To Drano and my fellow longs, my integrity was questioned so I have to defend myself. One thing I don’t do is to wrongfully accuse someone of things he/she didn’t say. I have a pretty good memory and remember what Alan said in the past. He has a history of changing his words and here are some examples.

1. Alan denied he ever posted FINRA short volume for AAPL and accused me of being disingenuous.

https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4642182

I provided proof that he did and here is what he said.

https://investorshangout.com/post/postreplies?id=4642215

No one here confronted him for calling me a liar. Surprise surprise.

2. Wash trades

“I have never ever claimed all trades not reported as short sales were in fact wash trades.”

https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4818316

“The rest of the volume reported represents wash trades between market makers utilized to simulate selling,”

https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4684308

3. Alan doesn’t think the shares in the FINRA file are held short. But he said this.

“The short volume reported to FINRA at the end of the day by the market makers represents the shares they sold that day that they did not have locates for.”

https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4684308

If the shares sold at the end of the day were not located, that means they remained short.

4. Alan doesn’t think the short % in the FINRA file is cumulative. But he said this.

“It is my contention that the daily short volume reported to FINRA is close to the total real volume for the day.”

https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4684308

If the short % reported to FINRA was XX%, that means the real short volume was closed to XX% (a cumulative effect).

Alan also flip-flopped on whether naked shorts need to cover after name/CUSIP # change. I will keep digging his posts and show the proof here. I will not stop until I restore my reputation.