Talk:Christopher Cox

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  When did he start ? 

message: This sounds a lot like an official biography --AW 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like resume 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SEC Controversies? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mass edit on 9/26 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reversion on 9/26 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editing during campaign to track political events 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material which simply advocates a point of view 

message: The audio link was to an outdated version of this article. Aseca21 (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've put in a full quote from McCain, if there is no objection.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date audible file 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I don't know how much that has to do with Cox. Please explain.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Economic Crisis of 2008 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know how much that has to do with Cox. Please explain.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Deleted reference to 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section on Short Selling 

message: 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)
replies: text: I thought that article was bad until I saw "Stock market crash." That is a disaster. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Guidelines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religious Affiliation 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Ironically"

message: I don't see the relevancy of those two articles to Cox. Can someone please explain? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "See also" section

message: The commission is a law enforcement agency.  Ronewirl (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEC 

message: Su contribución es incorrecto.  El chairman no es un actor o escritor.  Ronewirl (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (google translation: "Their contribution is wrong. The chairman is not an actor or writer.") Fixed. TJRC (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  es:christopher cox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Repeated violation of Wikipedia guidelines by 71.217.3.20 

message: 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."Think Short Selling Rules Don't Matter?  http://www.cnbc.com/id/26793487/ 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."How Short-Sellers Almost Destroyed U.S. Banking  http://www.cnbc.com/id/28239960"
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by Unregistered Users 

message: Cox gave an interview to the Washington Post today that has a lot of good stuff. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, skimpy for a 90 minute interview. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WaPo Interview

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Policy Rants Injected into Bio

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 2007 Commission action:  Eliminating the [[Uptick rule]]

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request Others to Check for POV or lack of NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of Quality Standards for a Wikipedia Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Resolution of POV Dispute 

message: I'd also appreciate it if someone would please stop removing the passage in the Washington Post 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)
replies: text: What were the unintended consequences?  Ronewirl (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Washington Post quote

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Chairmanship is a Five Year Term

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The SEC Chairman page is now a link farm 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to comment by J. Ponder 

message: 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)
thread_title:   The Late 2000 Recession 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Congressional Reports 

message: === Part One ===
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)
thread_title:  neutrality disputed.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Part One 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Part Two 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral POV  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Christopher Cox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927170828/http://www.stimson.org/exportcontrol/pdf/finalreport.pdf to http://www.stimson.org/exportcontrol/pdf/finalreport.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218133311/http://www.sec.gov:80/spotlight/idea.shtml to http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/idea.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012200150/http://college.usc.edu:80/news/2008/04/cox.html to http://college.usc.edu/news/2008/04/cox.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926175917/http://college.usc.edu:80/news/march_2007/cox.html to http://college.usc.edu/news/march_2007/cox.html
*Added  tag to http://www.insidesarbanesoxley.com/sarbanes_oxley_blog/2005/03/fei-survey-sox-404-compliance-costs-up.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110507051515/http://securities.stanford.edu:80/news-archive/2008/20080701_Headline107388_Group.html to http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2008/20080701_Headline107388_Group.html
*Added  tag to http://www1.cchwallstreet.com/ws-portal/content/news/container.jsp?fn=07-07-08
*Added  tag to http://www1.cchwallstreet.com/ws-portal/content/news/container.jsp?fn=12-10-08
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608025908/http://www.businessweek.com:80/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf2006015_7863_db038.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf2006015_7863_db038.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523233102/http://www.businessweek.com/investing/content/may2006/pi20060523_848601.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/investing/content/may2006/pi20060523_848601.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717131935/http://www.ucdailynews.com/news/consumer/10691261.html to http://www.ucdailynews.com/news/consumer/10691261.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150118173708/http://bingham-mccutchen.com/News/2013/08/Eight-Named-Lawyers-of-the-Year-by-Best-Lawyers to http://bingham-mccutchen.com/News/2013/08/Eight-Named-Lawyers-of-the-Year-by-Best-Lawyers
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014235929/http://bingham.com/Media.aspx?MediaId=8909 to http://www.bingham.com/Media.aspx?MediaId=8909
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151026141807/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/calhoun-vision-elects-former-sec-120000237.html to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/calhoun-vision-elects-former-sec-120000237.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530120342/http://old.institutionalinvestor.com/pdf/pressRoom/presscoverage/INVESTORS_GUIDE_2006.pdf to http://old.institutionalinvestor.com/pdf/pressRoom/presscoverage/INVESTORS_GUIDE_2006.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924221357/http://blogs.zdnet.com:80/Howlett/?p=461 to http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=461
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130907185528/http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/06/cox-exchange to http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/06/cox-exchange
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927183505/http://www.cwsl.edu/content/journals/Brunka.pdf to http://www.cwsl.edu/content/journals/Brunka.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131308183700/http://www.newport.com/cms/company/corporate-governance/board-of-directors-and-committees to http://www.newport.com/cms/company/corporate-governance/board-of-directors-and-committees#Cox
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160226132234/http://www.usc.edu/dept/chemistry/loker/advisory_board.html to https://www.usc.edu/dept/chemistry/loker/advisory_board.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified