Talk:Christopher Cox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

He resigned from what? why? olivier 08:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

He's a St. Thomas Academy grad, but I'm not sure if it's worth putting in. --155.201.35.50 22:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When did he start ?[edit]

"has served as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission since 3 August 2005". According to the SEC press release he "took the oath of office to become the 28th Chairman" but "will officially begin his duties tomorrow". For that reason, I've adjusted the date to be consistent with the SEC and made it 4 August. Jamesday 03:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His biography on the SEC website uses the swearing-in date. I don't think this is the place to make fine distinctions between ceremonial functions and when an official actually gets to work. Nobody would say George W. Bush became President on January 21. --Michael Snow (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like resume[edit]

This sounds a lot like an official biography --AW 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEC Controversies?[edit]

Considering the very unusual actions taken to benefit hedge funds, such as reducing restrictions on naked short selling, eliminating the uptick rule, and other oversight failures during the financial crisis, how are none of these brought up on this page? I'm willing to work on this if others are willing to help. Bagsc (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cox's press release, http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-210.htm, may be of some help in that (although it is, of course, one-sided). TJRC (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the This American Life episode that discusses a bunch of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izbit (talk • contribs) 01:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass edit on 9/26[edit]

I'm reverting most of an edit made on September 26. There are a number of problems with it.

  • It removes named references, in favor of the use of "Id.", contrary to the WP:Footnotes guideline (which I acknowledge is a guideline, not yet a policy). [postscript: I see what Aseca21 was after with this edit, now; the "Id."s were already present in the article, and somewhat botched. I was in error attributing the addition of the Id.'s to his edit. I've now corrected them, using a single named reference. 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)]
  • It deletes the "Criticism by John McCain" section, which I strongly believe should be maintained. When a sitting cabinet member is lambasted by the presidential nominee of his own party, that's clearly notable. I'm not saying the section might not need work, but it should remain.
  • It deletes the reference to the audible version of the article, with no explanation

Some other changes:

  • The Obama commentary in the criticism section should remain deleted. That's Obama taking a shot at McCain, not at Cox, and not really defending Cox; it pretty much leaves Cox out of it (apart from arguably lumping him into "this administration").
  • I'll include in my restore the breaking of the external links into congressional and other links; but I don't feel strongly about it.
  • The edit deleted the link to an episode of the radio show This American Life. If the episode is immaterial, I have no problem with its deletion, but given its deletion as part of this mass edit, much of which is inappropriate, I'm including it in the restoration. TJRC (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on 9/26[edit]

TJRC was right on the footnotes. The TJRC observation about the Obama commentary in the criticism section illustrates the difficulty of maintaining a neutral point of view in presenting this information. TJRC characterizes it as Obama taking a shot at McCain, but it could also be viewed as necessary context for understanding the relevance of the criticism to Cox. The more basic issue is contextual. Campaign events and political issues should not be posted in real time to biographical articles because of the serious likelihood of distorting the character of the article itself. I have addressed other points below. What is really needed are articles to discuss SEC issues and to discuss the current campaign, that can be linked to this piece. Aseca21 (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Editing during campaign to track political events[edit]

The importation of McCain material into this biography during the weeks before the election threatens to change it from a biographical article. Beyond the question of adhering to the fundamental norm that Wikipedia is not intended for advocacy, it is more basically a question of where such material goes. Wikipedia articles on this and other aspects of the campaign belong in appropriately titled articles, that can be linked to the biographical entry. There are 20 years of political issues that arose during Cox's career that involved him directly, but which are not referenced in this article. A section devoted to John McCain criticism within this article is, straight out of the box, an undue weight issue, since the article does not purport to cover any other political issues during a 17 year congressional career and two years in the White House. Aseca21 (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material which simply advocates a point of view[edit]

The link to This American Life is an advocacy piece on a single issue among many before the Commission. If policy debates about SEC rules are to be covered in a Wikipedia article, it should be in an appropriately titled article linked to the SEC main article page (and to appropriate persons, including Commissioners, if relevant).Aseca21 (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date audible file[edit]

The audio link was to an outdated version of this article. Aseca21 (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, there's seem to be some confusion as to why criticisms from John McCain had been removed. Perhaps a re-write? Ronewirl (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a full quote from McCain, if there is no objection.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Crisis of 2008[edit]

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did not give the SEC the authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies. These large investment banking holding companies were given the option in 2004 "to voluntarily submit to regulation" under the Consolidated Supervised Entities program or CSE.

The CSE program was proven to be ineffective and did not offer SEC oversight authority; and therefore, leaving investors vulnerable to regulatory gaps such as this one and that of those found in a $60 trillion market of Credit Default Swaps or CDS.

Currently, the CDS market remains unregulated. "Neither the SEC nor any regulator has regulator has authority even to require minimum disclosure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronewirl (talk • contribs) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Synthetic CDO market was essentially the packaging of credit default swaps into securities. Synthetic CDO tranches were marketed as securities, sold as securities, bought as securities, put on banks' balance sheets as securities, invested in as securities, traded as securities, had prospectuses like securities, and so forth and so on. maybe i am not that good at english, but im pretty sure the 'securities and exchange commission' has the authority to regulate 'securities'. now, i am just a caveman wikipedia editor. but there are many financial journalists who discuss the SEC's activities in 2006-2008 who are pointing out similar things to what i just pointed out. please see my neutrality dispute from 2011, below. Decora (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In Cox's three years in office, the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed cases against 23 companies or their executives for improperly backdating stock options -- by changing the date of issuance to a day when a company's shares had hit a low. The total the SEC has collected from companies and individuals since Cox took office is almost $100 million" per Bloomberg article posted 9/22/2008. - Ronewirl (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted reference to[edit]

Why was there no mention of the Glass-Steagall Act? Or why is there no explanation as to why the Glass-Steagall Act was removed? Ronewirl (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much that has to do with Cox. Please explain.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the Glass-Steagall Act itself has nothing to do with the subject matter. Perhaps we should ask the others to consider merging non-biographical content with Economic crisis of 2008 and redo the section "See Also". Ronewirl (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to locate anything written (so far) with regards to the United States antitrust laws and the 2008 economic crisis. Again, I welcome the idea of merging some of the contents in Cox's article with an already existing article on the 2008 economic turmoil. Just an idea for us editors to think over. Ronewirl (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Short Selling[edit]

If anyone can improve on this topic and explain the anti-fraud provision about naked short selling, by all means, please do. Ronewirl (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The separate article on naked shorting also needs improvement. You have to go pretty down into the article to learn that there is a considerable body of opinion which holds that this is a fringe issue. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Guidelines[edit]

JohnnyB256 is correct about the separate article on naked short selling. A survey of web articles on this subject makes clear there is a great deal of non-authoritative content. Following the guidelines for encyclopedic content in a biographical article requires keeping it free from such material. The same goes for the McCain campaign material inserted into the article. These topics should be covered on their own terms and, if appropriate, linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quant2 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that article was bad until I saw "Stock market crash." That is a disaster. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree that McCain campaign info belongs in campaign article with link to this bio, and that economic crisis info should not be scantily treated in this article but linked to the full discussion and increasingly excellent treated in the Wikipedia article devoted to that topic.Aseca21 (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That belongs there and people shouldn't take it out. Also the recent AG report on how he did a poor job on Bear Stearns needs to be in there. There was also the New York Times article on he and his predecessor, and how regulation of the banks fell apart on their watch. I'd say all this needs a mention, as it is right on the news.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Affiliation[edit]

The American Catholic category was removed from this article,unless Mr. Cox says he is Catholic. Is there information available suggesting he has made that proclamation? Ronewirl (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ironically"[edit]

This is in lieu of an edit summary, which I accidentally cut off. I removed the word "Ironically" at the beginning of a paragraph as it is an editorial judgment by an editor and not substantiated by the sourcing.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section[edit]

I don't see the relevancy of those two articles to Cox. Can someone please explain? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either. The position as SEC Chairman is not a federal judgeship. If neither links are relevant, then I vote to remove them. Why do some people try to confuse us? It's no wonder some of us think the capital of the U.S.A is located in Reno, Nevada. Is the article on George W. Bush still locking people out from editing? This may explain how the two links ended up in this article. Ronewirl (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one argued in favor over the past month I think it is safe to remove, and I did. JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEC[edit]

The commission is a law enforcement agency. Ronewirl (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

es:christopher cox[edit]

Su contribución es incorrecto. El chairman no es un actor o escritor. Ronewirl (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (google translation: "Their contribution is wrong. The chairman is not an actor or writer.") Fixed. TJRC (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated violation of Wikipedia guidelines by 71.217.3.20[edit]

Repeated reversions by 71.217.3.20 to his own prior versions have the effect of wiping out incremental improvements to this article made by other contributors. Moreover, the unique material that 71.217.3.20 has repeatedly added tends to be argumentative and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseca21 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably appropriate to call for semiprotection here, to prevent IP-vandalism. What's the procedure to request that? TJRC (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to make my second reversion because of 71.217.3.20. What is truly on his mind? Just as Aseca21 pointed out, each time 71.217.3.20 makes an edit, he deletes contributions made by other editors. There is no show of courtesy or respect for others when 71.217.3.20 stomps right in and struts his stuff (or huff and puffs). I had an ex-boy friend (a much younger version of a corporate lawyer) name Chris once, but I was never this nasty towards him. Please do something to stop 71.217.3.20 before I say anything more! Ronewirl (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, Merry Christmas everyone. Dont drink too much eggnog and drive! Ronewirl (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, another anon editor is doing the same thing. JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Unregistered Users[edit]

Perhaps the newcomers are unware of Wikipedia's 3RR (reverts limited to 3). I have already contacted an administrator of this problem; unfortunately, the new method of reporting problems have changed and its instructions difficult to follow.

I think the underlying issue is this. The anonymous contributor(s) insist on adding this statement made by another anonymous person:

"Such rumors noted that, "no oneís suggesting that the shorts were the sole reason for the fall of any of the recent casualties. Obviously the shorts couldnít kill a solid company with plenty of capital, but if a company needs to raise capital to survive, the shorts can eliminate issuing stock as an option, which could be the death of many a company."[1] Because banking is a business built entirely on trust, "when shareholders and customers see these stocks plummeting virtually without a bottom, they pull their money, further exacerbating the problem. [...] Lack of proper regulation allows short-sellers to hammer down a stock, causing fear among regular investors and customers. These regular investors then continue the selling, further damaging the stock and making the short-sellers a lot of money."[2]"

Is the above statement appropriate for this article? Should we just continue reverting and reinstating edits made by other contributors over and over again ... until the headlines veer away from today's news and latch on to something or someone else? Who amongst us hobby editors want to take on that task? Believe me, it will be a challenge at times and can sometimes test your patience. Ronewirl (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unregistered users are also removing large segments of the article without explanation. The page can be "semiprotected" to prevent that.JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, as I was informed, this is the link to report a violation to the 3-Revert Rule (3RR): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Ronewirl (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just lodged a complaint at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection, which seems to be the appropriate place. Let's see what happens. JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above quote, which I will point out that it does have references to note its authenticity, the sentence before it writes, "In September 2008, short selling of 799 financial stocks was temporarily curtailed[3] in response to rumors accompanied by heightened short selling activity in the shares of major financial institutions." Thus, the following sentence makes sense then; however, if the issue is due to the quote coming from an 'anonymous person,' the name of the person who is quoted there is Cliff Mason, to which that can be added to the article. This clarifies who the quote is being said by, and makes it no longer anonymous. One reason why I will suggest the quote belongs is to help justify to readers what exactly the rumors were suggesting and how they caused some to believe short sellers are helping spur the downfall of banks. It's a very unbias and clearly defined quote. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Think Short Selling Rules Don't Matter? http://www.cnbc.com/id/26793487/
  2. ^ How Short-Sellers Almost Destroyed U.S. Banking http://www.cnbc.com/id/28239960
  3. ^ http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-235.htm

WaPo Interview[edit]

Cox gave an interview to the Washington Post today that has a lot of good stuff. [1]--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was on my way out the door when I saw the link to the WaPo interview. It seems the article did not get into details as to why Cox felt the biggest mistake was to ban short selling of several financial institutions for three weeks. Is there any information to explain why he felt that way? I have a hunch, after reading a transcript of a speech he made not long ago about the government's actions taken amidst the financial crisis. But it would be so cool if WaPo journalists had printed Cox's explanation for his misgivings about the ban. Ronewirl (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, skimpy for a 90 minute interview. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Rants Injected into Bio[edit]

In reviewing this article it is clear that one particular individual is consistently inserting rants, first about short selling, and now about Madoff. At the same time he/she is removing many incremental edits made by other contributors. The Wiki guidelines on biographies make clear that this material is inappropriate. Several contributors have been helpful over the last several weeks in protecting the article from the short selling rants. The Madoff investigation, only recently announced, has its own article and its discussion can't dominate a biography that covers several decades. There is a scope issue here. Please help keep an eye on this problem.MLSere (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it no one seems to be making an effort at discussing and working towards a solution? Back in the good 'ole days on Wikipedia, we use to discuss things with others before jumping in and wiping away someone else's contribution. Why are the Wiki administrators not looking to see if we are all actually witnessing the acts of another actively engaged sockpuppet? Ronewirl (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Commission action: Eliminating the Uptick rule[edit]

The uptick rule, the subject of Commission actions over four years, should not have it own separate section with one line in this biography. This is simply an invitation to start a policy debate in what is supposed to be a biography. There are many actions over three years prior to the Economic Crisis of 2008 that would have to be similarly covered, such as backdating of stock options (see earlier comments in this Talk), if this approach were taken. The uptick rule is covered in a separate Wikipedia entry.Aseca21 (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uptick rule is debatable only if you make it so, which you have apparently (since you brought it up - u see, I know a bit of psychology too). The fact is, under his chairmanship, the SEC eliminated the uptick rule. You can not change that fact. The effects are already in play. By denying that fact is like the ostrich who hides his head in the sand. Ronewirl (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently someone compared riches of short sellers to the vast amount of wealth made by rail road barons. Has anyone found the link to that article?

With regards to the so-called study, did the study consider the effects and impacts on solid corporations during a worldwide economic recession? They probably did consider that very likely possiblity. Let's say hypothetically, a proposal is submitted whereby we remove all the circuit breakers in each of the commissioner's homes and let's just study the idea and see what happens. Ronewirl (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Others to Check for POV or lack of NPOV[edit]

"Despite the complete and total miss of Madoff’s allegedly fraudulent behavior and the lack of timely corrective measures set in place by the SEC, other media observers continue to turn their shoulder by criticizing McCain for failing to realize that the SEC is an independent agency and its Chairman cannot be fired by the President[99]"

I extracted the above from the article. McCain's comment about firing Cox was made before the Madoff case became public knowledge. We hobby editors have no way of proving that John McCain was privy of the Madoff case before it became public information. To whomever: did you jump at this opportunity to include the discovery of Madoff's ponzi scheme and glued it together with John McCain's comment made during the presidential campaign. Remember the campaign ocurred first. Discovery Public knowledge of Madoff's ponzi scheme, second. Ronewirl (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to keep jumpin in, but....highly recommend reading the article on the Madoff case again. As of this writing, the article in Wikipedia suggests the case has not yet been proven. "Alleged behavior" "Madoff confesses" Madoff's sons turning him in....etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronewirl (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Quality Standards for a Wikipedia Article[edit]

Is it really necessary to quote Jim Cramer in this article. Doesn't Cramer have his own show or something? Perhaps most of the criticism and personal views should be moved Wikipedia's article on Jim Cramer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronewirl (talk • contribs) 13:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make an interesting point, however, it seems unrealistic and/or unfair to suggest that information from one source is invalid because of who the source is. It's very clear that other sources, such as those from anonymous blogs, are OK to use - so why is information expressed by Jim Cramer not OK? Jim Cramer uses very clear and unbias facts to back up each and every claim he has made. None of it is thrown into the air using random rants without factual evidence to back it up. It's simply unrealistic to suggest one source is more relevant than the other simply because it goes against the personal views of some people. Personal views shouldn't be what enables those to express facts on wikipedia, it's all supposed to be unbias information that's relevant to the article or section within the article. Jim Cramer isn't bias against the SEC, what he's doing is pointing out the flaws in the SEC's response to the economic crisis. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of a quote mentioned in the section for SEC's response to the economic crisis, which comes from an anonymous blog that lacks the quality standards for a Wikipedia Article: "The Obama campaign pointedly refused to join in the criticism, and McCain himself later acknowledged that he had been "criticized" by some for calling for Cox's removal.[1] As the campaign reaction to McCain's "erratic" behavior[2] in the economic crisis continued[3] the McCain campaign began to compliment the SEC for finally responding to the crisis.[4]"

One of the referenced articles is from a USA TODAY Blog, which has no apparent journalistic source or reference in the article; except of course, the blog claims it is "Views from our editorial board, columnists and readers[5]" which to me is less clear, more bias, and not very informative compared to the information on the SEC's response to the economic crisis that is presented through words from Jim Cramer. Does anyone else see the problem with referenced information in Wikipedia coming from anonymous bloggers versus a well-known economist, Jim Cramer? Tycoon24 (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cramer speaks openly with credentials and for the masses, yet with special knowledge and staying power at his job. It's tough to critique a sitting SEC chair while in the securities world. What Cramer says should be included in this article, which, by the way, comes across as rather PR-ish in favor of Cox (i.e. there needs to be more criticism of Cox to be a balanced article).Bull Market 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-presidential-debate.html
  2. ^ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14283.html
  3. ^ http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/09/from-mccain-an.html,
  4. ^ http://www.easybourse.com/bourse-actualite/marches/2nd-updatesec-fasb-offer-guidance-on-fair-value-accounting-531851
  5. ^ http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/09/from-mccain-an.html,

Resolution of POV Dispute[edit]

There are three disputed passages that, it would appear, a single individual has repeatedly pasted on top of (and in place of) thoroughly edited material. Each of these passages is simultaneously violative of the policies on neutral point of view; verifiability; and no original research. They richly deserved the POV and cleanup labels that were recently applied. The bulk of the problem with them was discussed by three contributors in December under the heading "Repeated violation of Wikipedia guidelines by 71.217.3.20." The same individual's edits (the inference that it is the same individual is strong because he/she consistently replaces the same language without concern for subsequent edits of others) have appeared variously under different names.

The first of these passages is: "Such rumors noted that, "no one’s suggesting that the shorts were the sole reason for the fall of any of the recent casualties. Obviously the shorts couldn’t kill a solid company with plenty of capital, but if a company needs to raise capital to survive, the shorts can eliminate issuing stock as an option, which could be the death of many a company." Because banking is a business built entirely on trust, "when shareholders and customers see these stocks plummeting virtually without a bottom, they pull their money, further exacerbating the problem. [...] Lack of proper regulation allows short-sellers to hammer down a stock, causing fear among regular investors and customers. These regular investors then continue the selling, further damaging the stock and making the short-sellers a lot of money."

This is pure argument. It is also transparently the argument of the writer (i.e., original "research" in the form of opinion that is unverifiable). It is also clear that only this one writer has insisted on his (or her) own language and opinion appearing in this purportedly biographical article. Since the other commenters on this article are reasonably intelligent and articulate, this dispute can be fairly resolved by continuing to ensure that the article does not reflects one individual's own idiosyncratic views.

The second passage is: "Cox is the guy who got rid of the naked short selling and uptick rules," which prevented a trader from shorting without first borrowing the stock or waiting for it to tick up in price before shorting, respectively. Once the rules were gone, bear raiders were able to drive down all the financials, with virtual impunity. To reiterate the lack of regulation allowed in the market, Jim Cramer ...." Apart from the graffiti-like writing style, the uptick rule is more carefully described in the prior section of the article where it is chronologically relevant. The writer's opinion (and Cramer's, as another Wikipedian has pointed out) does not belong in a biography since it so clearly violates the POV norm.

The third passage (which prompted the recent POV and cleanup labels) includes this: "And just recently it has been uncovered that Bernard Madoff defrauded investors for $50 billion ... in a one-time review of Madoff’s business Cramer reveals "All the SEC had to do was check the performance of the options Madoff said he was trading to figure this out." The inappropriate injection of Cramer has been commented on, fairly, by others. The writer's segue to the rest of the article is pure non-sequitur ("Despite the complete and total miss of Madoff’s allegedly fraudulent behavior ... other media observers continue to turn their shoulder by criticizing McCain"). The prior discussion on this part of the passage points out its obvious flaws.

Overall, there appears to be no disagreement among commenters on the quality (that is, lack of it) of the repeatedly re-inserted passages of the individual who has gone by 71.217.3.20, 128.95.47.169, 63.80.117.226, Tycoon24, and possibly other names. Expert12 (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like those passages myself cited above, as they were clearly improperly worded. However, I think that the tone of the article has swung too much in the opposite direction. Some passages read like an SEC press release. The passage on the uptick rule does not contain sufficient balancing criticism of repeal, and the statement that enforcement was a "priority" under Cox has been refuted on quite a few occasions by lengthy investigative articles in the media, especially one by Scott Paltrow: http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2008/09/18/Profile-of-SEC-Chief-Christopher-Cox. I think this needs to be corrected. JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice picture of Christopher Cox ... he was skinnier back then since the last time I saw him in person at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission headquarters in Washington, DC. After reading the Portfolio.com article posted by User:JohnnyB256, ... I hate to say it dude, but overall, this whole backlash has the appearance of "somebodies" attempt at getting rid of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the agency created to protect people like us after the second credit crunch crisis of the 1930's (I think the first one took place in the 1800's - according to Wikipedia). Ronewirl (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the paragraphs you describe are full of opinion and uncited and should have been removed. that doesn't make the article neutral. please see below for my 2011 flagging of neutrality. Decora (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post quote[edit]

I'd also appreciate it if someone would please stop removing the passage in the Washington Post [2]that the three-week ban on shorting financials was the biggest mistake of his tenure. There is absolutely no reason to remove this very significant passage, so please stop doing it. JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What were the unintended consequences? Ronewirl (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surfing the web and .... I think the unintended consequences had something to do with Hedgefunds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronewirl (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chairmanship is a Five Year Term[edit]

It would seem User:ASECA21 is running amuck with my edit too. The SEC Chair is normally a five year term. Chris Cox began his term in mid 2005. If he had not chosen to step down, Cox would have had to serve his term out til mid 2010. User:ASECA21 seem to believe the term expired in 2009. Five plus Five equals Ten; not Nine. Good grief! you have to do everything for these people. That's what happens when grammar school started allowing students to use calculators. Not like the good 'ole days when you had to figure the math with your brain. Ronewirl (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be a dispute on the length of and date of termination of the term, how about one of you adding a reference for when the term would have ended? TJRC (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to TJRC for restoring the civility normally expected among editors. I actually appreciate most of Ronewirl's contributions, but on this one there actually is a correct answer. Mary Schapiro was just appointed to the remaining stub portion of Cox's term, which expires in June 2009. (Cox himself had been appointed to a stub term of 4 years.) The Senate had actually accidentally first confirmed her to the five year term that would commence when his expired; but that would have meant she couldn't start til June. I added a reference to the wire story noting this. Schapiro will then get a new five-year term starting in June 2009. Hope this helps. :) Aseca21 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SEC Chairman page is now a link farm[edit]

This page MUST be cleaned up, ASAP.

What is a "link farm"?
Has the status of his health changed? We noticed the editorial change being made and then the revert. Ronewirl (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to have an excessive use of loaded terms like "exactly", "sweeping" new reforms, "vigorously defended", enforcement stepped up "considerably" - these are weasel words subject to interpretation. Is it true that the new compensation rules force companies to spell out EXACTLY how executives are compensated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.32.16 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I don't work for the SEC. You're asking the wrong person. Stock Options are generally used as a means of handcuffing a key employee or executive to the company he/she works for. And stock options are weird anyways - depends on the agreement between employer and key employee. And since I don't have the answer to your question/statement. I don't think you will find the answer here in Wikipedia because this web site only regurgitates information. Ronewirl (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A link farm is the process of exchanging reciprocal links with Web sites in order to increase search engine optimization. The idea behind link farming is to increase the number of sites that link to yours because search engines such as Google rank sites according to, among other things, the quality and quantity of sites that link to yours. In theory, the more sites that link to yours, the higher your ranking in the search engine results will be because the more links indicate a higher level of popularity among users of the Internet. However, search engines such as Google consider link farming as a form of spam and have been implementing procedures to banish sites that participate in link farming, so the term link farming has garnered negative connotations across the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.9.202 (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt of Speech Chris Cox Made in December 2008 Regarding Response to Financial Crisis[edit]

"The total amount of federal resources committed so far this year [2008] to support the financial markets, housing, and financial institutions conservatively exceeds $6.4 trillion. This amount is certain to grow, as already-announced programs are brought online and existing programs are expanded. This $6.4 trillion figure, I should hasten to point out, does not include the $5.7 trillion in Fannie and Freddie debt and mortgage-backed securities that is currently outstanding, and that Congress has not backed with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Nor does it include the $165 billion stimulus package enacted earlier this year."

"To recap the various sources of this $6.4 trillion in federal support so far:"

"The Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program accounts for $700 billion, and its Money Market Mutual Fund Guarantee program accounts for $50 billion. For the Treasury, this totals three-quarters of a trillion dollars. The Fed's GSE Debt and MBS Purchase Program accounts for $600 billion, and its swap lines for another one-half trillion. Its Money Market Investor Funding Facility has been estimated at $540 billion. Beyond that, its Term Auction Facility represents $400 billion; its Commercial Paper Funding Facility, $280 billion; the Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility another $200 billion; and the Term Securities Lending Facility, $190 billion. The Fed's share of the Citi bailout is $291 billion. Its commitment to the AIG bailout, including the credit facility, Maiden Lane II, and Maiden Lane III, is currently $113 billion. The Fed's Primary Credit Facility is $100 billion. And the Fed's Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Fund Liquidity Facility is $60 billion, on top of its Primary Dealer Credit Facility at $52 billion. All total, this comes to just under $2.5 trillion for the Fed — not counting the $29 billion to fund the JP Morgan Chase acquisition of Bear Stearns. The FDIC has committed $1.4 trillion to its Senior Unsecured Bank Loan Guarantees. And its Non-Interest Bearing Deposit Guarantees account for another $500 billion. Its guarantee to GE Capital represents $139 billion. And its share of the Citigroup bailout is $10 billion. That is a total of $2.049 trillion for the FDIC. Finally, the FHA's Hope for Homeowners Guarantee Program represents a commitment of $300 billion..."

"I have been focused on oversight and advisory responsibilities for both the Troubled Asset Relief Program administered by the Department of the Treasury, and the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, gave the Chairman of the SEC a formal role on the oversight boards for both the TARP and the GSEs. It is in this capacity that I have had the opportunity to consider how our national government came to intervene to such an extent in the private sector, and how we can ensure that this intervention comes to an end and is unwound as early as possible."

Response to comment by J. Ponder[edit]

This was a good comment. The 2008 report from the SEC at http://www.sec.gov/2008annual/index.htm covers most of this material in extended detail. The subheadings help a great deal in shortening and simplifying the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseca21 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Late 2000 Recession[edit]

As for the United States,... according to economists, the country's recession officially began in December 2007. Ronewirl (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time magazine[edit]

I think the Time magazine putting Cox on its list of 25 people most to blame for the financial crisis obviously deserves mention and I put it in. Let's discuss if there are other views on that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, let's discuss the view already formulated by the industry?
I am acquainted with someone (aka: Snowball) who had to take the industry exam called the Series 65. The exam tested his knowledge of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Securities Act of 1933, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to this guy, once upon a time, the following were exempt from SEC registration (AND STILL ARE EXEMPT Today):
1. Lawyers - people who practice law 100%; not render investment advice for a fee.
2. Accountants - people who practice accounting 100%; not render investment advice for a fee.
3. Teachers - people who teach in schools 100% (including business schools); not render investment advice for a fee
4. Engineers - people who work as engineers 100%; not render investment advice for a fee.
5. Private placements - unregistered securities usually attracting high network investors. e.g. hedge funds
6. Banks....banks... banks... banks....You can figure out the rest....OTAY??????
I'm certain Chris Cox shared the blame for some of this fiasco....no doubt...(e.g., for not cracking the whip and pushing for regulatory changes while he held the post as Chairman). Cheers. Ronewirl (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Reports[edit]

Maybe you should add a section showing his different important reports. Here is an example... House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox, R-Calif., said the study conducted by his panel found that under the Clinton administration, North Korea became the "largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region," according to the committee's report as quoted by CNSNews.com. see: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/cliBntMon.htm 96.48.174.88 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality disputed.[edit]

Part One[edit]

Cox was running the SEC when the biggest securities ponzi scheme in the history of mankind, namely the Synthetic CDO market, bubbled up and destroyed the real economy. Cox came on board for real in mid 2006. That leaves two years before the Lehman Weekend. Here are some books

  • Janet Tavakoli, Structured Finance and Collateralized Debt Obligations, 2008
  • And then the roof caved in, David Faber
  • All the Devils are Here, Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera
  • The Big Short, Michael Lewis
  • The Greatest Trade Ever, Gregory Zuckerman
  • The End of Wall Street, Roger Lowenstein
  • The Sellout, Charles Gasparino
  • Confidence Game, Christine S Richard
  • Crash of the Titans, Greg Farrell
  • EConned, Yves Smith
  • Devil's Casino, Vicky Ward
  • Street Fighters, Kate Kelly
  • House of Cards, William Cohan
  • Colossal Failure of Common Sense, Lawrence McDonald & Patrick Robinson
  • Too Big to Fail, Andrew Ross Sorkin
  • On the Brink, Henry Paulson
  • Ruthless, Phil Trupp
  • How I caused the credit crunch, Tetsuya Ishikawa
  • Lost Trust, Lang Gibson

I know youre saying, but these are all liberal journalists with muck to rake. 'Ponzi scheme' must be a word used by lunatics on MSNBC. No, they arent, and no, it isn't. Tetsuya Ishikawa worked at Goldman Sachs. Lang Gibson worked at Merrill Lynch. Yves Smith was a business consultant. Lawrence McDonald was a Lehman bond trader. Michael Lewis used to work at Salomon Brothers. Janet Tavakoli is a structured finance expert and has her own company. Henry Paulson was the Secretary of Treasury and ex-Goldman CEO. A good deal of Confidence Game centers on the story of Bill Ackman, a hedge fund billionaire. 'Ponzi Scheme' is a phrase used by Tavakoli and by Gibson and others to describe the CDO market. All of these books criticize regulators as being ineffective. This article doesn't mention any of that. If you read this article, you would think that the SEC did a fine job in 2006-2008, and that Cox was a fighter against entrenched financial interests. That is not the picture you get from reading any of these books.

Decora (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part Two[edit]

This article does not mention Wen Ho Lee, nor does it mention the Cox Report, and the numerous errors in the report that have been found by numerous respectable critics. Decora (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral POV[edit]

After careful review of the Neutral Point of View policy, this article as it has evolved through several years of editing by the community appears in conformity. While it does not push minor or fringe views, it appears dispassionate both in tone and substance. Keeping in mind that even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral, the article has settled in after several years to the desired absence of a particular point of view. As it pertains to the SEC, in this respect it is consistent with the articles on Chairmen Donaldson and Levitt, Cox's predecessors, whose policies were salient in (and some argue contributed to) the financial crisis. Several of the books cited treat Cox respectfully, as does, for example, the March 14, 2011 Levin-Coburn Report on the financial crisis from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In any case, all of the actual steps the SEC took in the financial crisis are covered in the article. The Cox Report on China is the subject of its own Wikipedia article. Expert12 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christopher Cox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Christopher Cox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christopher Cox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Cox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Cox&oldid=1206230080"