Naked Short Selling: Will SEC Chairman Chris Cox Be Ethical and "Do the Right Thing"? In His Own Words
There's a publication I receive called Speaker Magazine and it's the official magazine of the National Speakers Association of which I have been a professional member since 1988.
The cover story of their September 2007 issue features an interview with the chairman of the SEC, Christopher Cox. The headline reads: "Doing the right thing." It goes on to say: "the chairman of the SEC explains his philosophy about ethics and setting the right tone from the top."
He was asked if he had a credo or philosophy of ethics: he said "it's the simplest one of all: The do unto others principle." He said "there are always opportunities for dishonest individuals to cheat and seemingly get ahead. But in any community, large or small, if everyone were to behave the same way, no one would get ahead. In fact that behavior would quickly be regarded as destructive."
He was asked if there were common ethics violations that occur on a regular basis. He said "Yes, the cases have in common the desire of someone, sometimes several people, to advance their personal interests at the expense of others." He said, "For example, it's very common to find people covering up bad behavior to protect the reputation of a company."
He was asked if he could change the world with one recommendation regarding ethics, what would that recommendation be? He said: "Focus on helping others and maintain your integrity in all that you do."
Chairman Cox clearly understands the ethical problems before him. He has it, within his power to do the right thing, right now.
He recently said that "naked shorting" of financial stocks would not be tolerated. This statement was made following the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Chairman Cox was clearly worried that naked short selling of these companies might quickly drive their already depressed share prices even lower. It might even destroy these companies altogether. I applaud Chairman Cox for highlighting the dangers of naked short selling front and center in the public mind. However, he made one egregious error. He said naked shorting of financial stocks would not be tolerated (implying that naked shorting of other market sectors would be tolerated). Does this sound ethical to you?
The implication is that naked shorting is harmful to financial stocks, but not to others. There are nearly 2 dozen financial firms who are now officially protected from naked short selling. The irony is these firms are responsible for facilitating massive amounts of short selling against all other sectors in the market. They are being exempted from the very practice they say is harmful. Does this sound ethical to you?
Naked short selling is the equivalent of financial terrorism. It manipulates markets and destroys the public confidence. It can gut otherwise healthy companies, and in some cases, destroy them completely. It should not be tolerated under any circumstances.
History will judge Chairman Cox's legacy by how he responds to this crisis. Will he endorse uniform standards by prohibiting naked short selling on all securities? Or will he endorse the current double standard that hurts the individual investor by bleeding their hard earned money from pension plans and 401k accounts.
I can only hope that Chairman Cox is going to use his very public pronouncement on the evils of naked short selling in financial stocks as a springboard to prohibit naked short selling on all stocks and securities that are subject to this practice. This would be ethical. This would be doing the right thing. This would be setting the right tone from top and this would make Chairman Cox a man of his word.









