Talk:Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation/Archive 1

Critical evaluation
External ref Critical evaluation of DTCC includes an article:

The Unknown $19 Trillion Depository Trust Company by Anthony Wayne

It states: Black Monday was a deliberately manipulated disaster for many Americans at the whim of a controlled test by the DTC.

Lets be serious!

Rick 20:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WSJ Link is "free" [public WSJ online
Put the linkable URL back in the ref, sam. Anyone can click on that link and  bring up the article. I just did, and I don't subscribe to WSJ online. Also note the "public" directory in the URL link. Not all WSJ articles are sub only, this one specifically is "free content" as noted on that page. Piperdown 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. :) --Samiharris 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits look like the work of DTCC's pr department
My most recent edits, like those I see of others in the past, are RVs of edits by 2 editors who are deleting anything that DTCC's PR dept would probably want to RV. That's not right. Pls, for example, don't RV:

1. mention that DTCC is being sued. You keep on changing it to say they are "involved" in a lawsuit. Come on. Unless DTCC pays your salary, that is a ridiculous change. They are being sued. In a $400 million lawsuit. There have been big articles about it. By the WSJ and others. And you want to make it a minor they are "involved" in a lawsuit? Your motives smell very fishy.

2. references to good cites, similarly, have been deleted.

3. you try to hide the fact that this is a litigation matter, by taking out the section heading.

ETc. Pls stop RVing good edits. This looks like all POV. And at this point is vandalism.--69.203.81.71 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've requested assistance of others through Wikipedia channels to address this dispute. Pls dont edit war/RV in the meantime. Thanks.--69.203.81.71 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from the dead link that you continue to add from the Google cache of an obviously non-RS website, you have persistently added links to obscure websites "ming.tv," "antsandsons" and "pricegroup" that are very clearly not permitted by WP:RS and WP:EL. Your personal attacks doesn't make your case any more convincing, but merely show that you have some kind of rather obvious axe to grind against this company. I've asked for administrator intervention.--Samiharris (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with, who just added a tab to the effect that this reads too much like a DTCC advertisement (that is, when the tag was added ... which didnt have the full litigation section). The litigation section looks well sourced and balanced, though I would agree that ming.tv isn't a best class of source.  But isn't that old hat, that hasn't been included in the recent revisions?  And actually, despite the deletions of it in this article, the Wall Street Journal is a good source (if you are Republican ... :)  I think that since this has been posted on the talk page with no resolution, the best approach is for you guys to do what you are doing now -- move the dispute away from reverts and re-reverts, and deal with it through administrators/mediators. At the end of the day, lets just get the best article that, if there are two points of view, presents both of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The ming.tv source was added by you, with an edit summary that shows an agenda on your part. . The other sources (antsandsons etc.) are also not permitted by RS. I agree the lead paragraph is a bit puffy, but the solution is to fix it. Adding a press release from a company suing DTCC is also dubious in my view. However, given the sudden influx of POV edits in this article and the agenda shown by edit summaries  of the "you must be DTCC PR" variety, I agree that administrative action is warranted.--Samiharris (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, I would agree that ming.tv isn't a best class of source. Good point.  But as I also said, isn't that old hat, that hasn't been included in the recent revisions?  Also, while you deleted it, a press release from a company suing DTCC, which is about its lawsuit against DTCC, sounds like a wonderful source (hard to imagine a better one, actually), for a section describing the nature of the dispute.  As long as the press release is there as a source for an entry describing the dispute.  Which it is.  "Dubious?"  I have trouble understanding why you would delete it, assuming there is no POV involved.  (And no, it's not a personal attack on you for any of us to point that out).  Anyway, we are moving in the right direction.  I think that given that this deleting of references to the lawsuit, and the WSJ article, and the press release, etc., have gone on for months now, and that the talk page discussion and edit entries discussion haven't resolved it, and that the best approach is for you guys to do what you are doing now -- move the dispute away from reverts and re-reverts, and deal with it through administrators/mediators.  At the end of the day, lets just get the best article that, if there are two points of view, presents both of them.  Since the page is listed on WP:3O, that would seem to be the best next step, or at least one of them, before upping this to AN/I.  Let's all work towards consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, what this article needs are verifiable, reliable sources, and a self-serving press release from a penny stock company involved in litigation, making accusations against the company it is suing, is neither verifiable, reliable, or "wonderful."--Samiharris (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you guys a heads-up that this page is listed on WP:3O. Jumping directly to AN/I might be a bit extreme for something like this... &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 18:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A third opinion is always welcome, but administrative action is clearly warranted by the edit warring, personal attacks and agenda pushing here.--Samiharris (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this article from the posting on the Admin Noticeboard. I'm glad to see that there is an effort here to work toward consensus. The article does need some cleanup. &mdash; User: (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Picked this up from third-opinion. Couple general comments first before I look at the edit history
 * 1. Many of the statements are far too broad. "vast majority" and "more than any other" type statements need direct, reliable sources.
 * 2. Litigation section is far too large for and is undue weight. Also, statements like "While there is no dispute that illegal naked shorting happens, there is a fight as to the extent to which DTCC is responsible" need sources or their Original Research.
 * 3. The Subsidiaries section appears well sources and laid out, no problem here.

Now the history part:


 * Edits by IP 69.203.81.71 seem to place undue weight on the litigation section here
 * I'd suggest that all users might want to make greater use of the Preview function as the history of the page is a bit hard to read. But, then again, thats a stylistic issue, not a content issue.

I noticed a edit summary suggesting an arb get involved in this. I'd say at this point, there are several more steps before the ArbCom would ever consider this case. It would probably need to go to AdminNoticboard/COINoticeboard, RFC, Mediation Comm/Cabal before the ArbCom would ever look at it. Even then, it seems like a content disoute, which is almost always resolved by getting more parties involved at this talk page level. Hope this opinion helps. Mbisanz (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It does, thanks much. The article has been protected as per my request in WP:RPP concerning the rash of anonymous POV edits. There are still multiple WP:RS and WP:V issues in the lengthy "litigation," section, which is a complete mess and is, as you point out, far too long per WP:WEIGHT. The "litigation" section as it now reads is a WP:COATRACK for the anti-naked shorting point of view, which is already covered at length in Naked short selling.


 * The first paragraph in that section has three links but no actual sourcing. The first link is to a website called "pricegroup.com" that makes no mention of the "$400 million lawsuit" that is the supposed subject of this paragraph. The second link is to a legal brief that makes no mention of the suit. The third link is to a dead link.


 * The second paragraph in the section has three references, and only one is usable. The first two violate WP:COPY by linking to copies of other sources posted on a website of "RGM Communications," which is a stock promotion firm in Vancouver, Canada. The first footnote is to an RGM copy of a Bloomberg article that makes only a passing reference to the litigation that is the subject of this paragraph.  The second reference is to an RGM copy of an article in "financialwire.net," which is a stock promotion outfit and not acceptable as a source under WP:RS.  The third reference is to a Wall Street Journal article that was already linked and referenced in the previous version of this article, before yesterday's assault by the anon.


 * The third paragraph in the section is blatantly POV, as noted by Mbisanz, and links to, apart from the Journal article, a press release of a lawsuit by a company suing DTCC. Obviously a press release from one side in litigation does not meet the standards of WP:RS and WP:V.


 * The external link section violates WP:NPOV and WP:EL, as two of the three links consist of a press release from a company suing DTCC and a critical essay on a non-RS website called "Ants & Sons," which is some kind of stock promotion firm. Both links contain unverifiable research forbidden by WP:EL. The Pet Quarters press release is a list of accusations against the company. Both links are unacceptable from that standpoint as well as because of their obvious POV. --Samiharris (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that "the story" about DTCC and DTC is the naked short selling litigation. That's what the Wall Street Journal thinks. Google Wall Street Journal and DTCC and naked, and you get this ... http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS&q=dtcc+%22wall+street+journal%22+naked nearly 10,000 entries about the WSJ's coverage of the DTCC naked short selling litigation. That is Precisely what the WSJ has found to be noteworthy about DTC. Given that, I don't think the length of the entry is overly large.

The same with Euromoney, the respected European magazine, which broke the issue in Europe. See http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/leadership/issues/nss/Letter_to_Euromoney.pdf for DTCC's response to it, which is similar to DTCC's later response to the WSJ.

The litigation section can easily be bolstered with other sources, including the WSJ article and the Euromoney article, and many of the thousands of urls mentioned above.

Also, the DTCC article can be filled out more for balance. Just look at an of the urls at the top of a google search for DTC. I'll be happy to do that.

As to the "Undue weight," entry that Sami points to, it actually supports giving appropriate focus to the reliable and prominent sources of the WSJ and Euromoney. That entry says, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. ...From Jimbo Wales...: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts..."

What is completely POV and one-sided is for Sami to: 1) delete the reference to the fact that DTC is being sued for its involvement, and instead say that DTC is "invovled" in the issue, 2) delete almost the entire entry; and 3) delete the WSJ references.

All the other points are simply editing points. Sami's edits are not editing points, but rather edit warring revisions that have the effect of seeking to hide what the respected media in the financial world think is the most noteworthy thing about DTCC in the past few years.--69.203.81.71 (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are so many reliable sources out there on the DTCC, then why not cite them? That has not been done so far. We are getting, instead, links that don't substantiate the statements in the article. As best as I can tell from the article history, no one has ever linked to the Euromoney article and all the references and links I see to it, including yours above, is to a letter pointing out all the errors in it. Judging from its apparent date (March 2005), it would predate the litigation and would not substantiate that section.


 * The WP:WEIGHT concerns voiced by the third opinion and myself relate to the litigation section. If now you are saying that the real big story with the DTCC is naked shorting and not just the lawsuits filed by penny stock companies, then two articles (Euromoney, Wall Street Journal) would not justify turning this article into a WP:COATRACK For naked shorting issues. --Samiharris (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are so many reliable sources out there on the DTCC, then why not cite them? That has not been done so far. We are getting, instead, links that don't substantiate the statements in the article. As best as I can tell from the article history, no one has ever linked to the Euromoney article and all the references and links I see to it, including yours above, is to a letter pointing out all the errors in it. Judging from its apparent date (March 2005), it would predate the litigation and would not substantiate that section.


 * The WP:WEIGHT concerns voiced by the third opinion and myself relate to the litigation section. If now you are saying that the real big story with the DTCC is naked shorting and not just the lawsuits filed by penny stock companies, then two articles (Euromoney, Wall Street Journal) would not justify turning this article into a WP:COATRACK For naked shorting issues. --Samiharris (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We should cite to the reliable sources on DTCC. WSJ qualifies. I'm not sure why you would delete it. When it is opened up again, let's bolster the rest of the article as well. Though if we look at what the WSJ and NYT and Euromoney have to say about DTCC, I think what I have found is stuff about litigation where DTCC is being sued for its supposed involvement in naked shorting. That is what it is notable for, if notability is measured by what those publications write articles about that mention DTCC.

As to the Euromoney article, obviously judging by DTCC's letter on it the article was very important. Also, judging by the fact that it discussed the same issues that DTCC is being sued for -- the naked shorting issues -- it is relevant to the paragraph. And of course the litigation is about what DTC supposedly did before the lawsuit was started ... which would put it at the time of the stuff that the Euromoney article describes. Plus, there have been a dozen of those lawsuits at least from what DTCC says. The WSJ article discusses the same. Have you been able to find a free copy on the internet of the Euromoney article? If we can, you are right, that is better to cite to than the DTCC letter arguing with it. But if not, the DTCC letter may be the best we have that can be found on the internet for free. Otherwise, I guess we can order a copy of the article and cite to it even if it is not on the net.

I think that I quoted WP:WEIGHT right, so see no need to add to what I said before. The lawsuits are about DTC being sued for its involvement in naked shorting, and other lawsuits that come out of that, which is what the articles/penny stock companies focus on as well. The title of the WSJ article isn't focused on shorting -- it is focused on DTCC. Shorting and litigation are the subheadings to that title. This is an appropriate way to present it in the article as well.--69.203.81.71 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of introductory section
I make the following suggestions for changes to the introductory section:
 * Address of main office : I propose that the address of the main office of DTCC be removed. In the introductory paragraph, is should be noted that this is a U.S.-based corporation.  A corporate structure section, which could include the #Subsidiaries section as a subsection, could have information about the parent corporation, including that the main office is in NYC. However, as Wikipedia is not a directory, the street address should not be included.


 * Relative position in the world market : The statement that DTCC is "the world’s largest post-trade financial services company" needs to have a reliable source cited (not a DTCC reference).

The last paragraph in the introduction &mdash; "In 2006, DTCC settled the vast majority of securities transaction in the United States, more than $1.5 quadrillion in value. DTCC has operating facilities in New York City and at multiple locations in and outside the U.S." comes closer to the summarizing style that would be good for the introduction. However, Vast majority needs to be quantified &mdash; not the $ value, but % of security transactions. Of course, this needs to have a citation from reliable sources.

&mdash; User: (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the introductory section is that it is unsourced and uses WP:PEACOCK terminology. Cleaning up the style of the section should be an easy task, and I assume the DTCC website can be used for statistical purposes. If the only sourcing on "vast majority" etc. and other significance claims is the DTCC and no one else, I suppose the intro could just say, "according to the DTCC, it is the biggest" or whatever. --Samiharris (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ERcheck's point about the address. I could go with either ERcheck or Sami on the use of DTCC info, with attribution. I'm not sure how "largest" is measured, myself, though, and do think that it would be better to not just accept DTCC's says-so, without attribution, certainly. I agree that that looks like it was lifted from some DTC advertisement/pr work. I think that whole section reads like a DTCC annual report. If that is where it is from, at least it should be acknowledged ... if not deleted ... so that the POV aspect of this reading like a DTCC advertisement is made smaller.--69.203.81.71 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Peacock terminology" : I agree, no peacock terms should be used in the article, especially the introductions. I also don't think that "according to DTCC" should be in the introduction in describing the size of their operation.  As it is a huge corporation, there should be reliable 3rd party sources to provide statistics. &mdash; User: (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, looking over the article, the litigation section has citations for nearly every sentence, and certainly for every line of thought. 7 or 8 of them. And provides both sides of the story. The rest of the article contains all the peacock one-sided language. With -- you guessed it -- zero citations. Yet which did Sami delete, and is he attacking as inappropriately sourced? You guessed it. The litigation section. Sami, seriously, I'm not accusing you of being DTCC's PR company (though you could be), but that just doesn't smell right.--69.203.81.71 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, links to a press release from a litigant, web pages from a Vancouver stock promoter and a nonworking Google Cache link to "investigatethesec.com" hardly qualify as proper "citations." Your continued insertion and reinsertion of that kind of thing is why the article is a mess and is now protected. --Samiharris (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Article structure: As DTCC is a large corporation, there should be plenty of sourceable material to build a solid article that will balance the litigation section. &mdash; User: (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a random FYI that there is an infobox for corporations and I beleive address is a variable, if you wanted to put that info somewhere. I'll dig around if anyone is interested in it. Mbisanz (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea on an infobox. I've added an example for consideration in the section below.  &mdash; User: (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of litigation section
As has been mentioned, "weasel words" need to be cleaned up. This section needs to be factual, not judgmental, nor with vague words.


 * "...there is a fight as to the extent to which DTCC is responsible. Some companies blame DTCC as the keepers of the system where it happens, and say DTCC has turned a blind eye to the problem."
 * Who is involved? Who are "some companies"? This should not be long protracted list, but a representative example, if it can be reliably sourced as legitimate complaints.


 * "Critics contend that DTCC has been too secretive with trade delivery-failure data, depriving the public of important information about where naked shorting might be taking place."


 * Who are the critics? Of course critics are going to say negative things.  But, on what basis.  "Turning a blind eye" is POV.

Lots of cleanup needed in terms of wording. &mdash; User: (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First the section needs to be properly sourced, and it needs to be of a size commensurate with WP:WEIGHT. Then we can deal with how it is worded.--Samiharris (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

First, full disclosure. I edited the naked short selling litigation section and am a DTCC employee working in corporate communications, and want to explain my edits to the section. First, I changed "virtually all lawsuits have been dismissed" to the new text because all the lawsuits have now been dismissed or withdrawn, and no new lawsuits have been filed since 2005. Decisions can be checked via Lexis/Nexis.

I added the SEC amicus brief reference to correct the impression that the SEC was apparently blaming DTCC for naked short selling. The brief provides an explanation that DTCC subsidiaries NSCC and DTC are registered clearing agencies, and all policies and procedures must be approved by the SEC before being implemented. Thus they do nothing not expressly reviewed and approved by the SEC.

I removed the phrase that says Christopher Dodd agreed to hold hearings because it is not supported by Bennett's remarks, and Bennett's remarks were made in July 2007. It is now June 2008, and no hearings have been held or are scheduled. It seems unlikely that any hearings will be held at this point. While we believe the remainder of the articles are in fact misleading, we have not changed or deleted them since there are citations, even though the rebuttals on DTCC's web site are not cited as well. I welcome any comments or discussion of the edits. --Watson272 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Addition of company infobox
Here is an example infobox for the page. I've filled in some of the information. I suspect that there is room for discussion on what are appropriate entries.



&mdash; User: (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the box is a great idea.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It adds a sort of professional sense to the article, which I think is a good thing for this article. Mbisanz (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree about the infobox, but I think that the names of the subsidiaries, though lengthy, need to be spelled out.
 * Another issue that needs to be dealt with is The Depository Trust Company, which needs to be merged with this one as it is duplicative. --Samiharris (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mbisanz, and don't care either way about Sami's suggestions. By the way, is that right that the company is in 100 countries?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, in addition to the chart, 2-3 sentences on each subsidiary of the DTCC might be helpful. It would also add more balance to the article.  The sentence stubs are too summary.  For example, do both DTC and NSCC provide clearing for blah blah blah?  If so, what is the difference? And what are the features of those companies that are not part of other subsidiaries?  And are they part in that they merged, and no longer exist, or are they part in that they are subsidiaries of the other subsidiaries (GSCC, etc.).  And it says that they all provide clearing.  Do they also provide settlement?  There is a lot that can be added to make more informative.--69.203.81.71 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This information can be added to the current Subsidiaries section. &mdash; User: (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Naked shorting litigation section
The naked shorting litigation section has WP:WEIGHT and sourcing problems, and requires a rewrite and a substantial reduction in size.

Paragraph One

The first source is a link that goes to a stock promotion newsletter that makes no reference to DTCC litigation. Instead it links to a summary of a DTCC press release on an unrelated subject.

The second source is a link to a North American Securities Administrators Association regulatory filing that does not make statement attributed to it.

The third source is a dead link to the Google cache of a stock market conspiracy theory website, "investigatethesec.com".

Paragraph Two

The first footnote links to a copy of a Bloomberg article on the website of a Vancouver stock promotion firm, RGM, Inc. WP:COPY and WP:EL prohibit linking to apparent copyright violations.

The second footnote is to an RGM website copy of a link to "financialwire," which is a penny stock promotion wire and not a WP:RS source.

Paragraph Three

Most of this paragraph is sourced to a press release from a company suing DTCC. Obviously a press release from one side of litigation does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.

External links

Two of the three links are attacks on the DTCC, one consisting of a press release from a litigant and the other an attack on the DTCC from a stock promotion website, "Ants & Sons." Stacking the external links section in this manner with anti-naked shorting polemics is contrary to WP:WEIGHT and WP:EL.

If there are other WP:RS sources that are proper for this article and have been overlooked, please make them known here. Please be sure to read the sources, which evidently has not been done in some of the "sources" that have been added to this article.

As best as I can see, the only sources that can be cited of the above are the Journal and Bloomberg article (without a link to RGM). They alone would be insufficient to justify an entire section on the naked shorting litigation.--Samiharris (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lengthened protection
I have extended protection for another month, having reviewed this talk page. It's abundantly clear that the edit war will resume as soon as protection is lifted, there appears to be no progress towards consensus, and much of the discussion above leads me to believe that understanding and acceptance of policy by some on one side of the dispute is sorely lacking. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

editprotected See the WEIGHT and sourcing issues in "naked shorting litigation" above. There is a dead link, the North American Securities Administrators Assn. misquoted, WP:COPY issues and other problematic material that is long overdue for cleanup.--Samiharris (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please give specific edits, line by line. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Guy, since the sourcing of the so called "litigation" section is in such poor shape, to the point that there is misinformation in the article (NASAA is quoted as saying something it didn't say), major surgery is needed. I would suggest that the wording be returned to what it was previously, before the recent anon edits:


 * DTCC has become involved in the controversy involving naked short selling.   Ten suits alleging naked short-selling filed against the DTCC were withdrawn or dismissed by May 2005.


 * In the recent editing assault, a grand total of one source that has any validity was added: a Bloomberg article referencing the litigation. I have added that in.


 * Also I believe that the Ants & Sons and Pet Quarters press release links that I mentioned in the "external links" section are improper under WP:NPOV and WP:EL and should be removed.--Samiharris (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

✅, I agree that per policy we cannot allow those edits to stand at this point. Editors are encouraged to propose changes which are adequately supported by sources. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It strikes me that it is difficult to suggest that as re-crafted this does not reek of POV. "Involved in the conroversy?"  True.  And Hitler was involved in the Holocaust.  This was arguably far better, better sourced, and less POV before.  These changes, coupled with protection, deleting good sources are odd.  At best.  We just deleted sourced material from good sources, and accurate characterizations.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As revised, it now has good sources I think (Wall Street Journal, Senator Bennett website, Bloomberg, Euromoney, North American Securities Administrators Association (there is a clear quote to their brief in the WSJ article), etc ... there are other sources out there (NY Times, direct quote to Euromoney or NASAA brief, Forbes) if anyone thinks these are not enough. Ants is gone, the section was shortened, and the general article has been filled out (and could be filled out even more if anyone cares to).  The new info of possible senate hearings illustrates the importance of this issue, and suggests that the attempt to hide discussion of this because it is being overempahazised inappropriately is wrong.

Cede & Co.
There does not seem to be a reference to "Cede & Co." would it be coppible to link this topic in the search engine. For more info see http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cede+&+Co. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.149.106 (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)