How many named sources do you think the Wall Street Journal used in its story on the SEC's crackdown on stock market rumormongering? One: the SEC. And how many anonymous sources? Twelve or more, it looks like, including "a senior official" at the SEC, "people close to the firm" Lehman Brothers, a "person familiar with the matter" and several sets of "people familiar with the matter." Of course, it's impossible to know how many of these citations are the same person appearing multiple times, so the actual number of anonymous sources could be lower. And, to be sure (*cough*), the SEC is ostensibly cracking down only on people who knowingly spreading false rumors for financial gain, which the Journal isn't doing. Further, most reporters consider their anonymously-sourced journalism a step or two above rumors. But if the SEC is going to investigate how some companies profit from derogatory rumors, shouldn't it also look into profit from positive gossip? Stuff like this, from the Journal:

Lehman is examining a handful of options, including a strategic alliance with a partner that it hopes will help restore investor confidence, an asset sale or possibly some sort of stock buyback, according to people familiar with the matter.



...Lehman has continued talks with the Korean financial institutions to which it reached out months ago before its $2.8 billion loss that resulted in a $6 billion capital raising, according to people familiar with the matter. It isn't known if it has held talks with other possible partners. Its initial discussions with the Korean entities didn't culminate in a deal.



Another possibility for Lehman includes the sale of some its more troubled assets, similar to what Citigroup Inc. did in April, when it sold almost $12 billion in leveraged loans to a group of private-equity firms. Lehman officials didn't return calls for comment Sunday.

Gosh, who could be spreading all this inside information about Lehman Brothers' plans? Surely not executives who would personally profit from a rise in company shares, for example those compensated with shares or options. And, if so, surely they are far more sure about their many speculative assertions than the meanies who speculate in the bad, negative way about Lehman Brothers.

Besides, the financial services chiefs demanding this crackdown never intended it to apply to them — it's for hedge funders and maybe journalists and so forth. Go after those guys and the free market will, once again, work properly. (Honest, it really will, this time.)

[WSJ, Previously]