Talk:Global Analyst Research Settlements

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History?[edit]

I just watched the film Wall Street, read the Wall Street wikipedia page and ended up here. I'd love to know why this settlement happened. Any know the history?

I recommend John Cassidy's book Dot Con and the Frontline by the same name.

Some of the same institutions involved in mortgage servicing fraud[edit]

I think that it is interesting that some of these firms are also deeply involved in the secondary mortgage market's mortgage servicing fraud scandal. For example, CSFB recently purchased Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (f/k/a Fairbanks Capital Corp.) from PMI Group. It is difficult to understand why the rest of the securitization industry tolerates subperformers that threaten the benefits of Asset Back Securities. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (f/k/a Fairbanks Capital Corp.) settled a major class action lawsuit with the FTC (United States of America V Fairbanks Capital Corp. Civil No.: 03-12219 United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) in late 2003. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (f/k/a Fairbanks Capital Corp.) is now being accused by a growing number of individuals of violating the consent decree signed as the result of the settlement of the class action lawsuit. They are also now being accused of violations of the "Best Practices Standards" outlined as injunctive relief in the settlement. It is my hope that this firm will be better policed to protect the public and secondary mortgage market.

Background section removed[edit]

The section labeled as a 'background' seemed to simply be a list of randomly selected cases of sec actions and questionable corporate activity that does not seem to add any understanding of the actual article. A short, neutral summary of the settlement's background would suffice; but it is unclear as to how the list actually impacts the subject. The 'By 2006, marketplace ethics reached a new low, according to a Wikipedia contributor.' is completely unacceptable uncited commentary. Please use this talk page if you need help in re-writing this. Kuru ^talk 22:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background section restored[edit]

The background section is a complete and comprehensive list of recent actions that are directly related to the article. This list does not exist anywhere else in Wiki. Given the list, the statement 'By 2006, marketplace ethics reached a new low, according to a Wikipedia contributor.' is a fact. Again, simply because you think it is a "completely unacceptable uncited commentary." does not make it so. Cirm 14:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's clearly your own personal commentary, and completely unacceptable in an encyclopedic entry. I would strongly encourage you to read more about what Wikipedia is and look the policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view. Please understand that this is not a place for personal editorials. All statements must be factual and cited, and self-reference to 'a wikipedia contributor' is not helpful. Kuru ^talk 00:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list is a copyright violation. As I explained to you earlier, you can't simply give away copyright status here; there's no evidence that you have the authority to do so. Kafziel ^Talk 14:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point specifically to the copyright violation by providing a link to the referenced copywritten text.Cirm 14:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the list and the wording is your own creation and has been published on your personal website, it does create legal issues which cannot be resolved by us - I believe that Mr. Kafziel has already helped you by pointing out the directions to release this into the public domain or by contacting wikipedia counsel. If the list is verbatim testimony; simply cite the source that we can verify. Honestly, I could care less - I still do not think it is helpful to the article. Again, I would ask that you summarize the salient points; a lengthy list of semi-related factoid only serves to confuse the intent of what is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry. Kuru ^talk 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

The old external link under NASD was broken, so I replaced it with something similar under FINRA. The FINRA page has many links of its own, so it should accomplish roughly the same goal for the curious reader.