(Total Views: 230)
Posted On: 12/15/2017 8:16:20 PM
Post# of 72443
I wasn’t questioning your integrity. My post clearly states that I have a different interpretation of the daily short volume (IMHO). I provided reasons why as well as the opinion of a FINRA ombudsman.
You claim the ombudsman’s answer is to protect the corruption between MMs and FINRA, yet you use FINRA as the official source for the daily short #s. Since FINRA is self-regulating, what makes you think they didn’t alter the #s in collusion with the MMs?
I kindly requested you to quote the daily #s exactly the way it is in the source file so investors don’t mistakenly think FINRA said “XX% of today’s volume was short sales”. If they really want to know the %, they can simply divide the #s. Again, I wasn’t questioning your integrity. I said in PM that I have no problem with you posting the daily #s. It was just my personal preference to quote things exactly as is.
Thank you for teaching me about Patrick Byrne. I hope to see T+0 as soon as possible. Have a good weekend!
You claim the ombudsman’s answer is to protect the corruption between MMs and FINRA, yet you use FINRA as the official source for the daily short #s. Since FINRA is self-regulating, what makes you think they didn’t alter the #s in collusion with the MMs?
I kindly requested you to quote the daily #s exactly the way it is in the source file so investors don’t mistakenly think FINRA said “XX% of today’s volume was short sales”. If they really want to know the %, they can simply divide the #s. Again, I wasn’t questioning your integrity. I said in PM that I have no problem with you posting the daily #s. It was just my personal preference to quote things exactly as is.
Thank you for teaching me about Patrick Byrne. I hope to see T+0 as soon as possible. Have a good weekend!
(2)
(0)
Scroll down for more posts ▼
