(Total Views: 200)
Posted On: 03/09/2018 1:07:51 PM
Post# of 72445
I agree that the shorts need to cover, but we all know Alan is talking about naked shorts who don't need to cover. That's where I disagree with the interpretation of the FINRA #s.
I was surprised that Alan agreed to add this statement, but I'm not surprised that he removed it in less than a month. I don't think he was ever genuine about doing it. He did it just to get you guys off his back. Maybe you can ask him the real reason (I can't here).
"Some of the shares sold short and reported by the market makers to FINRA could have been covered by them after the close."
Just for the record, Alan wrote 3 posts on naked shorting today. Please don't criticize me for responding to something he started. I just want to be treated fairly.
I was surprised that Alan agreed to add this statement, but I'm not surprised that he removed it in less than a month. I don't think he was ever genuine about doing it. He did it just to get you guys off his back. Maybe you can ask him the real reason (I can't here).
"Some of the shares sold short and reported by the market makers to FINRA could have been covered by them after the close."
Just for the record, Alan wrote 3 posts on naked shorting today. Please don't criticize me for responding to something he started. I just want to be treated fairly.
(0)
(0)
