AlanC could you clarify for my understanding of na

AlanC could you clarify for my understanding of naked shorting. If one sells shares they don't owned then must eventually have to purchase shares to cover, then wouldn't it be to advantage of company not to issue more shares to put a squeeze on shorts having less shares available to repurchase. If everyone is holding and not selling someone who wants the shares would have to pay more not less for shares I would think. Unless more and more shares are available to allow pps to fall (supply and demand). I don't understand why ntek for example is willing to sell their shares at .005 when they have revenue coming in from ultraflix and could easily get a receiveables loan without dilution if needed for an opportunity requiring cash. I think company would be better off to reduce o/s at this pps level and make less shares available for shorts to cover? If company announced a buy back to reduced shares o/s there would be a big bounce up. So you can see how my thinking on this subject needs help since I'm confused. I appreciate your informative posts and hope you can provide me with a better understanding of naked shorting.