Talk:Manuel P. Asensio

Story

IMO the article is very short, it appears to be a single view on the person, it talks about his earning a reputation, but not what that reputation is. But it does imply that view held by the anonymous editor is possibly accurate. Keep in mind these are just my impressions and that I am in no means perfect, there may be a better template to describe the article. I found this page working orphans and realized needs something, but I don't know how to fix it. Jeepday 15:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate template to use here is the {{expand}} one, which is already placed here. There is a lot missing in this stub, but if you don't mind, I'll remove the {{story}} tag, as it doesn't seem to apply here. Owen× ☎ 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To: Jeepday

You are absolutely right in that this page needed something. For all intents and purposes the truth. Nothing stated in the update on Manuel P. Asensio cannot be found through numerous public information sources. As to the statements made by others about him, well, you will need to do your own research to determine if there is any validity in those statements. However, once you have done your research, it is recommended that you take an opportunity to spend some time with Mr. Manuel P. Asensio. It is rumored that it will be an interesting time in your life that you will certainly not forget. If you find yourself in the area of Miami, Florida, Mr. Asensio has apparently decided to spend more time there than in New York. Commuting between the office and home must be difficult but as a man surely convinced of his own superior capabilities, he has surely found a way to overcome that small problem. Candor505 13 November 2006

In November 2000, Mr. Asensio was censured and fined by NASD Regulations for "Short Selling, Trade Reporting, and Internet Advertising Violations". This can be verified by visiting this NASD website, http://www.nasd.com/PressRoom/NewsReleases/2000NewsReleases/NASDW_011426.

Sanctions and tilt of article

OK, I added the 10/06 lifetime bar against Asensio that I found on the NASD site, and removed some vague and unsourced reference to his sanctions. Put it in a separate header. However, even though I added it, am a little wary of so much of the article basically reporting on this guy's sanctions, as it seems a bit weighted against him. Would like to get other opinions on this. I don't think there's any choice but to add the NASD bar as it is a definitive finding of a regulatory agency and is obviously relevant to his notability.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Meh. Having read the actual decision, I withdraw my misgivings. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see an IP added that Asensio withdrew his membership "voluntarily" in 2003, and that nevertheless the NASD went after him. I can't find this in the 2006 decision[1] and I don't see what difference it makes, but I am leaving it in with a "citation needed" tag. Even if he did withdraw his membership, it was in the midst of an investigation in which Asensio was barred permanently. First we need to see some sourcing indicating that it was withdrawn. I think the NASD decision not mentioning it indicates that NASD felt it was not material, even if he withdrew. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the IP made still more changes, some kind of like original research, but he/she does make the valid point that Asensio was not sanctioned for making incorrect statements about the company, but for what I suppose you can call "technical" violations (my words, not NASD's). I also added a denial of wrongdoing by Asensio, which is sort of implied in the decision and is needed I think. I will post a note on the IP's page to apprise him of these edits, as I suspect from the wording that it might be Asensio himself, and I see that BLP expressly permits edits by subjects. We need to bend over backwards as this is a legal case. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kudos on your efforts to bring neutrality, Johnny. The page still feels to me like it bears subject's fingerprints. A couple of examples:

- I added a "citation needed" for his claimed B.S. degree (there was one for his MBA). I assume this is a frequent issue with businessperson BLPs, although bios of officers and directors of public companies are generally taken from SEC filings where there are consequences for false or misleading information. In this case, educational credentials don't seem relevant and may not be verifiable.

- Saying he "has worked in the securities industry..." may be a stretch since he was barred from associating with any NASD members, which would seem to effectively bar him from working the industry. He now appears to claim to be an "Investment Advisor," although he doesn't seem to claim to be a Registered Investment Advisor and doesn't list an IARD/CRD Number. Kind of like saying you're a realtor without a license. --Wiki-nika (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see someone added back the asensioexposes.com link as "Site responding to criticism of Asensio." If we provide a link to the site responding to the criticism we should also have the site with the criticism (presumably asensioexposed.com, which shows up on a Google search). My preference is not having either link, but I didn't change it again because this page isn't worth an edit war. --Wiki-nika (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who added it back. Both asensioexposed.com and asensioexposes.com are legitimate external sources, and both are relevant to any article about the man, regardless of their accuracy. Note that neither is used as a source for the article; they are included here as additional reading for those interested in opinions about the man (or by him). Owen× ☎ 01:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki-nika that it's better to leave both out. I'm concerned Asensio Exposed might not be allowed by WP:BLP, which is tough on externa links. I hesitate because it appears to consist entirely of public documents.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-nika, you raise a good point about the language saying that he has been in the securities industry for twenty-five years. Perhaps he was until his lifetime ban in 2006, but unless that is sourced I'd rather remove. I've taken it out. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

FINRA only regulates the U.S. market; Asensio is not barred from any of the European, South American or Asian securities markets. Also, this recent ban doesn't magically wipe out 25 years of experience. I changed the lede to reflect these facts. Some of you seem to have a bone to pick with the subject of the article; let's stick to facts here, please. Owen× ☎ 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow I'm getting it from both sides lately on short issues. On the contrary, I think Asensio has done some good work in the past, but a neutral article must give proper weight to his being barred from the industry. I've shortened the lead, as the recent change made it much too long. See WP:LEAD. We can't pussyfoot around the fact that he has been subject to tough regulatory sanctions reserved for only a few. I read one of the FINRA decisions and it is very harsh toward him personally. I just want a neutral bio of the man, and to be neutral we have to give proper weight to his lifetime ban.

On the other hand, I have serious qualms about "asensioexposed" link even with the reply site also included. I'd appreciate your thoughts specifically on the BLP policy as it relates to external links. I see from the site that Asensio has a problem factually with what appears on the site. Rather than play out that drama on-wiki maybe both links should go. The list of links is just too long anyway.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: the section on his actual work and career is too short. IF it is lengthened, perhaps by adding from his memoir, that should satisfy everybody. I used to have a copy of his bio and I'll see if I haven't trashed it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but edits such as this one make it seem that the only relevant fact you acknowledge about the man is the FINRA sanctions against him. Yes, there was a ruling against him, and he was barred from trading US securities after failing to pay the $20,000 fine. But there's more to him than just this event. Also, sorry about the long list of references; I added as many as I could find back at a time when a handful of editors eager to get rid of the article were questioning each and every sentence on it. Feel free to remove some of the book reviews or other redundant refs. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, not the only relevant fact, but a crucial one, and it contradicts the unsourced statement you re-inserted. The statement you reverted implies he's still in the securities industry. I know of no evidence that he is still in the securities industry outside the US. As for your talk of "references," I'm talking about the separate external links section, not the references. Are you adverse to removing the "asensioexposed" and reply sites?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "...has worked in the securities industry for over twenty-five years" does not imply anything about his current situation, whether U.S. or otherwise. If it said "...has been working in...", that's a different matter, but as worded now using the past tense, no implication is made as to his activities nowadays. As for the external links, I wouldn't remove any of them unless they are clearly redundant or irrelevant. The harm from an extra link is minimal. Owen× ☎ 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Has" can be removed and "U.S." can be added to remove that impression and make more exact. My concern about asensioexposed is not redundancy or irrelevancy but BLP, which says that external links are held to a higher standard and have to be in the spirit of the BLP policy. See [2]. Asensio claims he is libeled in that site. Right or wrong, that raises a red flag for me and my instinct is to remove that and the reply site. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be an objection I've removed asensioexposed.com and the site responding to it, asensioexposes. BLP requires the highest standards for external links, which is vague I know but I don't think asensioexposed lives up to that standard. As the name implies, it is essentially an anti-Asensio attack site. While composed largely of purported public documents, which made me hesitate, I think on balance it is best to leave it out. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I've added a neutral sentence to the lead paragraph saying that he and his firm have been subject to regulatory sanctions and are barred. These are serious steps for someone in the securities business, and I think are significant enough to be in the lead. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your "neutral sentence" is inaccurate and libelous. It should be removed immediately. I represent Mr. Asensio. A bar from FINRA is not a bar from the U.S. securities industry. FINRA is a private for-profit organization; it is not the SEC. See www.finra.org. Any reference to "his firm" is also inaccurate and libelous. Any reference to a firm organized as a broker-dealer under FINRA has no legal connection to any other firm organized by or employing Mr. Asensio. Furthermore, the entire section on "Regulatory Sanctions" contains blatant mischaracterizations of a matter which is not fully adjudicated. Asar-mr (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Asensio and the firm are barred from associating with any NASD member in any capacity. If that's not a bar from the securities industry, I don't know what is. See [3], a summary of the disciplinary action that is or was cited in the article, summarized as follows:

Asensio Brokerage Services, Inc. nka Integral

Securities, Inc. (CRD# 31742, New York, New York) and Manuel Peter Asensio (CRD #1148811, Registered Principal, Miami, Florida). The firm was fined $20,000 and Asensio was barred from association with any NASD member in any capacity. The National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) imposed the sanctions following appeal of an Office of Hearing Officers (OHO) decision. The sanctions were based on findings that the firm, acting through Asensio, issued research reports that failed to define the meaning of each rating and that failed to disclose the distribution of the firm’s ratings. The findings stated that the firm, acting through Asensio, made statements in research reports that were unwarranted or misleading. The findings also stated that Asensio failed to fully respond to NASD requests for information during an on-the-record

interview. (NASD Case #CAF20030067)

The language in the FINRA summary refers directly to Asensio personally and to the firm, saying that the firm acted "through Asensio." I'm certainly not adverse to changing the language in the lead if it's not accurate, but I'm not persuaded that it isn't.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted this page back to libelous content. You delete positive, factual and documented contributions by Mr. Asensio in order to leave only statements which are unjustified, undocumented and untrue. Specifically, you persist in retaining the libelous statement "...currently barred from the U.S. securities industry." Your statement "...I'm not persuaded that it isn't," shows editorial bias and your complete inexpertise. I'm certain you are not a securities attorney. To have a sanction from the private organization FINRA is not the same thing as being "barred from the U.S. securities industry." Please do research it before claiming any expertise in the future. On behalf of Mr. Asensio, I demand that you and Wikipedia immediately cease and desist from causing libelous statements to be circulated about him, which have caused him undue harm. If you persist in causing libelous statements to be circulated about Mr. Asensio, legal action will be taken against you and Wikipedia. 64.115.134.206 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually another editor reverted the lead and removed the content that you added. FINRA is the self-regulatory body for the brokerage industry and barred Mr. Asensio and his firm as stated in the link above. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FINRA is a private 'self-regulatory' organization for broker-dealers. It is not a governmental agency; it does not have jurisdiction over the entire U.S. securities system. Saying that Mr. Asensio is barred from the U.S. securities industry is libelous. Furthermore, the sanction is subject to further arbitration and appeal. This is private arbitration, and it is highly inappropriate for you to assert what a private arbitration does or does not mean for a general public audience. Also, yesterday I inserted a simple fact about Polymedica, citing a Department of Justice press release on the Department of Justice website. This source was deleted with the statement. Why would you delete a simple documented fact about a pertinent issue? Apparently, you did so because it creates a favorable view of Mr. Asensio. That is called bias. I have left a message for someone in Wikipedia's legal department. If you could provide me with an email address for Wikipedia's legal counsel, I would appreciate it. Asar-mr (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement about Polymedica was part of a massive rewriting you did to the article, removing many relevant, well-referenced facts, and turning the article into a glorified advertisement for Asensio. If you wish to reinstate the Polymedica statement, showing why it is notable to this article and providing references without combining it with the removal of others' text, feel free to do so. Owen× ☎ 13:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not a "private arbitration." That's just factually incorrect. It was regulatory action against Asensio,and he was barred from associating with any U.S. broker/dealer. That's a bar from the U.S. securities industry. Asensio operated a broker/dealer, and the right to do so was taken away from him, and he can't work in one any more. Is there any alternate language that you would prefer that would be factually accurate to describe this lifetime bar from associating with any FINRA member?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The user and the IP have been blocked, but I think that this objection to the language in the lead needs to be taken seriously. He's weakened his case considerably by his statements above, particularly his misrepresenting of an enforcement action as a "private arbitration," but I'm wondering if there is any basis for his claim that this is not a bar from the U.S. securities industry. Do we need to refine or change this summary language? I don't believe there is, but I want to keep an open mind.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I just notice that the lead has been changed to read "regulatory sanctions," which does the trick. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

IP edits

We're getting a lot of IP edits removing the text on regulatory sanctions. I'd request whoever is doing this, particularly if connected to the subject of the article, to please register and explain on this page if there is anything wrong with the text on regulatory sanctions. Please cite reliable sources, which in this case would include Asensio's website. BLP requires that we treat such things carefully, though in this case what is removed is directly from the public record.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations to asensio.com

Note that most of the citations to asensio.com are actually copies of RS news articles rather than first-party citations, and should not be automatically dismissed out of hand. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What purport to be copies of reliable sources are not Reliable Sources when posted on the subject's own website; least of all in this era of Photoshop and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I also suspect a WP:COPYVIO issue, as the customary "reprinted with permission" disclaimer is not evident.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

All true. I've unfortunately been involved in an incident where a person kept copies of newspaper and magazine articles on his web site that were altered to make it look like there was coverage that didn't actually exist, this wasn't brought to light until an AfD for the article. In addition, WP:COPYLINK states that it is against policy to link to a web site that is breaking copyright laws. -- Atama頭 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed, and also added a section on his shorting. I'd dearly love if other editors could please step up to the plate.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion and undue weight

The article needs to be expanded so that it does not give undue weight to regulatory actions. I presume that's why it's tagged that way. It's pretty obvious. I think the problem is that, going back through the history, it's been a kind of slo-mo tug of war between IPs and SPAs adding puffery and oversighted libel. I commend OwenX for his patience as he oversaw this article for a period of years without outside help. Sources can be obtained from Google News, mainly New York Times articles, and there is Asensio's book and website, but strictly for noncontroversial, biographical details. I notice that there are reports in the media of lawsuits. These are old and need to be treated cautiously because I presume most have since been settled/dismissed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a section on his short-selling, based entirely on an article in Registered Representative that included a q&a with Asensio. I think that balances out things so I took off the tags.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Your added section is well written, and gives a good sense of both the nature and the scope of Asensio's operations. Owen× ☎ 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully this article will now drift off into the somnolent state of most Wiki articles.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manuel P. Asensio. 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/20110707172950/http://www.asensioexposed.com/readingroom.htm to http://asensioexposed.com/readingroom.htm

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) 23:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)