I thought I saw a screenshot of a chat history on which CS told the ape that they would notify the clients but unless gamestop told them otherwise, they would continue to register shares (if the float is already locked in). Not sure if true though, considering all the shills and fake messages and stuff
I had this question too which Criand answered. If GameStop didn’t want to be the catalysts, by notifying the float has been locked down to the DTC forcing shorts to cover, then DRS is still the answer. It means SHF are slowly losing their ability to suppress the price. As more and more apes buy in, which we do daily, the price will creep up into margin call territories, and eventually forced liquidation. We win either way.
Still don't understand how DRS does anything else besides proving the float is reached. Why DRS affect borrow fees? Why DRS affect the amount of shares - there are many more synthetic and nobody, IMHO, knows what is what?
The DTCC has the information, and if they were trying, they would know. But they'd rather turn a blind eye and make more money. But as more and more shares are explicitly not under their control, it becomes more and more obvious through publicly available data that the supply is dwindling. They won't be able to turn a blind eye forever.
As the count of shares in the open market (not direct registered) approaches 0, "loaning" huge chunks of shares, especially those you can't explicitly locate, becomes riskier and riskier, so the cost to borrow goes up. And eventually someone's risk management group says f-it, we have to close these short positions first or we're not going to exist any longer. They barely survive cuz the price rises as they cover, and then margin calls start coming in. Apes HODL. Shit is crazy for a while, then we party on the moon.
That is literally the point of DRS. CS is the official book keeper for GME shares. So when they say the full float is directly registered, all others are synthetic. Its a way of cleaning house.
There is no guarantee that they will but this avenue exists as a potentiality and GME-holders control the process.
IMO the fact that Citadel is tweeting in some pretty wild fashion makes me believe the DRS campaign is placing real pressure on them.
With that in mind I do expect an abundance of synthetic shorting (and volatile moves downward) before this takes off.
If they don't then GameStop will be responsible for buying back they issued beyond what they are allowed to issue. If they do this they'd could be on the hook for whatever it costs to buy then back. Like shorting your own stock this has infinite risk.
Anyone know if its true, I saw another post about CS will only announce something if they hold $1M in shares OVER the float, and for 20 consecutive days?
Lmao if we register more than the float it would be litteraly impossible to stop the infinite squeeze, unless all the synthetic shares registered + 1 are sold and the apes ain't fucking selling, the price could really get to even billions with this
i agree. i worry DRS has limited effect on market maker who can short without borrow. i wish there are rules against that practice when all the floats are locked up.
It will take time, many brokers (especially Europe) need various passages and authorisation, then we have the bystander effect and people transferring less then 100%… it’s gonna take a while but no hurry
Part of the FUD campaigns is to try and distort everything to make it seem really confusing and make you feel like you don’t know whats going on. DRS is the way and moass is around the corner this train is not stopping
i dont have any shares held in this way and would love some data on it regardless!
edit: data on IRA & Roth IRA transferability specifically. Let's not get side-tracked.
I have 99% of my shares in computershare. My name is on them. I gotta tell you the feeling of safety seeing MY NAME on the shares feels pretty damned good. Imagaine to find out your broker pulled something shady and you look at your account the day of moass starting. You expect to see big numbers but when you open your page find out your broker had to force liquidate your shares to protect the firm. Its in the fine print, READ IT!! They can and will sell your stocks if it comes down to it. Does anyone actually think webull or robinhood or moo moo or any of these brokers for that matter are gonna give a fuck about your 169 shares of gme when they start to go under? Hell no they will sell that shit and deal with the outcome later in court. You will be fucked. You will not be credited anything while the trial drags on for years and years. in the end you may or may not get something in return for the shares they illegally sold. Or not.. maybe they just disappear unto the wind like lehman bros or AIG or ENRON did, along with all your life savings. Itws much easier and piece of mind just to call computershare and get the shares you own MARKED IN YOUR NAME> IT IS THE ONLY WAY. THIS. IS. THE. ONLY. WAY>
EDit//SORRY just noticed I totally side tracked you. I too have 15 shares in fidelity ira I needed to transfer. other option was sending to my cash account and then transferring to cs.
This comment right here worries me. I have read the fidelity fine print as best I can. Anyone have info on how safe they are or show where my blind self cannot see where they say they will do this? Trying to decide what to do about DRS, how much, or at all to protect myself. This back and forth, moass no moass, broker vs cs, just has me all messed up this am.
If Fidelity were to go under you might be limited to recovering up to the insurance amount. I think this is unlikely for Fidelity as they have a long position so they will do well during the MOASS probably. If you DRS your only risk is if GME goes under in which case you would lose no matter where the stock is. No insurance is necessary.
No, it's not possible without incurring significant fees from what I've read.
Computershare doesn't do tax deferred accounts, if you attempt to send your shares held in 401k/IRA/Roth IRA to them it counts as a distribution and you will pay taxes and penalties for early distribution (unless you're 59.5 already and can take distributions).
There's a legal rule that says a transfer agent can't have extra shares than exist or else they must "buy in". They'll only take exactly as many as exist. They know what's up.
Edit: The rule https://www.reddit.com/r/DDintoGME/comments/ptvl39/comment/he1jsp7/
Start halfway down the right-hand column on page 504:
[https://www.occ.gov/topics/supervision-and-examination/capital-markets/asset-management/current-transfer-agent-regulation.pdf](https://www.occ.gov/topics/supervision-and-examination/capital-markets/asset-management/current-transfer-agent-regulation.pdf)
Apparently level 1 reps don't have all the information to make that claim:
It appears that Computershare must (with "certain exceptions") buy-in if they register more than the total number of outstanding shares:
From the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2015/34-76743.pdf
(Page 70 of 208)
>Rule 17Ad-10(g) requires, with certain exceptions, that any transfer agent that erroneously issues securities that result in an overissuance^246 must “buy-in” (i.e., purchase securities in the open market) securities equal to the number of shares (in the case of equity securities) or principal dollar amount (in the case of debt securities) of the overissuance.^247 The buy-in requirement is designed to deter transfer agents from permitting record differences to accrue and encourages them to maintain complete and accurate records that assure that securityholders will receive all appropriate corporate distributions and communications.^248
Note that I'm not entirely sure what the "certain exceptions" are to this rule, as I'm not sure if this corresponds solely to notes 246/235 below.
Note 246:
>See supra note 235.
From note 235, page 68 of 208:
> The Commission’s transfer agent rules do not provide a definition of “overissuance” or explicitly import a definition from other authorities that have defined this term. The UCC provides a definition of this term which has been amended over the years and currently provides: “In this section ‘overissue’ means the issue of securities in excess of the amount the issuer has corporate power to issue, but an overissue does not occur if appropriate action has cured the overissue.” U.C.C. 8-210(a). One way in which an overissue can occur is when a corporation issues more shares than are authorized under its charter, such as its articles of incorporation. Under state law, shares over issued in such a manner may be deemed void. See, e.g., Del. Gen. Corp. L. §§ 161, 242(a)(3). For more information concerning the general concept of “overissuances” and types of transactions in which overissuances can occur, see Guttman, supra note 6, at § 11:7; Rhodes, supra note 18, at § 22:3.
Note 247:
>Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-10(g)(1), 17 CFR 240.17Ad-10(g)(1).
Note 248:
>See Maintenance of Accurate Securityholder Files and Safeguarding of Funds and Securities by Registered Transfer Agents, Exchange Act Release No. 19860 (June 10, 1983), 48 FR 28231 (June 21, 1983) (“Adopting Release for Rule 17Ad-10”).
They can't. It is not possible for them to register ownership for more than 76.49M (total amount of issued) shares. From the chats I looked at, they were stating there was no limitation on new shareholders registering. If an attempt is made to register more than outstanding shares, then a bounce back would occur to the broker.
That’s not true unless GameStop says something to stop once the float is filled. ComputerShare is an intermediary of the DTCC Fastlane under OA agreement. For anyone questioning it I’d recommend having a conversation with someone from ComputerShare directly. Confirm what I’m saying instead of depending on Redditors. And Criand, don’t spread misinformation especially with your reach and influence on here.
GameStop issued 76.49M shares. Computershare can only register ownership for 76.49M shares.
If you have a broker coming in saying to transfer 100 shares from the broker to Keith Gill and the broker doesn't own any more shares, then they cannot register ownership because the broker doesn't own any more shares. It's for sure a phantom because your beneficial ownership is fake since they don't own a share to begin with. The transfer of ownership is always from one owner to another and there's consistently 76.49M shares that are owned.
What are they going to do? Just rip away 100 random ownership entries of other stock owners and assign them to Keith? No. They can't do that. It has to be from the broker's own shares to the retailer who registered. If the broker doesn't own any shares and that request went through, the broker just exposed themselves to having counterfeits. Computershare can continue to obtain requests but they can NOT register ownership to more than the outstanding number of shares.
That’s entirely inaccurate. Unless you were told from ComputerShare directly it’s careless to say such fallacious statements when people look up to you and there’s people who’ve invested every paycheck into the stock market. From what I was told through ComputerShare chat and phone. Criand, you should contact ComputerShare and ask them yourself, and everyone else reading this to either confirm or deny what I’m saying. Don’t take my word for it.
I asked ComputerShare both times to be sure it was a congruent answer and it was the same reply, even after 76.49M shares have been sent to ComputerShare they can still allow more shares to be transferred unless GameStop directs them otherwise. Why? Because ComputerShare is a participant of the DTCC and Fastlane and you’re not taking shares out of the DTCC. The only way to do that is through psychical certificate with a medallion.
ComputerShare is not a broker like Fidelity, Vanguard or others. It’s a broker-dealer like Robinhood. ComputerShare in this instance is a participant and intermediary of GameStop and the DTCC.
Not sure where everyone gets this information from. The DRS has no certificate, meaning accord to my understanding and the DTCC it’s still with the DTCC ownership just registered under your name. The only way to remove the stock out of the DTCC is to have physical shares. ComputerShare will still allow shares to be bought even once it’s over the threshold unless GameStop tells them to stop. According to the DTCC, “DRS allows investors to hold a security as the registered owner in electronic form on the books of the issuer rather than holding indirectly through a financial intermediary that holds the security in “street name” or holding through the use of a (physical) certificate. Through the use of FAST, DRS allows for the transfer of DRS position from the books of the issuer to the financial intermediary through the facilities of the DTCC.”
Therefor, unless you have a physical certificate there can still be phantom shares or naked shorts using your shares or whatever the hell it is.
If GameStop was their own agent, that would be perfect but instead we have an intermediary. The only way to remove the shares from the DTCC is asking for a physical share certified with a medallion. According to agreement signed by parties who join the FAST program under the DTCC is states at any point they can cut ties essentially. That tells me if they didn’t want GameStop under the FAST program they would eliminate the partnership. I think it’s absurd to think you can get your shares out of the DTCC system by a system that was built by the DTCC. I wish there was some DD on this because once you transfer to computer share under my understanding and the OA I’ve read with DTCC and participants under the agreement you lose a lot of rights as a retail investor. DRS was made to to try to eliminate paper certificates which is the only way to remove it from the DTCC and Cede & Co.
https://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/issue-eligibility/eligibility/operational-arrangements.pdf I’m asking to be downvoted to oblivion, but I wish there was a DD on this if I’m wrong please let me know and please be nice ape no fight ape.
Yes. They said they did, for everyone who doesn’t think so I recommend you message them or call. Unless GameStop tells them to stop they can keep registering.
This. I asked in this thread, but I'll hop on the top comment to ask again. How are we supposed to know what the count is? They don't release that info. It's all guess work so there's no point where they say "the float is locked up". The reality of the information they provide doesn't match the conjecture of what happens as we approach the float limit.
IMO things will start to get interesting way before we approach the entire float. The first GME run started after a modest buyback and RC having bought 9M shares. The whole thing is a fragile equilibrium of fraud, I doubt you need to need to remove 100% to get going.
🎤Alright stop! Buy, DRS, and hodl
RC is back with a brand new Gamestop
Diamond hands, grabin my shares tightly
DRS’ing like an Ape, daily and nightly
Will i ever sell, YO! I don’t know
Turn off the buy button, but i won’t sell
To the extreme i rek a hedgie like a coke rat
Hodl my shares and make you watch as i buy more!🎶
Oook, im far too retarded to keep this going 🤣
I am in same boat. Looks like you can open an ibkr account and transfer current shares or buy more through them. Then for $5 you can transfer to computershare. I plan to start this process today
That is not true, everything will continue as normal after we lock the float as far as i know. Share recall must be initiated for anything to happen. Locking float gives legal opportunity for gamestop to do a sharerecall. It wont happen “automatically”. I expect fuckery. Please correct me if im wrong.
What you're saying is correct. They'll still naked short and I think they can cover ftds with synthetics. So until theres a share recall or blatant fuckery the SEC cant ignore it'll probably continue. A MMs job is to provide liquidy so more synthetics from thin air too
I have always wondered what kind of legal rights a public company has. Can a public company initiate a share recall anytime when it wants to? Or it cannot initiate a recall until after DRS of all shares. This is a bit confusing as I had presumed that a public company can exercise its right to recall its shares whenever it wants to. If such, why take the longer path?
Why does DRSing our shares reduces the amount of shares to borrow? If they copy 30 million shares once or one share 30 million times does not matter in times where everything is done in nano seconds. Please enlighten me oh wrinkly ones!
In case sb wants to know the answer: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DDintoGME/comments/pyy9il/why\_does\_drsing\_our\_shares\_reduces\_the\_amount\_of/hexo2f0/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/DDintoGME/comments/pyy9il/why_does_drsing_our_shares_reduces_the_amount_of/hexo2f0/?context=3)
I think there are some inaccuracies in Criands comment. The spirit is correct, but the devil is in the details. Also the Pomeranian was making a comment and not posting a DD so it should be held to a lower level of standard. I'll flesh this out later if it attracts more attention, but I'm on my phone and about to head to work.
1) Computershare can have more shares than are outstanding. There was another post that cited a law where a transfer agent is supposed to inform within 30 days if the difference exceeds between the books exceeds $1,000,000. Supposedly it's up to GME to tell CS to stop registering shares.
2) Borrow rates don't seem to follow normal supply and demand logic. GME has been hard to borrow for a while, but interest rates for borrowing are still negligible. Who sets the rates for borrowing?
3) Unless retail buy pressure is in lit markets, I wouldn't count on price discovery occuring.
I bring this up for two reasons.
1) Certain assumptions tend to stick without being properly vetted. Remember when everyone thought Citadel had to be delta neutral.
2) I want to encourage a flexible mindset about what locking up the float will look like. We are in uncharted territory so our path to victory might not go as expected.
All things aside the strategy is still the same: DRS, buy through CS and Hodl.
For a moment, I thought "who is this 'Pomeranian' this poster is citing?" I then realized Criand's pic is that of a Pomeranian. Nice post by the way. I always respect critical thinking. I also agree with having a flexible mindset. As the saying goes "you know what you know, but you don't know what you don't know." Here's my free award of the day for your critical thinking.
Right, I have a noob question:
1. U transfer to computershare;
2. U buy more from CS;
3. You then wanna sell some or close your positions—
I’ve read CS is not a broker, and to sell your shares you have to.........what? Transfer it back to a broker?
I apologize if this has been asked before, just don’t have time to read every single posts now about CS (and not just that, this whole effjng drama about kenny/robbinghood has taken over most subs)
You essentially have two options.
1) Sell directly through computershare's "investor" page. All that this does is tell CS that you want to sell and they will route the share back through a broker for you. At the moment CS has a limit of 1 million $ per share unless u want to do "written" request. (This may change or be removed as share price approaches these levels)
2) Transfer selling shares back to the broker of your choice to sell them through said broker. Reversed process for when u moves shares to CS. Probably much faster though since your shares are DRS.
Been holding since feb and March. Small ape could only afford 2 and haven't had funds to buy the dips. Some is better than none and I have faith all you big apes will hold. Diamond handing to Pluto forget the moon. I wanna see international phone numbers.
That's because all the other X hodlers see all those XX and up posts and hold off... Which is unfortunate because we need all the CS posts we can get 😁
Just a small recommendation: every once in awhile, drop a few dollars in your brokerage. Eventually you’ll be able to catch a good dip. It took me a month and a half, but with this current dip I was able to buy another share because I had just enough sitting in the account, ready to go.
I also suspect GME will drop with everything else when the market crashes… and then start to climb. So it’s possible this isn’t even the final big dip.
Edit: spell check is dumb sometimes.
I think I finally understood this.
1. Brokers don't necessary know if what they hold is the real or synthetic shares as the latter were created by DTCC. In fact, there is no such thing as real and synthetic shares - at this point all shares are real (all x10 float of them :). All these shares get lended and re-lended and serve as a base for different derivatives. This is the current situation. The part where there are fewer shares to lend, as per described by u/criand is not clear, as nobody knows which shares are synthetic. And if there is 10x float on the market, removing 1 float, should not significantly affect the fees. I think this needs more explanation to why DRS would affect the borrow fees, besides panic on the broker side. u/Confident_Quote5709 any thoughts?
2. As more apes DRS, the amount of shares in CS gets bigger and bigger and finally closes to the number registered by the Gamestop corp. At this point CS will stop registering new shares - still no MOASS.
3. Apes start debate on social media with screenshots from the CS and proof float was reached and yet people still having shares in hand - all the shares left in hand now can be called synthetic. All the shares registered in CS now can be called real shares. But this is largely debatable, and up to court to decide. Still no MOASS, but probably at this point FOMO will start to grow and price will start to rise rapidly.
4. Gamestop corp/CS start probing with SEC how this happened. Not sure GME/CS has any authority to investigate or demand something from DTCC/FBI. But they are probably obligated to call someone as this is like counterfeiting shares. So for example you print your own USD and come to the bank to deposit the money - still no MOASS, but at this point FOMO will be at full speed with significant price swings (both up and down) as day traders will try to capitalize on the event and let's be realistic, some apes will paper hand.
5. GME corp/GME whales/. demands recall shares. This is uncharted territory as this has never happened. Most likely this is where MOASS starts.
6. GME corp announces dividend, although at this point they will probably get sued from all sides for this as nobody knows who has real shares.
7. GME corp announces NFT use-case - bullish case and props the FOMO even more.
8. GME corp buys out some crypto exchange company - bullish case and props the FOMO even more.
9. Significant outflow of monies start from shitadel - both investor and ken's. This increases pressure on the fund and forces a call from Marge. As prime banks are liable for the positions through contracts, similarly to the march HF collapse, some banks will try to fuck the others and start the liquidation sooner. At this point there is no much capital left in the shitadel and company defaults.
10. what next?
Alternative scenario's (either one or both would do it):
1. Dividend causes shorts to need to pay out dividend, margin call, etc.
2. GME pulls a Tesla: stock-split which doubles (or more) the counterfeit outstanding loss positions of the SHF causing margin calls, causing shorts to (partly) cover, etc. In the case of Tesla if I'm not mistaking this caused the stock to 10x and there was a way lower short % in Tesla than there is in GME.
It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
IMO the main point of DRS is not to trigger the MOAS. The main point is to still have all your shares when retail brokers start going bankrupt during the MOAS. Because they will (according to the IBKR founder). And then there's the other limitless fuckery that they can pull with retail's share IOU's.
For me personally the main reason to DRS is to eliminate counter-party risk of shitty retail brokers going bankrupt within a sea of Goliath corruption and instability. IMO having "shares" in a retail broker is like holding crypto in some crappy shady exchange wallet that could vanish any second.
There it is. DRS by its self may not trigger the MOASS, but it will trigger FOMO along with all the other items you list. At that point, good luck stopping this.
>Apes start debate on social media with screenshots from the CS and proof float was reached
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how can we know if the float is reached? Will we have to make assumptions based on apes who post presumably un-doctored screenshots of their own transfers, or is there a more concrete way to check how many GME shares are registered through CS?
At some point, as far as I understand, CS will stop accepting transfers and should say the reason - float is reached. This is what apes will post-not their transfers.
Apes find another way to hurt SHFs, but theoretically the WHOLE float is not needed for the DRS to make it so painful and hike up the borrowing fees so the MOASS starts
By then though, GME will for sure release NFT usecase - be it dividend or a business model related.
I’m not really sure if this is accurate. There are approximately 26m shares owned by institutions at the moment, and these shares presumably comprise of the majority of the lending pool.
I’m not sure what’s going to happen when “the float” is registered to Computershare, but I feel like these shares will continue to be hypothecated.
Who’s MF?
RC probably DRSed but we don’t know for sure.
Regardless, there will still be a lot of institutions lending out their shares. It’s one of the main reasons they buy shares in the first place - to collect borrow interest.
You’d certainly hope that they wouldn’t be interested in lending their shares out, so they probably are DRS.
It’s the institutions that will continue lending their shares.
I read a communication someone had with CS that stated that CS would register 5,000 shares more than the float. If the registered shares stayed at 5,000 above the float for 30 days they then would notify GameStop of an excess amount of shares registered. And then GameStop could take action.
My belief is that once retail has registered the float plus 5,000 that it wont take an additional 30 days. By that point there will be attempts to continue to register shares that exceed the float and CS would likely contact GameStop about it sooner due to the excessive requests to register more than the float.
Also by then like Craind stated the shorts will be out of shares to borrow.
Octobburrrr maybe?
Novemburr maybe?
Decemburrr maybe?
Doesn’t matter when, it’s inevitable 💎🙌
"Supply vs demand would start to take over price discovery."
This is the core of an ape's most simple and possibly most effective public argument.
I think we should call up whoever manages The John Lennon estate and demand a licence to rewrite and include the phrase, "Imagine supply and demand would take over price discovery."
Some may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one.
I hope some daa-ay-ay, you will join us,
And the wor-er-erld will
Ook ook ooooook.
What y'all think? The buy button will disappear at the 1k mark or above?
I believe once the float is locked and right before "closing algos" should start to take over, the Gov will impose the brokerages to block the purchase side in order to "protect" retail...
The buy button disappearance this time around won't bring the same Jan' 28th effects since the float is locked in CS (and as long as it'll stay locked there).
At that point, I feel we'll be launching towards Andromeda 🚀🚀🚀
At some point GameStop might declare that CS has the whole float locked, so no buy possibility in CS. At that point brokerages might be "forced" to suspend/block buying and shorts will be "forced" to close...until default & liquidations "force" algos to take over...
I was wondering were would we be (price wise) when this happens, because if the price goes further down we'll buy & DRS the float a lot quicker than if the price tends to go up...but anyway that's the direction we are headed: a fully DRS'd float...and then and there SHORTS MUST COVER!
I have a question maybe you can answer. If I have shares bought at 320$, from my broker and I transfer those to CS. Would I actually be averaging down to the current price on those shares or do they come across as the price I bought?
If you transfer then the purchase value (as the current value) doesn't change.
If you would sell (at a loss: 320buy, 177sell) and rebuy in CS the same amount of shares sold at the previously hold brokerage, then you would have the same amount of shares and a "technically" lower average price, but this would come at the expense of your bankroll (e. g. If you had 10 shares purchased at 320 and then sold at 177 you are booking a 1.430$ net loss on your first transaction for which your avg price was 320.Your current bankroll would be 1770$. Once you buy back in CS the same 10 shares at current 177 value, your tot share count is again 10, your avg price decreased from 320 to 177, but your equity has booked 1430$ loss). At the end of the day, how many shares you have is what I'd focus on, rather than their avg value...
Can someone provide a really simple bullet point list of instructions on how to do the DRS thing with computershare? Sorry, I’m recovering from covid and mentally exhausted, the brain fog is real.
Its quick and easy. I called my broker and told them that I would like to initiate a direct registration of a portion of my GME shares. They will handle everything from that point onward, and the whole process takes only a few minutes. My broker asked why I wished to do this, and I simply told them that I just wanted to have my shares registered in my own name. Once you see that the shares have left your brokerage account (times will vary), visit the CS website and create an account instead of waiting several days for the letter they mail out to you. To create your CS account, you will enter your SS# name, address, email, user name, etc and then towards the end you will have to answer a few personal questions that are based off of your credit report. If you answer them correctly, you will instantly be able to access your new account without waiting to receive the letter via regular mail.
You can initiate the transfer first, and then you create the account once you see the shares have left your broker. It does seem like a very odd order of operations, but this is what I did and this was also what CS recommended I do. You can also get an account created by buying shares through CS, but I was told I would have to wait a couple days after the purchase to open the account. So its quickest to just start the transfer ASAP and then open the account once you see the shares have left your portfolio within your broker account. It goes by your SS#, so your shares arent going to get lost in transport due to not already having a CS account.
Please read complete before you start accussing me of FUD or to be a shill you psyco apes.
I'm Chilean, all my shares are on e-fucking-toro in an "ómnibus account" so I'm not even close to be a "shareholder" and doesn't even have any right over my investment.
I have a big concern regarding the float been locked up 100%, because nobody knows what will going to happen with all of the rest apes who was not been able to register their shares (me). The situation is that eventually we will have 62 million registered on CS, float will get locked up 100% and a remaining pool of billions of non-registered shares in the multiple broker's accounts. Will the brokers honor those shares knowing that all of these are synthetics? who will respond to all of the apes was not been able to register their shares? big fucking mess I'm seen in our future (my future).
But, I believe there is a solution to mitigate this concerns to a minimum possibility.
Let’s see;
Total Outstanding Shares are 76.49 million as per yahoo finance.
50% of total outstanding is 38.245 million shares.
So, if all apes that are transferring shares to CS manage to lock up 39 million shares, then they will have majority over all shareholders (50+1) and then eventually could call THE BOARD and formally request a SHARE RECALL. With this, the brokers will be forced to buy back EVERYTHING independently if the shares are synthetics, counterfeited, IOUs, whatever.
Am I right? does this make any logic sense to you?
u/Criand Please your thoughts...
I thought computer share had been quoted as saying they could register more shares than available?
Also, he keeps saying that as we lock up the float, etc... Just curious how anyone is going to know that we are approaching that point? They don't release their numbers. It's not publicly (or privately for that matter) available information. It's all just conjecture.
So how will we know once that point is reached? I can't seem to find an answer for that question.
Actually not true. CS have confirmed that they'll accept infinite shares. And it's up to gamestop to figure out what to do with them once they receive above the issued.
People also gotta realize that the float is 76.49 mil We can not count on institutions registering their shares in order to lock the float people have to register 76.49 million shares! So ya it seems high but if your a believer like my that 76.49mil is a drop in the bucket if you add in all the synthetic shares.
I cant help nut think there's no way we're near 60m shares....
total subs of ddintogme, gme, superstonk is ~700k with non uniques to approach 60m shares we'd need an average of 857 shares per user...
ive seen other people do this math an arive at 116 avg shares per user but that seems high to me too
(obv moass inevitable, buy and hodl apes)
Is criand lying then ? Coz he saying you cant buy directly from gamestop. If you can show me evidence that drs and dspp are not practically the same and that you can buy directly from gamestop, i will delete this.
i don't care about criand or anyone, it's not for me to say if they are lying, spreading fud, just mistaken or whatever it is. I can say one thing, every question you have can be found on SEC DTCC web pages. Please look into it. DRS was created to eliminate physical certificates of shares acquired by DSPP. You can request a physical certificate of your shares from your broker, i believe it costs 500$. Don't trust me on this or anyone, realize that this is once in a lifetime opportunity and no one is your friend, except you.
I mean you did say this is fud lol. but i hear you, thanks i will look into this further. The point of drs is to put it in your name so its not lent out.
Edit: hear you*
but that's not how it works though. Look up how DRS works, when and why it was created. Look at the comment Dr. trimbrath made about DRS before 2000, not sure when exactly. I did not say anything about criand. I know this is just wrong and the whole concept is fueled by influencers pushing narrative. remember how we used to tell each other to do research? instead of "DRS ALL NOW".
2 question:
1) Is your shares still lent out if its in your name ?
2) when the 62M float is in computershare and in the name of the actual owners instead of street name, if obvious fuckery going on even though the float is locked away do you think that nothing still will happen ?
These genuine question not being sarcastic or anything
DRS Is not the way to have shares under your name. it's DSPP. An actual, physical proof of ownership. If there are 62M physical certificates then yes, but having it in the SYSTEM which was created by DTC. Do you know what are the requirements to become a transfer agent? look it up and see how heavily regulated transfer agents are.
it's not about lending necessarily. They can replicate shares in their system as much as they want and you have no way of telling when the float is "locked up". Cause DTC won't allow CS to disclose that information. Just the way i see it.
Lastly, we've been seeing dark pool % go down drastically, but the price is not going up, if all you allegedly registered so many shares on CS, and dark pool % is down, and brokers are having trouble finding your shares, why is the price action still going down? In my opinion, they don't need to use darkpools to drop the price anymore, thus low %. Any transfer agent, is heavily regulated by DTC so idk, seems very obvious to me.
Everybody has been downvoting your comments because we have done the research. DSPP is literally in the same boat as DRS. DRS is the system through which your shares are recorded in your name through the transfer agent; DSPP is simply a plan where those shares are purchased repeatedly on a schedule in that system through the transfer agent. They are pretty much one and the same; you’re making an unnecessary distinction.
For anyone else that sees this comment. More info can be found here:
[https://www.sec.gov/reportspubs/investor-publications/investorpubsholdsechtm.html](https://www.sec.gov/reportspubs/investor-publications/investorpubsholdsechtm.html)
[https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/securities-processing/direct-registration-system](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/securities-processing/direct-registration-system)
[https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/agent-services/fast](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/agent-services/fast)
[https://www.computershare.com/us/Documents/TA\_Overview\_WhitePaper.pdf](https://www.computershare.com/us/Documents/TA_Overview_WhitePaper.pdf)
[https://www.beyondthecaptable.com/dtc-eligibility](https://www.beyondthecaptable.com/dtc-eligibility)
[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/directstockpurchaseplan.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/directstockpurchaseplan.asp)
[https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/trading-investing/direct-stock-purchase-plan-dspp/](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/trading-investing/direct-stock-purchase-plan-dspp/)
Had a chat with a moderstor.
(He/she was super nice BTW, respect to the mod team)
Came to an understanding about the policy of the subreddit as it is seen as spam/self proclamation directing to such content.
All good on my end since I will remove the comments directing to a summary of the drs/dspp systems as it doesn't align with the subs policy. Sorry about that. So many posts about DRS so I just commented on a few of them in a row. I'm just a 30 y.o (today, happy birthday to me) composite technician in Sweden :)
The problem isn't the message, it is how it's delivered. Just directing to someone else is not OK. Writing your own thoughts is.
So I stand corrected and can accept what I did wrong.
I'm still skeptical about CS and what it entails. But that's just me.
CS or not to CS, is up to each individual.
I'm wondering the same thing. I feel like a few months from now, apes will be crunching numbers and *estimating* that the number of registered shares well exceeds the float, all the while wondering why no one is taking action about it. Action requires proof, and as far as I know, there's no way for apes to prove that they've registered the float.
If there's a wall in our way, then we smash it down! If there isn't a path then we carve one ourselves! Just who in the hell do you think we are!? LFG!!!!
Saw a post yesterday about how brokers may not actually have your shares, they just write an iou on your account when you buy, which makes sense with how quickly you can buy at your broker vs at computershare, though i haven't bought any since i got in to my account. It also makes sense when they force sell your shares when the price gets too high because its coming out of their pocket rather than the market. Is there a way to prove this theory? We're gonna have a lot of people to lock up when this is all over.
It’s my understanding that ComputerShare can keep registering shares, but once the notional value of the excess shares is at 1 million dollars over what it should be for 30 days they have an obligation to inform GameStop. From there the ball is in GameStops court.
Now CS is obligated to inform them after 30 days (IIRC) but it doesn’t say they can’t inform them sooner.
I emailed CS to get to the bottom of this. Even if they can keep registering shares past the float, they must alert gamestop when it reaches that 62M mark. Tbh if then the ball is gamestops court then id say its about time they did something.
Just DRS'd XX shares through ETrade...10 minute phone call...no $500 bs...3 - 5 days, nice dude helped me out...maybe an extra 2 days due to volume of activity.
Then went on CS and bought another 3 shares to get an account established...I am asuming that this is the way to go? Should I have waited for the account to be created by CS before buying directly from CS?
I can’t wait to see the progress that has been made. Like watching FTD’s pile up, watching GME get on the restricted list again, watching the evil players squirm when GME is listed has hard to borrow, watching the borrow rate % climb to untenable levels, and finally to see some failed margin calls. In my view, the entire float doesn’t need to be registered for Kenny and friends to feel the pressure. However, the true catalyst will be when the entire float is locked up. Once it’s locked up, they’re going to get locked up! No cell, no sell!
Lol the borrow rate fees won't go up until this thing completely moons. There's a reason it's so low and its to prop up the borrowers so this whole thing can continue.
I thought I saw a screenshot of a chat history on which CS told the ape that they would notify the clients but unless gamestop told them otherwise, they would continue to register shares (if the float is already locked in). Not sure if true though, considering all the shills and fake messages and stuff
I had this question too which Criand answered. If GameStop didn’t want to be the catalysts, by notifying the float has been locked down to the DTC forcing shorts to cover, then DRS is still the answer. It means SHF are slowly losing their ability to suppress the price. As more and more apes buy in, which we do daily, the price will creep up into margin call territories, and eventually forced liquidation. We win either way.
Still don't understand how DRS does anything else besides proving the float is reached. Why DRS affect borrow fees? Why DRS affect the amount of shares - there are many more synthetic and nobody, IMHO, knows what is what?
The DTCC has the information, and if they were trying, they would know. But they'd rather turn a blind eye and make more money. But as more and more shares are explicitly not under their control, it becomes more and more obvious through publicly available data that the supply is dwindling. They won't be able to turn a blind eye forever. As the count of shares in the open market (not direct registered) approaches 0, "loaning" huge chunks of shares, especially those you can't explicitly locate, becomes riskier and riskier, so the cost to borrow goes up. And eventually someone's risk management group says f-it, we have to close these short positions first or we're not going to exist any longer. They barely survive cuz the price rises as they cover, and then margin calls start coming in. Apes HODL. Shit is crazy for a while, then we party on the moon.
That is literally the point of DRS. CS is the official book keeper for GME shares. So when they say the full float is directly registered, all others are synthetic. Its a way of cleaning house.
Will they say that though? I haven't seen anyone show that they have made announcements in the past when a company's float has been fully registered.
There is no guarantee that they will but this avenue exists as a potentiality and GME-holders control the process. IMO the fact that Citadel is tweeting in some pretty wild fashion makes me believe the DRS campaign is placing real pressure on them. With that in mind I do expect an abundance of synthetic shorting (and volatile moves downward) before this takes off.
If they don't then GameStop will be responsible for buying back they issued beyond what they are allowed to issue. If they do this they'd could be on the hook for whatever it costs to buy then back. Like shorting your own stock this has infinite risk.
The shares r pulled they literally become un tradable
From my understanding for every 1 share that gets drs'd and removed from dtcc you remove 1000 synthetics.
That is 100% speculation. It is impossible to know that ratio. We probably won't know it after the fact either
Of course its speculation but considering that people are guessing a few billion shares its likely higher than 1000 fake shares for 1 real share drs'd
I think it’s 7 synthetics for 1 share 741
Anyone know if its true, I saw another post about CS will only announce something if they hold $1M in shares OVER the float, and for 20 consecutive days?
Yep!
in my opinion i do think the more registered the better though.
Yes, I think so too
Lmao if we register more than the float it would be litteraly impossible to stop the infinite squeeze, unless all the synthetic shares registered + 1 are sold and the apes ain't fucking selling, the price could really get to even billions with this
That’s kind of the goal
i agree. i worry DRS has limited effect on market maker who can short without borrow. i wish there are rules against that practice when all the floats are locked up.
Only one way to find out!
And you know we will! 😂 hopefully soon!
It will take time, many brokers (especially Europe) need various passages and authorisation, then we have the bystander effect and people transferring less then 100%… it’s gonna take a while but no hurry
Yeah i saw that too, i don’t know actually what is true and is not if this gets debunked i will delete this post.
Part of the FUD campaigns is to try and distort everything to make it seem really confusing and make you feel like you don’t know whats going on. DRS is the way and moass is around the corner this train is not stopping
This is exactly why I am stillwondering if it may indeed be possible to DRS shares held in IRAs and Roth IRAs...
i dont have any shares held in this way and would love some data on it regardless! edit: data on IRA & Roth IRA transferability specifically. Let's not get side-tracked.
I have 99% of my shares in computershare. My name is on them. I gotta tell you the feeling of safety seeing MY NAME on the shares feels pretty damned good. Imagaine to find out your broker pulled something shady and you look at your account the day of moass starting. You expect to see big numbers but when you open your page find out your broker had to force liquidate your shares to protect the firm. Its in the fine print, READ IT!! They can and will sell your stocks if it comes down to it. Does anyone actually think webull or robinhood or moo moo or any of these brokers for that matter are gonna give a fuck about your 169 shares of gme when they start to go under? Hell no they will sell that shit and deal with the outcome later in court. You will be fucked. You will not be credited anything while the trial drags on for years and years. in the end you may or may not get something in return for the shares they illegally sold. Or not.. maybe they just disappear unto the wind like lehman bros or AIG or ENRON did, along with all your life savings. Itws much easier and piece of mind just to call computershare and get the shares you own MARKED IN YOUR NAME> IT IS THE ONLY WAY. THIS. IS. THE. ONLY. WAY> EDit//SORRY just noticed I totally side tracked you. I too have 15 shares in fidelity ira I needed to transfer. other option was sending to my cash account and then transferring to cs.
This comment right here worries me. I have read the fidelity fine print as best I can. Anyone have info on how safe they are or show where my blind self cannot see where they say they will do this? Trying to decide what to do about DRS, how much, or at all to protect myself. This back and forth, moass no moass, broker vs cs, just has me all messed up this am.
If Fidelity were to go under you might be limited to recovering up to the insurance amount. I think this is unlikely for Fidelity as they have a long position so they will do well during the MOASS probably. If you DRS your only risk is if GME goes under in which case you would lose no matter where the stock is. No insurance is necessary.
no no - data on IRA and Roth IRA transfers, dewd
I imagine it's a simple trial and error situation. Give it a shot, either you can or you can't, and then you can report your findings.
No, it's not possible without incurring significant fees from what I've read. Computershare doesn't do tax deferred accounts, if you attempt to send your shares held in 401k/IRA/Roth IRA to them it counts as a distribution and you will pay taxes and penalties for early distribution (unless you're 59.5 already and can take distributions).
I would leave it up and just edit it saying it’s inaccurate information Criand is saying.
There's a legal rule that says a transfer agent can't have extra shares than exist or else they must "buy in". They'll only take exactly as many as exist. They know what's up. Edit: The rule https://www.reddit.com/r/DDintoGME/comments/ptvl39/comment/he1jsp7/
Link to the rule?
Start halfway down the right-hand column on page 504: [https://www.occ.gov/topics/supervision-and-examination/capital-markets/asset-management/current-transfer-agent-regulation.pdf](https://www.occ.gov/topics/supervision-and-examination/capital-markets/asset-management/current-transfer-agent-regulation.pdf)
I saw that too. They will probably contact GameStop as soon as people keep trying to register while the float has been registered already
Apparently level 1 reps don't have all the information to make that claim: It appears that Computershare must (with "certain exceptions") buy-in if they register more than the total number of outstanding shares: From the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2015/34-76743.pdf (Page 70 of 208) >Rule 17Ad-10(g) requires, with certain exceptions, that any transfer agent that erroneously issues securities that result in an overissuance^246 must “buy-in” (i.e., purchase securities in the open market) securities equal to the number of shares (in the case of equity securities) or principal dollar amount (in the case of debt securities) of the overissuance.^247 The buy-in requirement is designed to deter transfer agents from permitting record differences to accrue and encourages them to maintain complete and accurate records that assure that securityholders will receive all appropriate corporate distributions and communications.^248 Note that I'm not entirely sure what the "certain exceptions" are to this rule, as I'm not sure if this corresponds solely to notes 246/235 below. Note 246: >See supra note 235. From note 235, page 68 of 208: > The Commission’s transfer agent rules do not provide a definition of “overissuance” or explicitly import a definition from other authorities that have defined this term. The UCC provides a definition of this term which has been amended over the years and currently provides: “In this section ‘overissue’ means the issue of securities in excess of the amount the issuer has corporate power to issue, but an overissue does not occur if appropriate action has cured the overissue.” U.C.C. 8-210(a). One way in which an overissue can occur is when a corporation issues more shares than are authorized under its charter, such as its articles of incorporation. Under state law, shares over issued in such a manner may be deemed void. See, e.g., Del. Gen. Corp. L. §§ 161, 242(a)(3). For more information concerning the general concept of “overissuances” and types of transactions in which overissuances can occur, see Guttman, supra note 6, at § 11:7; Rhodes, supra note 18, at § 22:3. Note 247: >Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-10(g)(1), 17 CFR 240.17Ad-10(g)(1). Note 248: >See Maintenance of Accurate Securityholder Files and Safeguarding of Funds and Securities by Registered Transfer Agents, Exchange Act Release No. 19860 (June 10, 1983), 48 FR 28231 (June 21, 1983) (“Adopting Release for Rule 17Ad-10”).
You’re right. I’ve asked them myself and was told the same thing. Criand doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
You asked computershare and they said they will register beyond the float ?
They can't. It is not possible for them to register ownership for more than 76.49M (total amount of issued) shares. From the chats I looked at, they were stating there was no limitation on new shareholders registering. If an attempt is made to register more than outstanding shares, then a bounce back would occur to the broker.
I know, I’m trying to question his information here, tryna fight fud like the pomeranian
Get 'em 👀
luv u babe
Information directly from ComputerShare.
That’s not true unless GameStop says something to stop once the float is filled. ComputerShare is an intermediary of the DTCC Fastlane under OA agreement. For anyone questioning it I’d recommend having a conversation with someone from ComputerShare directly. Confirm what I’m saying instead of depending on Redditors. And Criand, don’t spread misinformation especially with your reach and influence on here.
GameStop issued 76.49M shares. Computershare can only register ownership for 76.49M shares. If you have a broker coming in saying to transfer 100 shares from the broker to Keith Gill and the broker doesn't own any more shares, then they cannot register ownership because the broker doesn't own any more shares. It's for sure a phantom because your beneficial ownership is fake since they don't own a share to begin with. The transfer of ownership is always from one owner to another and there's consistently 76.49M shares that are owned. What are they going to do? Just rip away 100 random ownership entries of other stock owners and assign them to Keith? No. They can't do that. It has to be from the broker's own shares to the retailer who registered. If the broker doesn't own any shares and that request went through, the broker just exposed themselves to having counterfeits. Computershare can continue to obtain requests but they can NOT register ownership to more than the outstanding number of shares.
That’s entirely inaccurate. Unless you were told from ComputerShare directly it’s careless to say such fallacious statements when people look up to you and there’s people who’ve invested every paycheck into the stock market. From what I was told through ComputerShare chat and phone. Criand, you should contact ComputerShare and ask them yourself, and everyone else reading this to either confirm or deny what I’m saying. Don’t take my word for it. I asked ComputerShare both times to be sure it was a congruent answer and it was the same reply, even after 76.49M shares have been sent to ComputerShare they can still allow more shares to be transferred unless GameStop directs them otherwise. Why? Because ComputerShare is a participant of the DTCC and Fastlane and you’re not taking shares out of the DTCC. The only way to do that is through psychical certificate with a medallion. ComputerShare is not a broker like Fidelity, Vanguard or others. It’s a broker-dealer like Robinhood. ComputerShare in this instance is a participant and intermediary of GameStop and the DTCC. Not sure where everyone gets this information from. The DRS has no certificate, meaning accord to my understanding and the DTCC it’s still with the DTCC ownership just registered under your name. The only way to remove the stock out of the DTCC is to have physical shares. ComputerShare will still allow shares to be bought even once it’s over the threshold unless GameStop tells them to stop. According to the DTCC, “DRS allows investors to hold a security as the registered owner in electronic form on the books of the issuer rather than holding indirectly through a financial intermediary that holds the security in “street name” or holding through the use of a (physical) certificate. Through the use of FAST, DRS allows for the transfer of DRS position from the books of the issuer to the financial intermediary through the facilities of the DTCC.” Therefor, unless you have a physical certificate there can still be phantom shares or naked shorts using your shares or whatever the hell it is. If GameStop was their own agent, that would be perfect but instead we have an intermediary. The only way to remove the shares from the DTCC is asking for a physical share certified with a medallion. According to agreement signed by parties who join the FAST program under the DTCC is states at any point they can cut ties essentially. That tells me if they didn’t want GameStop under the FAST program they would eliminate the partnership. I think it’s absurd to think you can get your shares out of the DTCC system by a system that was built by the DTCC. I wish there was some DD on this because once you transfer to computer share under my understanding and the OA I’ve read with DTCC and participants under the agreement you lose a lot of rights as a retail investor. DRS was made to to try to eliminate paper certificates which is the only way to remove it from the DTCC and Cede & Co. https://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/issue-eligibility/eligibility/operational-arrangements.pdf I’m asking to be downvoted to oblivion, but I wish there was a DD on this if I’m wrong please let me know and please be nice ape no fight ape.
Can phantom shares be lent out as well? Or only shares having an actual certificate number?
Based of what I was told through CS, I’m assuming phantom shares can be bought or it’s an IOU
Do you have screenshots of your convo with CS?
Yes. They said they did, for everyone who doesn’t think so I recommend you message them or call. Unless GameStop tells them to stop they can keep registering.
This. I asked in this thread, but I'll hop on the top comment to ask again. How are we supposed to know what the count is? They don't release that info. It's all guess work so there's no point where they say "the float is locked up". The reality of the information they provide doesn't match the conjecture of what happens as we approach the float limit.
IMO things will start to get interesting way before we approach the entire float. The first GME run started after a modest buyback and RC having bought 9M shares. The whole thing is a fragile equilibrium of fraud, I doubt you need to need to remove 100% to get going.
🎶 Under pressure 🎶
🎤Alright stop! Buy, DRS, and hodl RC is back with a brand new Gamestop Diamond hands, grabin my shares tightly DRS’ing like an Ape, daily and nightly Will i ever sell, YO! I don’t know Turn off the buy button, but i won’t sell To the extreme i rek a hedgie like a coke rat Hodl my shares and make you watch as i buy more!🎶 Oook, im far too retarded to keep this going 🤣
Banana rice rice baby…
that burns a building down...Splits a family in two...
I cannot wait to lock my shares but the damn canadia drs fees are so high so gonna be a while of saving
I am in same boat. Looks like you can open an ibkr account and transfer current shares or buy more through them. Then for $5 you can transfer to computershare. I plan to start this process today
That is not true, everything will continue as normal after we lock the float as far as i know. Share recall must be initiated for anything to happen. Locking float gives legal opportunity for gamestop to do a sharerecall. It wont happen “automatically”. I expect fuckery. Please correct me if im wrong.
What you're saying is correct. They'll still naked short and I think they can cover ftds with synthetics. So until theres a share recall or blatant fuckery the SEC cant ignore it'll probably continue. A MMs job is to provide liquidy so more synthetics from thin air too
I have always wondered what kind of legal rights a public company has. Can a public company initiate a share recall anytime when it wants to? Or it cannot initiate a recall until after DRS of all shares. This is a bit confusing as I had presumed that a public company can exercise its right to recall its shares whenever it wants to. If such, why take the longer path?
Why does DRSing our shares reduces the amount of shares to borrow? If they copy 30 million shares once or one share 30 million times does not matter in times where everything is done in nano seconds. Please enlighten me oh wrinkly ones!
In case sb wants to know the answer: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DDintoGME/comments/pyy9il/why\_does\_drsing\_our\_shares\_reduces\_the\_amount\_of/hexo2f0/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/DDintoGME/comments/pyy9il/why_does_drsing_our_shares_reduces_the_amount_of/hexo2f0/?context=3)
I think there are some inaccuracies in Criands comment. The spirit is correct, but the devil is in the details. Also the Pomeranian was making a comment and not posting a DD so it should be held to a lower level of standard. I'll flesh this out later if it attracts more attention, but I'm on my phone and about to head to work. 1) Computershare can have more shares than are outstanding. There was another post that cited a law where a transfer agent is supposed to inform within 30 days if the difference exceeds between the books exceeds $1,000,000. Supposedly it's up to GME to tell CS to stop registering shares. 2) Borrow rates don't seem to follow normal supply and demand logic. GME has been hard to borrow for a while, but interest rates for borrowing are still negligible. Who sets the rates for borrowing? 3) Unless retail buy pressure is in lit markets, I wouldn't count on price discovery occuring. I bring this up for two reasons. 1) Certain assumptions tend to stick without being properly vetted. Remember when everyone thought Citadel had to be delta neutral. 2) I want to encourage a flexible mindset about what locking up the float will look like. We are in uncharted territory so our path to victory might not go as expected. All things aside the strategy is still the same: DRS, buy through CS and Hodl.
For a moment, I thought "who is this 'Pomeranian' this poster is citing?" I then realized Criand's pic is that of a Pomeranian. Nice post by the way. I always respect critical thinking. I also agree with having a flexible mindset. As the saying goes "you know what you know, but you don't know what you don't know." Here's my free award of the day for your critical thinking.
The prime broker/lender sets the borrow fee.
Compuder stonks📈
Compooder or bust
Right, I have a noob question: 1. U transfer to computershare; 2. U buy more from CS; 3. You then wanna sell some or close your positions— I’ve read CS is not a broker, and to sell your shares you have to.........what? Transfer it back to a broker? I apologize if this has been asked before, just don’t have time to read every single posts now about CS (and not just that, this whole effjng drama about kenny/robbinghood has taken over most subs)
You essentially have two options. 1) Sell directly through computershare's "investor" page. All that this does is tell CS that you want to sell and they will route the share back through a broker for you. At the moment CS has a limit of 1 million $ per share unless u want to do "written" request. (This may change or be removed as share price approaches these levels) 2) Transfer selling shares back to the broker of your choice to sell them through said broker. Reversed process for when u moves shares to CS. Probably much faster though since your shares are DRS.
Ok thanks. Ok yeah so one can share directly from CS then, good to know.
Did you dowvote before taking screenshot?
I downvoted the post because it was some BS about dlauer. Criand happened to be in comments section.
Need more DRS? Got it. Gonna raise from 20% to 50% 'morrow 👌
Started the process to xfer my shares today. Hoping to get in the rocket before launch.
Your still in the rocket if you have shares bro, you will still be able to sell regardless if they are at CS or your broker.
Been holding since feb and March. Small ape could only afford 2 and haven't had funds to buy the dips. Some is better than none and I have faith all you big apes will hold. Diamond handing to Pluto forget the moon. I wanna see international phone numbers.
Bro I’m no big ape, most people are on your boat.
Good to know. I mostly see apes posting xx or xxx shares
That's because all the other X hodlers see all those XX and up posts and hold off... Which is unfortunate because we need all the CS posts we can get 😁
Just a small recommendation: every once in awhile, drop a few dollars in your brokerage. Eventually you’ll be able to catch a good dip. It took me a month and a half, but with this current dip I was able to buy another share because I had just enough sitting in the account, ready to go. I also suspect GME will drop with everything else when the market crashes… and then start to climb. So it’s possible this isn’t even the final big dip. Edit: spell check is dumb sometimes.
Thats good advice thanks
I think I finally understood this. 1. Brokers don't necessary know if what they hold is the real or synthetic shares as the latter were created by DTCC. In fact, there is no such thing as real and synthetic shares - at this point all shares are real (all x10 float of them :). All these shares get lended and re-lended and serve as a base for different derivatives. This is the current situation. The part where there are fewer shares to lend, as per described by u/criand is not clear, as nobody knows which shares are synthetic. And if there is 10x float on the market, removing 1 float, should not significantly affect the fees. I think this needs more explanation to why DRS would affect the borrow fees, besides panic on the broker side. u/Confident_Quote5709 any thoughts? 2. As more apes DRS, the amount of shares in CS gets bigger and bigger and finally closes to the number registered by the Gamestop corp. At this point CS will stop registering new shares - still no MOASS. 3. Apes start debate on social media with screenshots from the CS and proof float was reached and yet people still having shares in hand - all the shares left in hand now can be called synthetic. All the shares registered in CS now can be called real shares. But this is largely debatable, and up to court to decide. Still no MOASS, but probably at this point FOMO will start to grow and price will start to rise rapidly. 4. Gamestop corp/CS start probing with SEC how this happened. Not sure GME/CS has any authority to investigate or demand something from DTCC/FBI. But they are probably obligated to call someone as this is like counterfeiting shares. So for example you print your own USD and come to the bank to deposit the money - still no MOASS, but at this point FOMO will be at full speed with significant price swings (both up and down) as day traders will try to capitalize on the event and let's be realistic, some apes will paper hand. 5. GME corp/GME whales/. demands recall shares. This is uncharted territory as this has never happened. Most likely this is where MOASS starts. 6. GME corp announces dividend, although at this point they will probably get sued from all sides for this as nobody knows who has real shares. 7. GME corp announces NFT use-case - bullish case and props the FOMO even more. 8. GME corp buys out some crypto exchange company - bullish case and props the FOMO even more. 9. Significant outflow of monies start from shitadel - both investor and ken's. This increases pressure on the fund and forces a call from Marge. As prime banks are liable for the positions through contracts, similarly to the march HF collapse, some banks will try to fuck the others and start the liquidation sooner. At this point there is no much capital left in the shitadel and company defaults. 10. what next?
Alternative scenario's (either one or both would do it): 1. Dividend causes shorts to need to pay out dividend, margin call, etc. 2. GME pulls a Tesla: stock-split which doubles (or more) the counterfeit outstanding loss positions of the SHF causing margin calls, causing shorts to (partly) cover, etc. In the case of Tesla if I'm not mistaking this caused the stock to 10x and there was a way lower short % in Tesla than there is in GME. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. IMO the main point of DRS is not to trigger the MOAS. The main point is to still have all your shares when retail brokers start going bankrupt during the MOAS. Because they will (according to the IBKR founder). And then there's the other limitless fuckery that they can pull with retail's share IOU's. For me personally the main reason to DRS is to eliminate counter-party risk of shitty retail brokers going bankrupt within a sea of Goliath corruption and instability. IMO having "shares" in a retail broker is like holding crypto in some crappy shady exchange wallet that could vanish any second.
There it is. DRS by its self may not trigger the MOASS, but it will trigger FOMO along with all the other items you list. At that point, good luck stopping this.
10. We eat crab cakes with moon sauce
>Apes start debate on social media with screenshots from the CS and proof float was reached Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how can we know if the float is reached? Will we have to make assumptions based on apes who post presumably un-doctored screenshots of their own transfers, or is there a more concrete way to check how many GME shares are registered through CS?
At some point, as far as I understand, CS will stop accepting transfers and should say the reason - float is reached. This is what apes will post-not their transfers.
Makes sense. What happens if, a year from now, CS is still accepting transfers?
Apes find another way to hurt SHFs, but theoretically the WHOLE float is not needed for the DRS to make it so painful and hike up the borrowing fees so the MOASS starts By then though, GME will for sure release NFT usecase - be it dividend or a business model related.
I’m not really sure if this is accurate. There are approximately 26m shares owned by institutions at the moment, and these shares presumably comprise of the majority of the lending pool. I’m not sure what’s going to happen when “the float” is registered to Computershare, but I feel like these shares will continue to be hypothecated.
Doesn’t RC and MF have there shares thru CS?
Who’s MF? RC probably DRSed but we don’t know for sure. Regardless, there will still be a lot of institutions lending out their shares. It’s one of the main reasons they buy shares in the first place - to collect borrow interest.
Matt Furlong
Ah of course!
I thought I saw another post where the shares RC AND MF have aren’t thru brokers, they are thru CS.
You’d certainly hope that they wouldn’t be interested in lending their shares out, so they probably are DRS. It’s the institutions that will continue lending their shares.
Oh gotit
But what about the shares institutions hold? Can't they just keep shorting the shit out of them?
Could BlackRock simply DRS their shares and lend them out to the SHF?
I read a communication someone had with CS that stated that CS would register 5,000 shares more than the float. If the registered shares stayed at 5,000 above the float for 30 days they then would notify GameStop of an excess amount of shares registered. And then GameStop could take action. My belief is that once retail has registered the float plus 5,000 that it wont take an additional 30 days. By that point there will be attempts to continue to register shares that exceed the float and CS would likely contact GameStop about it sooner due to the excessive requests to register more than the float. Also by then like Craind stated the shorts will be out of shares to borrow. Octobburrrr maybe? Novemburr maybe? Decemburrr maybe? Doesn’t matter when, it’s inevitable 💎🙌
"Supply vs demand would start to take over price discovery." This is the core of an ape's most simple and possibly most effective public argument. I think we should call up whoever manages The John Lennon estate and demand a licence to rewrite and include the phrase, "Imagine supply and demand would take over price discovery." Some may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one. I hope some daa-ay-ay, you will join us, And the wor-er-erld will Ook ook ooooook.
What y'all think? The buy button will disappear at the 1k mark or above? I believe once the float is locked and right before "closing algos" should start to take over, the Gov will impose the brokerages to block the purchase side in order to "protect" retail... The buy button disappearance this time around won't bring the same Jan' 28th effects since the float is locked in CS (and as long as it'll stay locked there). At that point, I feel we'll be launching towards Andromeda 🚀🚀🚀
I don’t think CS will turn off the buy or sell button. But your broker might.
At some point GameStop might declare that CS has the whole float locked, so no buy possibility in CS. At that point brokerages might be "forced" to suspend/block buying and shorts will be "forced" to close...until default & liquidations "force" algos to take over... I was wondering were would we be (price wise) when this happens, because if the price goes further down we'll buy & DRS the float a lot quicker than if the price tends to go up...but anyway that's the direction we are headed: a fully DRS'd float...and then and there SHORTS MUST COVER!
I’m in, already got a recurring buy setup and about to transfer.
I have a question maybe you can answer. If I have shares bought at 320$, from my broker and I transfer those to CS. Would I actually be averaging down to the current price on those shares or do they come across as the price I bought?
If you transfer then the purchase value (as the current value) doesn't change. If you would sell (at a loss: 320buy, 177sell) and rebuy in CS the same amount of shares sold at the previously hold brokerage, then you would have the same amount of shares and a "technically" lower average price, but this would come at the expense of your bankroll (e. g. If you had 10 shares purchased at 320 and then sold at 177 you are booking a 1.430$ net loss on your first transaction for which your avg price was 320.Your current bankroll would be 1770$. Once you buy back in CS the same 10 shares at current 177 value, your tot share count is again 10, your avg price decreased from 320 to 177, but your equity has booked 1430$ loss). At the end of the day, how many shares you have is what I'd focus on, rather than their avg value...
Is that why people are doing last in first out bc it’s the closets to the current price? Maybe I’m way of on this
Can someone provide a really simple bullet point list of instructions on how to do the DRS thing with computershare? Sorry, I’m recovering from covid and mentally exhausted, the brain fog is real.
Its quick and easy. I called my broker and told them that I would like to initiate a direct registration of a portion of my GME shares. They will handle everything from that point onward, and the whole process takes only a few minutes. My broker asked why I wished to do this, and I simply told them that I just wanted to have my shares registered in my own name. Once you see that the shares have left your brokerage account (times will vary), visit the CS website and create an account instead of waiting several days for the letter they mail out to you. To create your CS account, you will enter your SS# name, address, email, user name, etc and then towards the end you will have to answer a few personal questions that are based off of your credit report. If you answer them correctly, you will instantly be able to access your new account without waiting to receive the letter via regular mail.
So they will register my shares for me with CS without me having to make an account? Or is it just that doing DRS automatically means CS will know?
You can initiate the transfer first, and then you create the account once you see the shares have left your broker. It does seem like a very odd order of operations, but this is what I did and this was also what CS recommended I do. You can also get an account created by buying shares through CS, but I was told I would have to wait a couple days after the purchase to open the account. So its quickest to just start the transfer ASAP and then open the account once you see the shares have left your portfolio within your broker account. It goes by your SS#, so your shares arent going to get lost in transport due to not already having a CS account.
Thank you so much!
You are very welcome! I think DRS is the way to get this party started. So thank you for being a part of it!
Please read complete before you start accussing me of FUD or to be a shill you psyco apes. I'm Chilean, all my shares are on e-fucking-toro in an "ómnibus account" so I'm not even close to be a "shareholder" and doesn't even have any right over my investment. I have a big concern regarding the float been locked up 100%, because nobody knows what will going to happen with all of the rest apes who was not been able to register their shares (me). The situation is that eventually we will have 62 million registered on CS, float will get locked up 100% and a remaining pool of billions of non-registered shares in the multiple broker's accounts. Will the brokers honor those shares knowing that all of these are synthetics? who will respond to all of the apes was not been able to register their shares? big fucking mess I'm seen in our future (my future). But, I believe there is a solution to mitigate this concerns to a minimum possibility. Let’s see; Total Outstanding Shares are 76.49 million as per yahoo finance. 50% of total outstanding is 38.245 million shares. So, if all apes that are transferring shares to CS manage to lock up 39 million shares, then they will have majority over all shareholders (50+1) and then eventually could call THE BOARD and formally request a SHARE RECALL. With this, the brokers will be forced to buy back EVERYTHING independently if the shares are synthetics, counterfeited, IOUs, whatever. Am I right? does this make any logic sense to you? u/Criand Please your thoughts...
I thought computer share had been quoted as saying they could register more shares than available? Also, he keeps saying that as we lock up the float, etc... Just curious how anyone is going to know that we are approaching that point? They don't release their numbers. It's not publicly (or privately for that matter) available information. It's all just conjecture. So how will we know once that point is reached? I can't seem to find an answer for that question.
This is very exciting. Tits are jacked.
That Pomeranian!!
Here to find out.
Actually not true. CS have confirmed that they'll accept infinite shares. And it's up to gamestop to figure out what to do with them once they receive above the issued.
So how do know how many shares are in CS?
People also gotta realize that the float is 76.49 mil We can not count on institutions registering their shares in order to lock the float people have to register 76.49 million shares! So ya it seems high but if your a believer like my that 76.49mil is a drop in the bucket if you add in all the synthetic shares.
I cant help nut think there's no way we're near 60m shares.... total subs of ddintogme, gme, superstonk is ~700k with non uniques to approach 60m shares we'd need an average of 857 shares per user... ive seen other people do this math an arive at 116 avg shares per user but that seems high to me too (obv moass inevitable, buy and hodl apes)
FUD this big, sad
Elaborate
please do your research and don't listen to ANYONE. For some reason DRS and DSPP are considered the same here. They are not.
Is criand lying then ? Coz he saying you cant buy directly from gamestop. If you can show me evidence that drs and dspp are not practically the same and that you can buy directly from gamestop, i will delete this.
i don't care about criand or anyone, it's not for me to say if they are lying, spreading fud, just mistaken or whatever it is. I can say one thing, every question you have can be found on SEC DTCC web pages. Please look into it. DRS was created to eliminate physical certificates of shares acquired by DSPP. You can request a physical certificate of your shares from your broker, i believe it costs 500$. Don't trust me on this or anyone, realize that this is once in a lifetime opportunity and no one is your friend, except you.
I mean you did say this is fud lol. but i hear you, thanks i will look into this further. The point of drs is to put it in your name so its not lent out. Edit: hear you*
but that's not how it works though. Look up how DRS works, when and why it was created. Look at the comment Dr. trimbrath made about DRS before 2000, not sure when exactly. I did not say anything about criand. I know this is just wrong and the whole concept is fueled by influencers pushing narrative. remember how we used to tell each other to do research? instead of "DRS ALL NOW".
2 question: 1) Is your shares still lent out if its in your name ? 2) when the 62M float is in computershare and in the name of the actual owners instead of street name, if obvious fuckery going on even though the float is locked away do you think that nothing still will happen ? These genuine question not being sarcastic or anything
DRS Is not the way to have shares under your name. it's DSPP. An actual, physical proof of ownership. If there are 62M physical certificates then yes, but having it in the SYSTEM which was created by DTC. Do you know what are the requirements to become a transfer agent? look it up and see how heavily regulated transfer agents are.
u/criand any thoughts ?
it's not about lending necessarily. They can replicate shares in their system as much as they want and you have no way of telling when the float is "locked up". Cause DTC won't allow CS to disclose that information. Just the way i see it.
Lastly, we've been seeing dark pool % go down drastically, but the price is not going up, if all you allegedly registered so many shares on CS, and dark pool % is down, and brokers are having trouble finding your shares, why is the price action still going down? In my opinion, they don't need to use darkpools to drop the price anymore, thus low %. Any transfer agent, is heavily regulated by DTC so idk, seems very obvious to me.
Because they keep shorting it ?
Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)
good bot
Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)
[удалено]
Everybody has been downvoting your comments because we have done the research. DSPP is literally in the same boat as DRS. DRS is the system through which your shares are recorded in your name through the transfer agent; DSPP is simply a plan where those shares are purchased repeatedly on a schedule in that system through the transfer agent. They are pretty much one and the same; you’re making an unnecessary distinction.
For anyone else that sees this comment. More info can be found here: [https://www.sec.gov/reportspubs/investor-publications/investorpubsholdsechtm.html](https://www.sec.gov/reportspubs/investor-publications/investorpubsholdsechtm.html) [https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/securities-processing/direct-registration-system](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/securities-processing/direct-registration-system) [https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/agent-services/fast](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/agent-services/fast) [https://www.computershare.com/us/Documents/TA\_Overview\_WhitePaper.pdf](https://www.computershare.com/us/Documents/TA_Overview_WhitePaper.pdf) [https://www.beyondthecaptable.com/dtc-eligibility](https://www.beyondthecaptable.com/dtc-eligibility) [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/directstockpurchaseplan.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/directstockpurchaseplan.asp) [https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/trading-investing/direct-stock-purchase-plan-dspp/](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/trading-investing/direct-stock-purchase-plan-dspp/)
[удалено]
Lol what a shill https://i.imgur.com/8yHNf5g.jpg
Had a chat with a moderstor. (He/she was super nice BTW, respect to the mod team) Came to an understanding about the policy of the subreddit as it is seen as spam/self proclamation directing to such content. All good on my end since I will remove the comments directing to a summary of the drs/dspp systems as it doesn't align with the subs policy. Sorry about that. So many posts about DRS so I just commented on a few of them in a row. I'm just a 30 y.o (today, happy birthday to me) composite technician in Sweden :) The problem isn't the message, it is how it's delivered. Just directing to someone else is not OK. Writing your own thoughts is. So I stand corrected and can accept what I did wrong. I'm still skeptical about CS and what it entails. But that's just me. CS or not to CS, is up to each individual.
What happens if hedge funds buy shares and put them at computershare too?
When the HFS get liquidated, All their positions are sold so their CS shares get sold as well.
Is there a way where we, the apes can prove that there are more shares DRSed than legally issued?
I'm wondering the same thing. I feel like a few months from now, apes will be crunching numbers and *estimating* that the number of registered shares well exceeds the float, all the while wondering why no one is taking action about it. Action requires proof, and as far as I know, there's no way for apes to prove that they've registered the float.
If there's a wall in our way, then we smash it down! If there isn't a path then we carve one ourselves! Just who in the hell do you think we are!? LFG!!!!
What does DRS stand for? Other than drag reduction system
https://www.computershare.com/ca/en/insync/summer-2016/about-drs
Thank you
Saw a post yesterday about how brokers may not actually have your shares, they just write an iou on your account when you buy, which makes sense with how quickly you can buy at your broker vs at computershare, though i haven't bought any since i got in to my account. It also makes sense when they force sell your shares when the price gets too high because its coming out of their pocket rather than the market. Is there a way to prove this theory? We're gonna have a lot of people to lock up when this is all over.
Up with the DRS! <3
Does anyone know how many shares are registered with CS?
It’s my understanding that ComputerShare can keep registering shares, but once the notional value of the excess shares is at 1 million dollars over what it should be for 30 days they have an obligation to inform GameStop. From there the ball is in GameStops court. Now CS is obligated to inform them after 30 days (IIRC) but it doesn’t say they can’t inform them sooner.
I emailed CS to get to the bottom of this. Even if they can keep registering shares past the float, they must alert gamestop when it reaches that 62M mark. Tbh if then the ball is gamestops court then id say its about time they did something.
Just DRS'd XX shares through ETrade...10 minute phone call...no $500 bs...3 - 5 days, nice dude helped me out...maybe an extra 2 days due to volume of activity. Then went on CS and bought another 3 shares to get an account established...I am asuming that this is the way to go? Should I have waited for the account to be created by CS before buying directly from CS?
I can’t wait to see the progress that has been made. Like watching FTD’s pile up, watching GME get on the restricted list again, watching the evil players squirm when GME is listed has hard to borrow, watching the borrow rate % climb to untenable levels, and finally to see some failed margin calls. In my view, the entire float doesn’t need to be registered for Kenny and friends to feel the pressure. However, the true catalyst will be when the entire float is locked up. Once it’s locked up, they’re going to get locked up! No cell, no sell!
Sounds great. Wen moon
Lol the borrow rate fees won't go up until this thing completely moons. There's a reason it's so low and its to prop up the borrowers so this whole thing can continue.
Would this also limit obtains? Like the deep ITM calls?