulk, Jul 13, 2005)
Common Cause Joins Fight to "Stop Corporate Takeover of the SEC" (Mark Faulk, Jul 22, 2005)
Dateline Stockgate: We're on, we're off, we're on, we're off.....WE'RE ON AGAIN: July 31st!!! (Mark Faulk, Jul 25, 2005)
Dateline to Air Stockgate Segment in 2-Hour Show, Sunday, July 31st (Mark Faulk, Jul 29, 2005)
From Dateline to Overstock....The Plot Thickens (Mark Faulk, Aug 16, 2005)
Congress Sells America Short (Mark Faulk, Sep 20, 2005)
Stockgate: The Big Picture (Mark Faulk, Oct 10, 2005)
Stockgate: Rallying the Troops (Mark Faulk, Oct 16, 2005)
The $10.5 Billion REFCO Smoking Gun? (Bob O'Brien, Oct 23, 2005)
We Definitely Aren't in Kansas Anymore - Fraud Wall Street Style (Bob O'Brien, Nov 3, 2005)
Start Spreading the News: Stockgate Goes Nationwide (Mark Faulk, Nov 8, 2005)
Stockgate: "Can We Talk?" (Mark Faulk, Nov 27, 2005)
It's Money That Matters (Mark Faulk, Dec 11, 2005)
Regulation SHO; Results Leave Questions More than Answers (Dave Patch, Dec 29, 2005)
Faulking Truth Editor to Write CMKX Story (The Faulking Truth, Jan 5, 2006)
It Takes an Army (Mark Faulk, Jan 11, 2006)
The Circle of Greed: The Only Bull in this Stock Market is a Cash Cow (Mark Faulk, Jan 17, 2006)
A Silent Lynch Mob - An Open Letter From Rod Young (Rodney Young, Feb 2, 2006)
The Circle of Greed: A Voice in the Wilderness (Mark Faulk, Feb 13, 2006)
The Circle of Greed: Who Wants to be a Congressman? (Mark Faulk, Feb 26, 2006)
Freedom of the Press? (Mark Faulk, Mar 12, 2006)
The Parallel Universe of the DTCC: “Bits and bytes in book-entry form.” (Mark Faulk, Mar 24, 2006)
Finally...the Truth About Patrick Byrne (An open letter to Colin Kelly, Jr.) (Mark Faulk, Apr 19, 2006)
Faulking Truth recommends abolishing the SEC (Mark Faulk, Apr 27, 2006)
The Circle of Greed: The Cloak of Invisibility (Mark Faulk, May 25, 2006)
|
|
|