Talk:NASD

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Notes[edit]

This is criticized for the fact that it creates an incentive for the NASD to fine a firm for anything it can find solely in an effort to pay for the investigation costs already incurred, even if no serious violations are uncovered. Where is the proof for this statement, seem kind of bias and would like more info before considering corrective measures. Paul.Paquette (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a criticism, so that is POV in a sense, but it is a fact that criticism is leveled. It's the standard criticism for any regulatory body that has no checks and balances and is fully funded by fines. I've heard the criticism from a number of people in the securities industry, but unpublished conversation isn't citable. I'll see what I can do to dig up a source to attribute the criticism to though. - Taxman ^Talk 20:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are checks on the NASD's discliplinary actions. Any one who fights the decision of the NASD can appeal to the SEC and then from there to the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The reality, of course, is that the vast majority of people and firms charged by the NASD settle before it even gets nearly that far. Due to the cost of litigation, virtually the only people who would fight all that way are those that are getting kicked out of the industry and have nothing else to lose.

regford 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Provisions like this are common. In BC even an innocent individual (if such ever existed) can be liable for the cost of an investigation. See:[reply]

Costs payable by person investigated

150 The commission may require a person whose affairs are investigated under this Part to pay prescribed fees or charges for the costs of the investigation.

There seems little incentive to run a frugal investigation.regford 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip, Quite POV[edit]

This article, maybe not dripping with disdain, is terribly POV. It makes multiple accusations, all vapor; some even with the qualifier "apparently". One of the attacks is innuendo in the header paragraph ("The NASD claims to enforce practices that are in the best interest of investors."). The NASDAQ does not have to claim, because it isn't reaching for them to say they want to enforce those practices. They just say that they intend to enforce those practices. They would only have to claim if someone has brought an attack against them, but it's only the first paragraph: there is no criticism (yet)!

At the very least this article must provide news clippings that provide a basis for anecdotal evidence, even. I'm not against criticising the NASD, but if you want to throw stones you still have to find your ammunition. --Caidence 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

POV[edit]

Would love to hear opinions on how we can steer this article in a direction promoting NPOV. I did a major re-write on the criticisms area and whie I know the NASD is not always popular, criticisms have to be voiced in a manner which removes personal emotion and discloses "Just the Facts". I'm new to this article but I think we can get it cleaned up nicely. --Wootonius 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV, Inaccurate Information[edit]

Neutrality is a problem in this article for several reasons: 1) some of the data is wrong or outdated, 2)There are several negative opinions that are expressed with no supporting information, and 3)there is little if any attempt to present the counter argument to the negative information in the article. Specific examples:

1)The second paragraph that describes the Board of Governors lists the composition incorrectly. Check the listed citation for the correct composition which is: 1 staff member, 5 industry representatives, 1 non-industry representatives and 8 public representatives.

2)Unless a citation with analysis of the fines levied by NASD can be found for the Criticism section, this should be removed as an opinion.

3) The second paragraph of the arbitration section states that NASD's public arbitrators are "...3,700 individuals classified as non-industry panelists but still mostly sympathetic to the industry." The bias in this statement is in places both subtle and and overt. First the article categorizes these arbitrators as "non-industry" as opposed to their correct classification, which is "public". The bias in this statement pales when compared to the overly biased statement that the panelsists are mostly sympathetic to the industry. This is an opinion and not a fact. See NASD's description of its arbitrators: [1]. Additionally, these numbers are out of date: [2]

4)The fourth paragraph in the arbitraiton section contains mis-information. A single party may no longer strike the entire list of arbitrators that is presented to the parties. See rule 12404 of the Customer Code of Arbitration: [3]

5) Also in the fourth paragraph of the arbitration section is the following statement: "Of course, since the NASD designed and manages the process, the panel is almost always loaded against the individual." This is a blatant opinion that assumes that NASD and its employees are corrupt. see rule 12400 a) of the NASD Customer code for a description of NASD's random system for selecting names for the list of arbitrators.

6) The next paragraph discusses the turnaround time for cases in the forum. Again, the statistics are out of date (see above link to NASD's statistics). What the paragraph omits is 1) that "simplified cases" (those with damages under $25,000) have an average turnaround time of around 6 months, and 2) the length of time that it would take to litagate a securities dispute in the courts. In most cases, the parties would be lucky to get anywhere near a courtroom in the 13 months that it takes to arbitrate the claim at NASD. The article implies that arbitration takes an inordinately long time to complete without mentioning that the alternative is worse.

7) In the second to last paragraph, the article states that "individuals rarely prevail" in their cases. First, according to NASD, the claimant is awarded damages in almost half of the cases that are closed by hearing. Additionally, 63% of all cases filed are settled by the parties (either directly or through mediation). So, someone should do a thorough analysis of the statistics (see link above), but a large majority of claimants are walking away with something. And we have to assume that, just as there are frivilous law suits filed in the courts, there are frivilous arbitration claims filed at NASD. We also have to bear in mind that a lawyer filing a statement of claim knows that his client won't recover everything that he asks for, so the smart lawyer asks for more than the actual loss. Additionally in an environment where settlement negotiations are likely, you don't want to start with your drop dead amount. You want to start high, so that you have some bargaining room.

These are just a handful of places where this article is blatantly biased. In addition to these "biggies" the overall tone of the piece is one sided and should at least make an attempt to discuss the positive work done by the SRO.

LeslieNicole 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)LNL[reply]

Expanded history[edit]

I deleted the "Succession to FINRA" heading and added that info to an expanded "History" section. (I found the one-sentence history -- "The NASD was founded in 1936." -- to be a bit too brief.) Balance2214 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]