I disagree along with many others! Misrepresentation of information does not make it true, period!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg...d=80969662
SRGE-POST#10-CONFIRMED FINRA & SEC Short/Naked Short=SHORTSQUEEZE
Newbies & SRGE Longs here is POST#10 DD and Proof of Short in SRGE.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg...d=80836769
terry_mathews, with your thoughts...
Yes, we have gone over this a few times before in the past, but like I told you when we spoke over the phone years ago, you didn't ask FINRA and the SEC ”all” the questions needing to be asked. You only asked half of the right questions and then made your presumption. You even admitted to me over the phone that there were certain questions that I had asked that you didn’t ask because you didn’t understand my questions.
Yes, I have explained this before. However, on the contrary I think it is not I, but you who choose to ignore that data because it doesn't fit in.
The SRGE data is supported in my opinion. I didn't just make that data up or are you calling FINRA and the SEC a lie? I have researched how a trade 
is marked and that sales made LONG are marked short automatically when they are routed and executed through a third party market maker , but again, that is where you stopped with your thoughts. The problem kicks in when the shares are "suppose" to exist to be delivered T+3 (Trading Day + 3 Days) to the brokerage companies , but are ”failed to be delivered." You are under the assumption that there are not any "Fail to Delivers" (or Naked Short Shares) as if everything is always covered all the time. Well, they’re not and the ”Net” is the SEC data. Even the SEC has now identified this to be a problem.
The FINRA data is the gross data to be considered. The difference between the two represents the amount of shares of which you believe are always covered to a zero balance. The main difference with our thoughts is that you believe everything is always covered to a zero balance while I believe that everything is ”NOT” always covered to a zero balance. Again, the ”Net Naked Short” data from the SEC is proof to justify my stance. Read the posts below as the SEC explained it very well as to how you should interpret such:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg...d=80822233
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg...d=80828706
Well, at one time the SEC use to believe the same thing as you in that everything was always covered, but now they believe different ie. the data and definitions that I have posted. As for the outcome of SRGE, the FTD situation here with SRGE has nothing to do with how real or unreal it is or whether it succeeds or fails with its business operations . It could make a difference depending on how big the Naked Short position is and what kind of covering takes place to get an idea of where it could illogically trade. The legitimacy of SRGE is what will help sustain any price increases from its fundamental valuation that its confirms with the market to exist.
v/r
Sterling
