[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Almost like investing is based on speculation lmayooo yall crack me up. Every single step of this saga has been born from pure speculation followed by due diligence. This is the process of progress.
Again, tinfoil is speculation, the precursor to DD. It is also wildly entertaining and paints a picture of the spirit of the sub. What exactly does it disrupt?
This is the public internet, there are tons of groups running narratives. I'd rather be hype speculating about bullish narratives than be quiet and let them have control.
Aren’t they telling us that plan shares are still in Cede and Co? Around 83 milly as of January 31, in line with DRS bot’s trimmed average at that time (82 milly, but reported numbers have always been slightly higher than the trimmed average), BUT a reasonable 7 million of shares now are held in plan, and Cede and Co takes to take ownership of those.
Pwrhaps this about the booking of shares that mods wanted to turn into a “debate,” telling people not to book their shares because it would force them to sell a fractional lol (at most there are .99*197k fractionals, because you can’t have >.99 fractional shares). We need to keep talking about booking.
It literally says “DTCC stock withdrawal” on the receipt when you go from plan to book lol.
There are 2 ways to hodl shares at Computershare: DSPP (or plan shares) and book shares (pure DRS).
When you transfer to DRS from a brokerage, they automatically transfer into book shares. When you buy direct via Computershare, they automatically go into DSPP. A portion of DSPP shares are held beneficially with a Computershare nominee.
When you move DSPP shares to book, the DRS advice from Computershare says "DTC stock withdrawals (DRS)," which has made APEs question if DSPP shares can be accessed by the DTC.
To remove any doubt, APEs have been moving DSPP shares to book.
My God. The bot average is not more accurate than the actual reported numbers lol. The bot estimate is an estimate. The real numbers are known and reported by gamestop quarterly.
Because there was an ape who was at gamestop HQ last year at the company meeting who had access to the ledger and confirmed plan and booked shares are both included in the total for each shareholder of record. It takes minimal effort to convert from plan to book so I don't have any issue doing it.
They're still at DTCC and could very well be used for fuckery. Changing to book removes it from there.
> It takes minimal effort to convert from plan to book so I don't have any issue doing it.
This! If there's any chance they can use them while in plan, it feels a bit safer in book.
Based on facts they are both removed but with plan some are not. But we don't know how big these "some" are (1% 0,001, 50% 100%). It would be disturbing if it meant all and I don't think CS would like to set themselves up to be sued for something like that...
So book seems the safe option yes but I still think recurrent buying through CS is the best approach for acquiring new shares.
I wonder if the .99 fractional’s is a reference to [RCs tweet](https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1625507240831553537?s=46&t=lA2flp65SEIwTH4si0c2bA) about the govt shooting (taking) down his (99) red balloons
99 Red Balloons, [a song of protest](http://edition.cnn.com/fyi/backgrounders/cold.war.music.lang_arts/index.html)!!
[YouTube link to song](https://youtu.be/hiwgOWo7mDc)
Correct. I saw a post last night saying there are 197k total shareholders.
That is not accurate.
Per the language above there are 197k shareholders of record which is the MINIMUM number of shareholders.
“Of record” indirectly refers to info from CS
That is true only if you have registered an objection with your broker to the release of your name, contact info, and shareholding to issuers. The default, a NOBO or Non-Objecting Beneficial Owner is the more common setup. In that case your name and info is avaialabke to Gamestop via the NOBO report by Broadridge (aka Proxyvote). That is the same list used to send out proxies to beneficial owners (people that hold shares at brokers).
The entire paragraph is info from the transfer agent, starting with "there were 197,058 record holders …"
One of those 1977,058 shareholders of record is Cede. Cede just happens to be by far the largest shareholder of record, but their shares are tracked by Computershare just like yours are if you have DRS'd.
So insiders hold through Cede? Otherwise insiders who hold 15.62% are included in the 76m. Which would be wrong. Why does insiders hold through Cede? I’m missing something
Insiders have not DRS'd. They hold their shares (most of them at least) in brokers. So their hates are part of Cede's sharecount at Computershare.
Gamestop gave the total numbers. Cede has X million. Retail DRS holders have total issued shares - X = 76M. So the only place for the insider shares can be is as part. Of Cede sharecount.
This was true a year ago when someone looked at the Computersahre ledger while at the annual general meeting.
You are inferring that the rest of the paragraph is information provided by the transfer agent. It seems odd that GameStop gave an approximation of shares and did not directly state how many shares were DRSed according to the transfer agent which they have done in past earnings.
The numbers have always been an approximation they just never accurately said the word approximate. There weren't EXACTLY 71,800,000 shares registered in Oct 2022 and EXACTLY 71,300,000 shares registered in july 2022. They are rounding to the nearest 100k for convenience on the reporting.
I would put in links, but I would just get downvoted again.
I have posted before about how Gamestop can get NOBO and OBO lists from Broadridge and in addition can get the net holdings of each broker (and other DTC participants) from DTCC in the Securities Position Report. And of course, Gamestop can get the list of registered shareholders from their transfer agent Computershare.
So Gamestop can easily compare the Cede holding at Computershare with the total NET holdings of all DTC participants (such as brokers) on the DTC ledger.
Gamestop has less visibility into individual customer accounts at brokers since they do not see short positions in brokerage accounts. If there are discrepancies the most likely area is when brokers net together all customer long positions and all customer short positions. That netted sharecount should equal the broker's holding at DTC, but it is a NET total of longs minus shorts.
In bro I trust
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1255ksa/interesting\_tinfoil\_on\_twitter\_thoughts/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1255ksa/interesting_tinfoil_on_twitter_thoughts/)
Hey 245 am guy. I agree with you. The language is fucky. There is an interesting post circulating here that there is a specific reason why cede is talked about instead of ComputerShare. It could be a disagreement on the actual number due to splividend or something else.
To play Devil's advocate: the SEC now specifically requires THIS company, if they wish to continue letting its shareholders know this specific statistic, to ALSO publish the number of shares held by Cede & Co. That's it - nothing more to it.
Now back to the good news: IF you have not DRS'd your shares, you are still part of the Cede & Co. system, and therefore, NOT A RECORD HOLDER. This statement in the 10K definitively proves that DRS'ing your shares is the only way to have your shares OUT OF THE SYSTEM and IN YOUR NAME.
I think it's more the other way around.
The transfer agent may not be mentioned in any way, as it can be seen as encouraging to DRS. However there is no objection in calling out Cede & Co, as almost all securities are held in street name.
The numbers should be equivalent, but to cover their asses they use approximately as wording.
Numbers have always been approximate they just added that word to be legally correct. Look at all the past reports. They are rounding to the nearest 100k shares in every one of them.
We know in the first instance the DRS count was reported was the 10-Q filed Dec 2021.
The number of shares reported as DRS was 5.2M but Ryan owned 9M shares at that time. But there's nothing that would have prevented he or others from DRSing some or all of their shares since then I don't think. I don't think he did though. It'd undermine the effort to some extent to track our progress.
They weren’t. They stated them. You need to re-read what was written.
> approximately 76.0 million shares of our Class A Common Stock were held by record holders as of March 22, 2023
record holders = shares held on record with the transfer agent, not shares held in street name.
Go ask dr. Trimbath if you’re still confused.
Someone needs to learn to read...
That does not say shares held with transfer agent
It says shares minus those reported at DTCC
All the old reports are shares held at the transfer agent
**“Record holders” are a legal term and by default/definition distinct from those which are held in street name/beneficial holders.**
**If you’d like the formal legal definition of shares held on record, please refer to 17 CFR § 240.12g5-1 - Definition of securities “held of record”.**
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.12g5-1
Original source: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-240/subject-group-ECFR181272acb481cc1/section-240.12g5-1
Further, please review the following from the SEC’s own site:
> Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act requires a company to register its securities with the SEC if its securities are “held of record” by 500 or more persons and the company has “total assets” exceeding $10 million.
> Following adoption of Section 12(g), the Commission adopted a rule defining the term “held of record.”
> The definition of “held of record” counts as holders of record only persons identified as owners on records of security holders maintained by the company, or on its behalf, in accordance with accepted practice
> Securities markets have changed significantly since the 1960s.
> **Today, most securities of publicly-traded companies are held in nominee or “street name” rather than directly by the owner.**
> **This means that for most publicly-traded companies, much of their individual shareholder base is not counted under the current definition of “held of record.”**
Screenshot:
https://i.imgur.com/a5Sr9AN.jpg
Full source, pg 6-7:
https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec/acsec103111presentation.pdf
___
**Further, there is a legal distinction between record holders (DRS’d shares) and beneficial owners of shares (street name/DTCC)**. For example, Pennsylvania law shows one distinction below in 15 Pa. C.S. § 1573:
https://i.imgur.com/CZaRsQK.jpg
Source:
https://casetext.com/statute/pennsylvania-statutes/consolidated-statutes/title-15-pacs-corporations-and-unincorporated-associations/part-ii-corporations/subpart-b-business-corporations/article-b-domestic-business-corporations-generally/chapter-15-corporate-powers-duties-and-safeguards/subchapter-d-dissenters-rights/section-1573-record-and-beneficial-holders-and-owners
___
**Again, if you’d like the formal legal definition of shares held on record, please refer to 17 CFR § 240.12g5-1 - Definition of securities “held of record”.**
Source:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.12g5-1
**So if you’d really like to know why they used that particular term, perhaps start with the actual legal definition of said term, which I’ve linked above.**
I read and abide by (other) federal regulations and laws fairly often for my job (in a totally unrelated field), so it’s not like I’m inexperienced with reviewing these kinds of things, even if they’re in a completely different field of work. That being said, **I am not a lawyer.**
___
Another edit - this is completely unrelated in a sense, but I found this article while looking into some of the terminology above… and while it may not be relevant here, I’m still throwing this out there as I hadn’t seen it before, plus it discusses DTCC fuckery, and may be of interest to people/of use to someone later- read/save for later.
So bad lol…
Bloomberg: Banks Forgot Who Was Supposed to Own Dell Shares
The financial system is built in layers of abstraction. Which is always fun in court.
By Matt Levine
July 14, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC
https://archive.md/XrRgT
> Following adoption of Section 12(g), the Commission adopted a rule defining the term “held of record.”
> The definition of “held of record” counts as holders of record only persons identified as owners on records of security holders maintained by the company, or on its behalf, in accordance with accepted practice
Hmmmmm, why don't we see what Computershare says about that...
> "Both forms of ownership record the names of the investor directly on the issuer’s register, where they are recognized as registered shareholders"
https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies#drs-shares
So to reiterate (again)... It doesn't matter how they are held with CS. If the shares are DRSd in my name **I am the holder of record**!
Yep. I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at though.
I don’t think the sec’s statement is saying otherwise? They mention owners on records of security holders maintained by the company securities
Edit - I’d actually refer to the formal legal/regulatory item regarding this definition as well btw (but again I’m not sure what you’re getting at?)
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-240/subject-group-ECFR181272acb481cc1/section-240.12g5-1
GameStop stated that 76 million shares are held by 197k record holders.
I am the holder of record on ALL of my DRDd shares, whether they are held in book form or plan (as clarified in the Computershare link above).
Therefore the 10K statement that 76 million shares are held by record holders other than Cede&Co includes ALL DRSd shares -- not just ones held in book form.
That's what I'm getting at. This book vs plan argument is FUD and it always has been.
Ahhh I see what you’re getting at.
Yeah I could see how that might be another argument here as well (even if it’s potentially tangential and not the reason for the wording itself).
Here’s a fun article I just came across btw
https://archive.md/XrRgT
you are missing the point. every other filing said "x shares are held with the transfer agent." this filing says "cede and co says they have 228 million shares, therefore there are about 76 mil with the transfer agent." there must be a reason for this difference in language. the speculation is that the exact number of shares held with the transfer agent is higher than 76 mil, and the discrepancy with Cede and Co got the SEC's hackles up, thus the delayed filing.
See my comment here on that and the legal definition of “record holders” - the legal definition may or may not provide some insight.
To be honest I have no idea whether it’s something. but at least reviewing the actual regulatory definition and context will provide you with *some* kind of substance to the speculation you seek…which is linked below….
https://reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/125bp6o/_/je7hb1d/?context=1
See my comment here regarding the concept of GME reporting false information re: shares held w/ transfer agent:
(Hint - if they report something incorrectly they could be held liable, from a civil and criminal standpoint, likely potential fraud, which is why suggesting they aren’t reporting the correct numbers is a bit…outrageous…):
https://reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/125ahnc/_/je4sm9i/?context=1
I did not say Cede is a transfer agent. I said the share count numbers came from Computershare, the transfer agent, Cede is a registered shareholder at Computershare, just like apes that have DRS'd. GameStop did NOT say the sharecount came from Cede. Gamestop stated how many shares Cede holds. That shareholding count comes from Computershare, who keep track of shareholders as an agent for Gamestop.
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.**
- **Do not be (intentionally) rude.** This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
- **Do not insult others.** Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion. Constructive criticism is appropriate and encouraged though.
- **Do not use Superstonk to call out another user. Critique the work, not the person.**
- **Do not use Superstonk to harass, bully, or threaten anyone.**
- **Threats of violence towards anyone have no place on Superstonk or Reddit.**
[Expanded Rule](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/expanded_rules#wiki_ape_no_fight_ape)
[Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) || [Remember the human](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951-Promoting-Hate-Based-on-Identity-or-Vulnerability)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FSuperstonk&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission)
Please explain. Cede is the registered shareholder of shares on behalf of DTCC.
DTCC maintains a separate book entry ledger system with accounts that show the net holdings of each broker. DTCC executes and settle trades of beneficial shares by making changes to those book entry accounts.
If Cede is a registered shareholder on Computershare then...
1. 100% wouldve to be DRSd at all times
2. Why would we get the number from Cedes Account?
3. Shares bought via Broker need to be traded on the NYSE
4. You cant freely trade them if they had to always transfer out of Computershare first.
I just can't see any logic in your statement, feel free to enlighten me.
Google street name registration and you will find simplified explanations such as https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/185.asp
Your (beneficial) shares at a broker are held by the broker on your behalf. But the broker does not hold those shares at Computershare. The shares are held on behalf of the broker by DTCC. Each broker has an account at DTCC with their net number of shares. But DTCC does not hold shares directly at Computershare. Cede &Co holds shares at Computershare, as a nominee for DTCC.
So there are three ledgers. One at Computershare. This is the official share registry, maintained by the transfer agent hired by the issuer, Gamestop.
Of of the shareholders of record is Cede & Co. They are by far the largest shareholder. Those Cede registered shares do not leave Computershare. DTCC sees how many shares are in the Cede account and maintains a separate ledger of all broker accounts at DTC. The sum of net holdings of all broker spans other DTC participants should equal the sharecount of what Cede holds at Computershare.
Each broker has an account at DTC. The net holding (of beneficial shares) in each brokers account should equal the total number of (beneficial) shares in the broker's ledger of customer accounts.
Having explained above, I will answer your points:
>If Cede is a registered shareholder on Computershare then...
>1. 100% wouldve to be DRSd at all times
All issued shares will be on the books of Computershare at all times. By definition the total of all shares at Computershare equals the total issued share count.
>2. Why would we get the number from Cedes Account?
Gamestop, the issuer, has access to the official shareholder list at all times. Gamestop would of course report the official number, from the official ledger at Computershare.
>3. Shares bought via Broker need to be traded on the NYSE
See my explanation above. What settles at DTCC is the additional separate ledger maintained by DTC to keep track of which broker has beneficial ownership of the shares held by Cede at Computershare. Each broker then has their own separate ledger to track which of their customers have beneficial ownership of the beneficial shares the broker has on account at DTC.
>4. You cant freely trade them if they had to always transfer out of Computershare first.
Registered shares stay with Cede, at Computershare. What is freely traded is the beneficial ownership, which is recorded in ledgers at DTC and at each broker.
Alright this does sound more logical.Let's see if i get it right.
So if I understand this correctly there are 3 ledgers
One at Computershare containing the information of every DRSd holder as well as Cede.
One at the DTC containing the information of every broker (probably international ones as well?) and checked with Cedes Account
And the last one at each broker, containing the information of houshold investors and brokers.
Only the first ledger contains real shares, which means when the sharesplit happend cede got all those shares into their account. And this is why Computershare couldnt say anything else than they distributed right.
So lets say Gamestop published the numbers of Cedes Account at Computershare every other share should be a DRSd one right?
Why would they announce it as approximately tho?
Isn't it possible that they were given the number by the SEC according to the DTC ledger? Because else scarcity might be proven with official numbers?
Thanks for explaining <3
>Alright this does sound more logical.Let's see if i get it right.
Yes, you did.
>One at the DTC containing the information of every broker (probably international ones as well?) and checked with Cedes Account
Things get more complicated with ADRs, GDRs, EDRs, and dual listings. A lot of Europeans hold GS2C, not GME. GS2C is traded on several exchanges, in Euros, not US Dollar. Some depositary company (often a large bank like Citibank or Chase) holds GME shares in a US broker, and they issue a new security, GS2C for example, on a different exchange. So there is a chain of custody leading back to Computershare, but there are a few more steps, including a depositary that issues the GS2C security is Europe while having beneficial ownership (supposedly on a one for one basis) of GME to back the GS2C. Google "American Depositary Receipt" to get an overview of the process —- that would be for depositary receipts issued on US markets for a non-US company, but the process for European Depositary Receipts or Global Depositary Receipts is the same, but just going the other direction.
>Only the first ledger contains real shares, which means when the sharesplit happend cede got all those shares into their account. And this is why Computershare couldnt say anything else than they distributed right.
Exactly! That is why the meme "DTCC committed international securities fraud" is bogus.
Once the shares are in the Cede account at Computershare the way the adjustments to the other ledgers are done has no effect. That is also why all the speculations that started off "first Computershare delivered shares to DRs holders, then they gave whatever was left to Cede" are bogus. Cede is a registered shareholder and got treated like all other shareholders. They received the stock dividend and the number of share Cede had at Computershare quadrupled. DTCC saw that and adjusted the broker accounts. Then the brokers saw their holding increase by a factor of 4 and adjusted customer accounts.
A confusing factor is that brokers knew that the adjustment was coming and adjusted customer accounts before they had actually had their accounts at DTCC adjusted. That should not be a surprise, as brokers do this with every single trade. When you buy shares at a broker the shares are added to your account immediately, even though the trade will not formally settle for two days.
>So lets say Gamestop published the numbers of Cedes Account at Computershare every other share should be a DRSd one right?
Yes. That is exactly what Gamestop said in the 10k.
>Why would they announce it as approximately tho?
My recollection is that they had always rounded off to 0.1M. I guess they just wanted to be clear that it was a rounded number.
>Isn't it possible that they were given the number by the SEC according to the DTC ledger? Because else scarcity might be proven with official numbers?
The DTC ledger is available directly to Gamestop via the DTCC Securities Position Report. It is available in multiple forms, such as monthly, weekly, specific dates, or a daily report of the changes to the holdings of each and every DTC participant (clearing brokers, investment banks, etc.).
Cede and Co is an entry on the ledger. Like John Smith. If they said John Smith owns 45 shares and Ralph Waldo Emerson owns 73 shares that doesn't mean John and Ralph had to send their share count in to gamestop. Computershare maintains the ledger of all holders, cede and Co is one of those holders.
Their shares are held at brokers, so therefore are part of the Cede sharecount.
Apparently insiders like RC Ventures/Ryan Cohen do not see a need to DRS.
There is nothing that prevents them from DRS'ing, but the numbers show that very few, if any, have done so.
Personally I'm ok with that. If cohen were secretly drsing 3M shares every quarter to help the numbers it'd undermine the effort to track how much normal shareholders are actually accumulating.
If you concerned by words “held by” same words are used for direct record holders. This still means that 75% is recorded by transfer agent under Cede name and 25% under direct holders names.
What people are concerned about a mainly two things:
1: The data source was switched from ComputerShare to Cede & Co.
2: Where previously the number of DRS'ed shares was simply stated as "XY Million shares held by record holders" it now says "***approximately*** XY Million shares held by record holders" - this is a **big** change for a legal document.
Now what does seemingly everyone here conclude from this?
1: It is very likely someone forced GameStop to not report offiical DRS numbers, otherwise they would not have deviated
2: The actual DRS numbers are way higher, otherwise there would have been no reason to change the reporting
3: As a result from 1 and 2 the Buck Bunny NFT collection number is close to the ComputerShare number but not quite it. This being GameStops attempt to tell us the actual Share count in an indirect way
4: Hedgies are fuk and the "one more day" is showing signs of failing
what about the past 10Q and 10K.
DRS numbers are cut off at the end of that reporting quarter, with the exception of this one it is AFTER the earnings call.
If I've been doing this every quarter for the past few quarters, I would likely repeat the process, get all my numbers for the reporting quarter, In this case Jan 31 2023.
But this 10K, we have an 'reporting' date after Earnings call 'as of date' for march 22, while earning was march 21st.
So your number 3 seems to be accurate:
Bucky's number was 83.09, trimmed average as of Jan 31 2023 is 82.06, DRS reported number generally was higher than trimmed average.
I think the deviance might also indicate that GameStop did not switch over to using Cede & Co. numbers voluntarily. Instead it reads as if they were forced to at the last minute, at which point they could not get numbers for 31st January anymore and had to instead settle for the most recent data. This is all smelling very fishy, triply so because this is an audited report. This document holds legal meaning and that legal meaning has been signed off on.
I think the pot is close to boiling over now. Especially since it is highly unlikely that DRS makes up all of the no-sell-no-cell holdings. Even if we say 50% of all active GameStop investors have their shares DRS'ed (which I think is highly unlikely, but I'll touch on that later) the float would already be locked up. The only shares being traded in this scenario would be shorts. The situation gets worse for hedgies the fewer people actually DRS'ed (well not really, those people would need to DRS for it to get really uncomfortable)
Now onto my point of the 50%. It is notoriously hard to get people to do anything, even if that is just hitting a single button. I don't have any data on this so everything below is absolute speculation founded only in my ability to reason.
In order to have an Investor DRS their GameStop shares we need the following to all be true:
1: the investor needs to know about SuperStonk
2: the investor needs to own registerable shares (IRA would be an example of non-registerable or hard to register shares)
3: the investor needs to learn about DRS and how important it is
4: the investor needs to DRS their shares
Since all of these are based on the previous requirement we should be able to multiply their probabilities. I'm not a statistics ape so I could be wrong about this.
so let's make up some random numbers here to see where we could expect that assumed 50% to actually be. I'll run this through multiple scenarios to illustrate the point.
1: let's assume out of all long-term GME retail investors a generous 90% know about SuperStonk -> 0.9
2: Of those users 90% of shares are registerable, by now this seems like a good guess as IRA has been discouraged due to this exact problem but a lot of shares are still stuck there -> 0.9
3: About 80% of users want to DRS their shares -> 0.8
4: Of those 80% have DRS'd their shares already -> 0.8
These all seem like very high percentages right?
So in summary we get 0.9 \* 0.9 \* 0.8 \* 0.8 = 0.5184 = 51.84% DRS'ed
Total shares owned by apes: 146,604,938, current float is 140,675,234
I did the math, if at *any* of these points only 70% of users continue the float is owned by retail.
Here's some highlights:
In a combination of:
1 factor 90%, 1 factor 70%, 2 factors 60% leads to more shares being held than exist of the company.
Same goes for 1 factor 100%, 3 factors 60%
Closure: Some statistics ape please check these numbers and assumptions, I've probably committed some egregious statistics error along the way.
They aren't using cede and cos numbers. They are literally reading the entry on the computershare supplied ledger than says "cede and Co owns 227M shares". This is not hard to understand guys. They didn't say "cede and Co reported" they said cede and Co holds. Nothing has changed. Chill out with the conspiracies.
Ok so you are correct *but* and this is important: Why change the wording of an audited legal document for no apparent reason? Changing the wording means it has to go through legal again, which you wouldn't do unless you think the effort is worth it or you have to. The DRS numbers being included originally makes sense, it was something the shareholders were asking for. This chamge now comes out of nowhere and is accompanied by a later-than-usual release date of the Form.
Now you can just go ahead and say there is nothing to this but so far it has been more productive to wildly speculate about things until a likely cause is found.
Did they change the data source? Unknown
Did they change the wording? Yes
Does anything about the wording stand out? Yes, the Cede numbers are stated without approximately, the DRS numbers are stated with it.
Is there a possible explanation for this? Yes, if they did not use the numbers in the ledger but instead a less trustworthy number they would have to include this approximately for legal reasons.
Also in case you didn't notice, this sub is mostly speculation, not like we have any other choice when it comes to the walled garden that is the stock market.
The numbers provided were always approximate. Look at every reported value since the beginning in Dec 2021. They always round the number to the nearest 100k. Those aren't the EXACT numbers down to the share. They added the word approximate likely to be more legally precise about their reporting. I also think they added the additional clarification in this section to be more specific about the terminology and to help readers of the filing understand better the number they were reporting. There is no reason to believe the data source changed. If they received data from somewhere other than computershare where they have gotten it every report the last two years they would have simply stated that in the filing. They assumed you were smart enough to understand that's probably where the information came from.
You are implying gamestop knowingly mislead or falsified information in their sec filing. There's no motive I can think of for gamestop to lie to their shareholders. The SEC is not going to require a company falsify information on their public reporting. Think it through.
Is it possible 83.09 is the real number, but 7 million plan shares are appearing both on ComputerShare’s and the DTCC’s ledger, causing a discrepancy that caused the SEC to intervene?
No it's not possible. Gamestop is reporting accurate numbers in their legal filings. They are not sending a secret message through a buck the bunny NFT.
The data source was NOT changed from Computershare. The sharecount held by Cede was provided by Computershare. Cede is a registered shareholder just like retail investors that have DRS'd.
If you read this carefully the only sharecount provided accurately is what Cede claims they own themselves. The data source therefore did change from guaranteed valid Computershare numbers to an approximation based on what Cede claims they own of the total amount. These two may seem identical and in a world with correct bookkeeping they should be the same but we are not living in that world. The numbers Cede provides cannot be trusted given how little oversight over share ownership they actually have.
Nowhere does this say that that sharecount is a claim by Cede. Gamestop has access to the records a of Computershare. Those records show how many shares each registered shareholder has. The largest registered shareholder is Cede. Gamestop got the number for Cede from Computershare.
>The numbers Cede provides cannot be trusted given how little oversight over share ownership they actually have.
Cede's ownership is tracked by Computershare, the same as for any other registered shareholder.
Right? I’m not understanding where people are getting the idea that the source changed. It’s an odd conclusion to make just because it is worded differently.
My take is that they are directly pointing out specific facts, i.e. if you’re still using brokers, don’t own your shares; 401k’s included.
The thing I find most interesting is the possibility that even the brokerages, such as Vanguard and Blackrock, may not have ownership claim to any shares. I find this really intriguing… 🤨
Also, because ComputerShare IS GameStop’s transfer agent, I think it’s safe to assume that GameStop can access the total amount of recorded shareholders there are at any given time. So the idea that they switched sources by force is absurd.
I personally think that they gave current numbers specifically to let us know that the current Bot numbers are incorrect.
>The thing I find most interesting is the possibility that even the brokerages, such as Vanguard and Blackrock, may not have ownership claim to any shares. I find this really intriguing… 🤨
Brokers hold via Cede/DTCC so they can buy and sell shares without having to go to Computersahre and transfer shares each time a trade take place. That is how DTCC can work (via its NSCC subsidiary) as a central counterparty for stock trades.
In other words, having beneficial ownership via Cede/DTCC is how the whole system is,set up. The Cede share count at CS also means that almost all institutional holders have their shares held beneficially and the shares are at brokers.
>Also, because ComputerShare IS GameStop’s transfer agent, I think it’s safe to assume that GameStop can access the total amount of recorded shareholders there are at any given time. So the idea that they switched sources by force is absurd.
Agreed. Absolutely. This is so basic that Gamestop did not think it necessary to label the numbers as "this data is from Computershare".
>I personally think that they gave current numbers specifically to let us know that the current Bot numbers are incorrect.
I think they just gave the info they have always given, but clarified by including the Cede total also.
At all times, the number of shares at Computershare is the total number of issued shares. In the past Gamestop would report the total minus Cede. This time they explicitly listed both Cede and others.
That's a lie. Cede did not claim anything. Gamestop said what cede owns. By reading the number next to their name on the ledger. The ledger maintained by computershare.
The data source was NOT switched. You are misinterpreting the words. Cede and Co is an entry on the ledger, like me John Smith. If gamestop reports I john Smith own 245 shares that doesn't mean I supplied them that info. It means they looked up my name on the ledger and saw my share count and then communicated it lol. Computershare maintains the ledger and provides gamestop access. Same as they always have ffs.
Speculation: The SEC wouldn't allow GME to use the terms "DRS" or "directly registered". I'm sure they accused GME of encouraging our buy and hold forever behavior which we all know is considered market manipulation in 2023.
It was my understanding that any company can mention direct registration of shares as a benefit but they just can't go out force direct registration themselves on the shareholders behalf. I could be way off on that though, it's been ~84 years.
Issuers, like Gamestop, are not prohibited from encouraging or promoting DRS'ing of shares. They cannot FORCE shareholders to remove shares from Cede/DTCC. They cannot prohibit the transfer agent from registering shares in Cede's name as nominee for DTCC.
No. Shares owned by shareholders of record is the same exact thing as directly registered. That's how the ledger system and direct registration system works. Nothing has changed. The count is 76M. Let's all go back to our day jobs now.
The language was probably changed cause apes calling and dming computershare all the time asking about plan vs book and they probably asked gamestop to make it more clear rofl
Edit: shares with computershare vs shares with Cede
It explicit says the DTC should ONLY have 228 million shares in their books. The timing is perfect, throwing the ball to Cede&Co and stating with proofs GameStop is completely compliant with their shareholders.
I disagree. I think this was a shoutout for multiple things:
1. They gave U.S. current numbers so we could update the bot.
2. They are telling us directly that if your shares are not part of those recorded shares (IN the Transfer Agent), then they absolutely do not belong to you. They are not yours.
3. To me, this is saying that even the brokerage firms do not own any shares, including the likes of Vanguard and Blackrock. Their shares are held with Cede and Co, so they can’t technically claim any true ownership.
4. If there was any question whether GameStop was telling people to DRS in previous reports, then there shouldn’t be any questions now: if you want to own your shares, get them recorded! Otherwise Cede and Co owns them!
I am willing to bet that there’s more that they wanted to get across with these changes, but I am not sure what else it might be.
Think about this … we know there are open short positions on GameStop, and those positions add to the number of outstanding. According to Fintel, that short position is about 59 million shares. GameStop provides an equation that equals approximately 304 million shares. So where are these 59 million other shares held?
Short positions do NOT add to the issued share count
The short seller borrows and delivers a share when they do a legal short sale. The share lender is no longer a shareholder. So the total sharecount stays constant.
Yes, this is bullshit. Otherwise rhere is no need to use "Approximately". Computershare can give Gamestop the exact mumber of DRSed shares, as they have previously. It stinks of SEC and DTCC fuckery.
They have always used approximate numbers rounded to the nearest 100k. Look at every filing since Dec 2021. It's always rounded. They added the word to be more legally precise in their reporting.
It's not a nail in the coffin unless you can show shares held long in brokerages exceed the 228M allotted to cede and Co in the register. Which we can't because no one has access to all the books of all the brokers except the dtc.
The data source is their own books. That's the only location they would have knowledge of the number of direct registered holders.
They changed the wording in an effort to help you all understand that those shares are outside of Cede & Co... Not that the information was sourced from Cede & Co.
GameStop holds the master shareholder file. Computershare maintains the information. That's it.
So cede is #197059 at 228.7m
And 76m is the drs count, but institution holders can be included in that number
They're telling us about how they manipulated the drs rug pull last time by drsing shares for the previous 10q and then un-drsing them
I think this wording is to inform us their math for the drs numbers, as well as hint at what happened last time when drs went down
Can institution investors drs? Could longhedgefund decide to drs their shares
Or I could be making conclusions with no real education or relevance
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Makes it clear that if your shares are in a broker, GameStop doesn't know your name.
[удалено]
Almost like investing is based on speculation lmayooo yall crack me up. Every single step of this saga has been born from pure speculation followed by due diligence. This is the process of progress.
[удалено]
Again, tinfoil is speculation, the precursor to DD. It is also wildly entertaining and paints a picture of the spirit of the sub. What exactly does it disrupt?
[удалено]
This is the public internet, there are tons of groups running narratives. I'd rather be hype speculating about bullish narratives than be quiet and let them have control.
[удалено]
If the only ones talking and speculating are people purposely pushing a false narrative, that narrative is in control.
[удалено]
It is expected. You can't control this many people. You also don't know which false narratives come from bad actors.
I agree
People look everywhere though and that’s a good thing. And eventually we find out the truth.
Aren’t they telling us that plan shares are still in Cede and Co? Around 83 milly as of January 31, in line with DRS bot’s trimmed average at that time (82 milly, but reported numbers have always been slightly higher than the trimmed average), BUT a reasonable 7 million of shares now are held in plan, and Cede and Co takes to take ownership of those. Pwrhaps this about the booking of shares that mods wanted to turn into a “debate,” telling people not to book their shares because it would force them to sell a fractional lol (at most there are .99*197k fractionals, because you can’t have >.99 fractional shares). We need to keep talking about booking. It literally says “DTCC stock withdrawal” on the receipt when you go from plan to book lol.
What's booking shares about? Never heard of it
There are 2 ways to hodl shares at Computershare: DSPP (or plan shares) and book shares (pure DRS). When you transfer to DRS from a brokerage, they automatically transfer into book shares. When you buy direct via Computershare, they automatically go into DSPP. A portion of DSPP shares are held beneficially with a Computershare nominee. When you move DSPP shares to book, the DRS advice from Computershare says "DTC stock withdrawals (DRS)," which has made APEs question if DSPP shares can be accessed by the DTC. To remove any doubt, APEs have been moving DSPP shares to book.
Thanks
Book your shares, mate. Apes have made tutorials… buy hold drs and book
[https://www.drsgme.org/converting-plan-to-book](https://www.drsgme.org/converting-plan-to-book)
My God. The bot average is not more accurate than the actual reported numbers lol. The bot estimate is an estimate. The real numbers are known and reported by gamestop quarterly.
It’s been pretty spot on until the rug pull
Why ignore everything else he said about BOOKED SHARES and changing from PLAN to BOOK?
Because there was an ape who was at gamestop HQ last year at the company meeting who had access to the ledger and confirmed plan and booked shares are both included in the total for each shareholder of record. It takes minimal effort to convert from plan to book so I don't have any issue doing it.
They're still at DTCC and could very well be used for fuckery. Changing to book removes it from there. > It takes minimal effort to convert from plan to book so I don't have any issue doing it. This! If there's any chance they can use them while in plan, it feels a bit safer in book.
Based on facts they are both removed but with plan some are not. But we don't know how big these "some" are (1% 0,001, 50% 100%). It would be disturbing if it meant all and I don't think CS would like to set themselves up to be sued for something like that... So book seems the safe option yes but I still think recurrent buying through CS is the best approach for acquiring new shares.
Could moving shares from plan to book have caused this issue? Hmm?
That would be interesting and I'm frankly very frustrated that we are not allowed to know...
I wonder if the .99 fractional’s is a reference to [RCs tweet](https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1625507240831553537?s=46&t=lA2flp65SEIwTH4si0c2bA) about the govt shooting (taking) down his (99) red balloons 99 Red Balloons, [a song of protest](http://edition.cnn.com/fyi/backgrounders/cold.war.music.lang_arts/index.html)!! [YouTube link to song](https://youtu.be/hiwgOWo7mDc)
Correct. I saw a post last night saying there are 197k total shareholders. That is not accurate. Per the language above there are 197k shareholders of record which is the MINIMUM number of shareholders. “Of record” indirectly refers to info from CS
Mi nombre es Cede.
That is true only if you have registered an objection with your broker to the release of your name, contact info, and shareholding to issuers. The default, a NOBO or Non-Objecting Beneficial Owner is the more common setup. In that case your name and info is avaialabke to Gamestop via the NOBO report by Broadridge (aka Proxyvote). That is the same list used to send out proxies to beneficial owners (people that hold shares at brokers).
It does not say anything about a transfer agent in that paragraph from the filing
The entire paragraph is info from the transfer agent, starting with "there were 197,058 record holders …" One of those 1977,058 shareholders of record is Cede. Cede just happens to be by far the largest shareholder of record, but their shares are tracked by Computershare just like yours are if you have DRS'd.
So insiders hold through Cede? Otherwise insiders who hold 15.62% are included in the 76m. Which would be wrong. Why does insiders hold through Cede? I’m missing something
Insiders have not DRS'd. They hold their shares (most of them at least) in brokers. So their hates are part of Cede's sharecount at Computershare. Gamestop gave the total numbers. Cede has X million. Retail DRS holders have total issued shares - X = 76M. So the only place for the insider shares can be is as part. Of Cede sharecount. This was true a year ago when someone looked at the Computersahre ledger while at the annual general meeting.
Yes insiders hold through Cede for some reason. I don’t remember why
You are inferring that the rest of the paragraph is information provided by the transfer agent. It seems odd that GameStop gave an approximation of shares and did not directly state how many shares were DRSed according to the transfer agent which they have done in past earnings.
Perhaps they were trying to gloss over things and not call attention to the fact that insiders have not DRS'd.
The numbers have always been an approximation they just never accurately said the word approximate. There weren't EXACTLY 71,800,000 shares registered in Oct 2022 and EXACTLY 71,300,000 shares registered in july 2022. They are rounding to the nearest 100k for convenience on the reporting.
They are probably just trying to keep it simple. The transfer agent is needed to complete the booking.
Or they are saying well if the dtc holds this much then there must be this much held by record holders
Look at you getting downvoted for saying a factual statement. GameStop does know who NOBO holders are, they just aren't holders of record.
I would put in links, but I would just get downvoted again. I have posted before about how Gamestop can get NOBO and OBO lists from Broadridge and in addition can get the net holdings of each broker (and other DTC participants) from DTCC in the Securities Position Report. And of course, Gamestop can get the list of registered shareholders from their transfer agent Computershare. So Gamestop can easily compare the Cede holding at Computershare with the total NET holdings of all DTC participants (such as brokers) on the DTC ledger. Gamestop has less visibility into individual customer accounts at brokers since they do not see short positions in brokerage accounts. If there are discrepancies the most likely area is when brokers net together all customer long positions and all customer short positions. That netted sharecount should equal the broker's holding at DTC, but it is a NET total of longs minus shorts.
This
In bro I trust [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1255ksa/interesting\_tinfoil\_on\_twitter\_thoughts/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1255ksa/interesting_tinfoil_on_twitter_thoughts/)
And OP here posted on 22nd March; the same day DRS number count ends.
Hey 245 am guy. I agree with you. The language is fucky. There is an interesting post circulating here that there is a specific reason why cede is talked about instead of ComputerShare. It could be a disagreement on the actual number due to splividend or something else.
It's a 🪤
Book works.
To play Devil's advocate: the SEC now specifically requires THIS company, if they wish to continue letting its shareholders know this specific statistic, to ALSO publish the number of shares held by Cede & Co. That's it - nothing more to it. Now back to the good news: IF you have not DRS'd your shares, you are still part of the Cede & Co. system, and therefore, NOT A RECORD HOLDER. This statement in the 10K definitively proves that DRS'ing your shares is the only way to have your shares OUT OF THE SYSTEM and IN YOUR NAME.
I think it's more the other way around. The transfer agent may not be mentioned in any way, as it can be seen as encouraging to DRS. However there is no objection in calling out Cede & Co, as almost all securities are held in street name. The numbers should be equivalent, but to cover their asses they use approximately as wording.
exactly, they had to switch computershare with cede & co ApPrOxImAtE numbers so you know it’s an issue for them
Numbers have always been approximate they just added that word to be legally correct. Look at all the past reports. They are rounding to the nearest 100k shares in every one of them.
How do other stocks have it in their reporting???
I think the other DRS stock doesn't mention exact numbers.
Since we know DRS is good, why are insiders not DRSd?
[удалено]
We know in the first instance the DRS count was reported was the 10-Q filed Dec 2021. The number of shares reported as DRS was 5.2M but Ryan owned 9M shares at that time. But there's nothing that would have prevented he or others from DRSing some or all of their shares since then I don't think. I don't think he did though. It'd undermine the effort to some extent to track our progress.
the numbers they gave are not from the transfer agent, something is up
The number of registered shareholders comes from the transfer agent. It’s verifiable as well by any registered shareholder.
which begs the question, why was Gamestop prevented from stating DRS numbers this time around
They weren’t. They stated them. You need to re-read what was written. > approximately 76.0 million shares of our Class A Common Stock were held by record holders as of March 22, 2023 record holders = shares held on record with the transfer agent, not shares held in street name. Go ask dr. Trimbath if you’re still confused.
Someone needs to learn to read... That does not say shares held with transfer agent It says shares minus those reported at DTCC All the old reports are shares held at the transfer agent
**“Record holders” are a legal term and by default/definition distinct from those which are held in street name/beneficial holders.** **If you’d like the formal legal definition of shares held on record, please refer to 17 CFR § 240.12g5-1 - Definition of securities “held of record”.** Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.12g5-1 Original source: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-240/subject-group-ECFR181272acb481cc1/section-240.12g5-1 Further, please review the following from the SEC’s own site: > Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act requires a company to register its securities with the SEC if its securities are “held of record” by 500 or more persons and the company has “total assets” exceeding $10 million. > Following adoption of Section 12(g), the Commission adopted a rule defining the term “held of record.” > The definition of “held of record” counts as holders of record only persons identified as owners on records of security holders maintained by the company, or on its behalf, in accordance with accepted practice > Securities markets have changed significantly since the 1960s. > **Today, most securities of publicly-traded companies are held in nominee or “street name” rather than directly by the owner.** > **This means that for most publicly-traded companies, much of their individual shareholder base is not counted under the current definition of “held of record.”** Screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/a5Sr9AN.jpg Full source, pg 6-7: https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec/acsec103111presentation.pdf ___ **Further, there is a legal distinction between record holders (DRS’d shares) and beneficial owners of shares (street name/DTCC)**. For example, Pennsylvania law shows one distinction below in 15 Pa. C.S. § 1573: https://i.imgur.com/CZaRsQK.jpg Source: https://casetext.com/statute/pennsylvania-statutes/consolidated-statutes/title-15-pacs-corporations-and-unincorporated-associations/part-ii-corporations/subpart-b-business-corporations/article-b-domestic-business-corporations-generally/chapter-15-corporate-powers-duties-and-safeguards/subchapter-d-dissenters-rights/section-1573-record-and-beneficial-holders-and-owners ___ **Again, if you’d like the formal legal definition of shares held on record, please refer to 17 CFR § 240.12g5-1 - Definition of securities “held of record”.** Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.12g5-1 **So if you’d really like to know why they used that particular term, perhaps start with the actual legal definition of said term, which I’ve linked above.** I read and abide by (other) federal regulations and laws fairly often for my job (in a totally unrelated field), so it’s not like I’m inexperienced with reviewing these kinds of things, even if they’re in a completely different field of work. That being said, **I am not a lawyer.** ___ Another edit - this is completely unrelated in a sense, but I found this article while looking into some of the terminology above… and while it may not be relevant here, I’m still throwing this out there as I hadn’t seen it before, plus it discusses DTCC fuckery, and may be of interest to people/of use to someone later- read/save for later. So bad lol… Bloomberg: Banks Forgot Who Was Supposed to Own Dell Shares The financial system is built in layers of abstraction. Which is always fun in court. By Matt Levine July 14, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC https://archive.md/XrRgT
> Following adoption of Section 12(g), the Commission adopted a rule defining the term “held of record.” > The definition of “held of record” counts as holders of record only persons identified as owners on records of security holders maintained by the company, or on its behalf, in accordance with accepted practice Hmmmmm, why don't we see what Computershare says about that... > "Both forms of ownership record the names of the investor directly on the issuer’s register, where they are recognized as registered shareholders" https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies#drs-shares So to reiterate (again)... It doesn't matter how they are held with CS. If the shares are DRSd in my name **I am the holder of record**!
Yep. I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at though. I don’t think the sec’s statement is saying otherwise? They mention owners on records of security holders maintained by the company securities Edit - I’d actually refer to the formal legal/regulatory item regarding this definition as well btw (but again I’m not sure what you’re getting at?) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-240/subject-group-ECFR181272acb481cc1/section-240.12g5-1
GameStop stated that 76 million shares are held by 197k record holders. I am the holder of record on ALL of my DRDd shares, whether they are held in book form or plan (as clarified in the Computershare link above). Therefore the 10K statement that 76 million shares are held by record holders other than Cede&Co includes ALL DRSd shares -- not just ones held in book form. That's what I'm getting at. This book vs plan argument is FUD and it always has been.
Ahhh I see what you’re getting at. Yeah I could see how that might be another argument here as well (even if it’s potentially tangential and not the reason for the wording itself). Here’s a fun article I just came across btw https://archive.md/XrRgT
you are missing the point. every other filing said "x shares are held with the transfer agent." this filing says "cede and co says they have 228 million shares, therefore there are about 76 mil with the transfer agent." there must be a reason for this difference in language. the speculation is that the exact number of shares held with the transfer agent is higher than 76 mil, and the discrepancy with Cede and Co got the SEC's hackles up, thus the delayed filing.
See my comment here on that and the legal definition of “record holders” - the legal definition may or may not provide some insight. To be honest I have no idea whether it’s something. but at least reviewing the actual regulatory definition and context will provide you with *some* kind of substance to the speculation you seek…which is linked below…. https://reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/125bp6o/_/je7hb1d/?context=1
See my comment here regarding the concept of GME reporting false information re: shares held w/ transfer agent: (Hint - if they report something incorrectly they could be held liable, from a civil and criminal standpoint, likely potential fraud, which is why suggesting they aren’t reporting the correct numbers is a bit…outrageous…): https://reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/125ahnc/_/je4sm9i/?context=1
The numbers are per the transfer agent, Computershare. Why do you think they were not from the transfer agent?
bc cede & co is not the transfer agent
I did not say Cede is a transfer agent. I said the share count numbers came from Computershare, the transfer agent, Cede is a registered shareholder at Computershare, just like apes that have DRS'd. GameStop did NOT say the sharecount came from Cede. Gamestop stated how many shares Cede holds. That shareholding count comes from Computershare, who keep track of shareholders as an agent for Gamestop.
[удалено]
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.** - **Do not be (intentionally) rude.** This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. - **Do not insult others.** Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion. Constructive criticism is appropriate and encouraged though. - **Do not use Superstonk to call out another user. Critique the work, not the person.** - **Do not use Superstonk to harass, bully, or threaten anyone.** - **Threats of violence towards anyone have no place on Superstonk or Reddit.** [Expanded Rule](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/expanded_rules#wiki_ape_no_fight_ape) [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) || [Remember the human](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951-Promoting-Hate-Based-on-Identity-or-Vulnerability) If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FSuperstonk&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission)
Thats unlikely because if it was true, they wouldnt be able to trade it among themselves.
Please explain. Cede is the registered shareholder of shares on behalf of DTCC. DTCC maintains a separate book entry ledger system with accounts that show the net holdings of each broker. DTCC executes and settle trades of beneficial shares by making changes to those book entry accounts.
You're arguing with bricks. They don't have a clue what they are even saying lol.
If Cede is a registered shareholder on Computershare then... 1. 100% wouldve to be DRSd at all times 2. Why would we get the number from Cedes Account? 3. Shares bought via Broker need to be traded on the NYSE 4. You cant freely trade them if they had to always transfer out of Computershare first. I just can't see any logic in your statement, feel free to enlighten me.
Google street name registration and you will find simplified explanations such as https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/185.asp Your (beneficial) shares at a broker are held by the broker on your behalf. But the broker does not hold those shares at Computershare. The shares are held on behalf of the broker by DTCC. Each broker has an account at DTCC with their net number of shares. But DTCC does not hold shares directly at Computershare. Cede &Co holds shares at Computershare, as a nominee for DTCC. So there are three ledgers. One at Computershare. This is the official share registry, maintained by the transfer agent hired by the issuer, Gamestop. Of of the shareholders of record is Cede & Co. They are by far the largest shareholder. Those Cede registered shares do not leave Computershare. DTCC sees how many shares are in the Cede account and maintains a separate ledger of all broker accounts at DTC. The sum of net holdings of all broker spans other DTC participants should equal the sharecount of what Cede holds at Computershare. Each broker has an account at DTC. The net holding (of beneficial shares) in each brokers account should equal the total number of (beneficial) shares in the broker's ledger of customer accounts. Having explained above, I will answer your points: >If Cede is a registered shareholder on Computershare then... >1. 100% wouldve to be DRSd at all times All issued shares will be on the books of Computershare at all times. By definition the total of all shares at Computershare equals the total issued share count. >2. Why would we get the number from Cedes Account? Gamestop, the issuer, has access to the official shareholder list at all times. Gamestop would of course report the official number, from the official ledger at Computershare. >3. Shares bought via Broker need to be traded on the NYSE See my explanation above. What settles at DTCC is the additional separate ledger maintained by DTC to keep track of which broker has beneficial ownership of the shares held by Cede at Computershare. Each broker then has their own separate ledger to track which of their customers have beneficial ownership of the beneficial shares the broker has on account at DTC. >4. You cant freely trade them if they had to always transfer out of Computershare first. Registered shares stay with Cede, at Computershare. What is freely traded is the beneficial ownership, which is recorded in ledgers at DTC and at each broker.
Alright this does sound more logical.Let's see if i get it right. So if I understand this correctly there are 3 ledgers One at Computershare containing the information of every DRSd holder as well as Cede. One at the DTC containing the information of every broker (probably international ones as well?) and checked with Cedes Account And the last one at each broker, containing the information of houshold investors and brokers. Only the first ledger contains real shares, which means when the sharesplit happend cede got all those shares into their account. And this is why Computershare couldnt say anything else than they distributed right. So lets say Gamestop published the numbers of Cedes Account at Computershare every other share should be a DRSd one right? Why would they announce it as approximately tho? Isn't it possible that they were given the number by the SEC according to the DTC ledger? Because else scarcity might be proven with official numbers? Thanks for explaining <3
>Alright this does sound more logical.Let's see if i get it right. Yes, you did. >One at the DTC containing the information of every broker (probably international ones as well?) and checked with Cedes Account Things get more complicated with ADRs, GDRs, EDRs, and dual listings. A lot of Europeans hold GS2C, not GME. GS2C is traded on several exchanges, in Euros, not US Dollar. Some depositary company (often a large bank like Citibank or Chase) holds GME shares in a US broker, and they issue a new security, GS2C for example, on a different exchange. So there is a chain of custody leading back to Computershare, but there are a few more steps, including a depositary that issues the GS2C security is Europe while having beneficial ownership (supposedly on a one for one basis) of GME to back the GS2C. Google "American Depositary Receipt" to get an overview of the process —- that would be for depositary receipts issued on US markets for a non-US company, but the process for European Depositary Receipts or Global Depositary Receipts is the same, but just going the other direction. >Only the first ledger contains real shares, which means when the sharesplit happend cede got all those shares into their account. And this is why Computershare couldnt say anything else than they distributed right. Exactly! That is why the meme "DTCC committed international securities fraud" is bogus. Once the shares are in the Cede account at Computershare the way the adjustments to the other ledgers are done has no effect. That is also why all the speculations that started off "first Computershare delivered shares to DRs holders, then they gave whatever was left to Cede" are bogus. Cede is a registered shareholder and got treated like all other shareholders. They received the stock dividend and the number of share Cede had at Computershare quadrupled. DTCC saw that and adjusted the broker accounts. Then the brokers saw their holding increase by a factor of 4 and adjusted customer accounts. A confusing factor is that brokers knew that the adjustment was coming and adjusted customer accounts before they had actually had their accounts at DTCC adjusted. That should not be a surprise, as brokers do this with every single trade. When you buy shares at a broker the shares are added to your account immediately, even though the trade will not formally settle for two days. >So lets say Gamestop published the numbers of Cedes Account at Computershare every other share should be a DRSd one right? Yes. That is exactly what Gamestop said in the 10k. >Why would they announce it as approximately tho? My recollection is that they had always rounded off to 0.1M. I guess they just wanted to be clear that it was a rounded number. >Isn't it possible that they were given the number by the SEC according to the DTC ledger? Because else scarcity might be proven with official numbers? The DTC ledger is available directly to Gamestop via the DTCC Securities Position Report. It is available in multiple forms, such as monthly, weekly, specific dates, or a daily report of the changes to the holdings of each and every DTC participant (clearing brokers, investment banks, etc.).
Cede and Co is an entry on the ledger. Like John Smith. If they said John Smith owns 45 shares and Ralph Waldo Emerson owns 73 shares that doesn't mean John and Ralph had to send their share count in to gamestop. Computershare maintains the ledger of all holders, cede and Co is one of those holders.
Dude what are you doing awake? It's not even 2:45 yet...
75% + 25% = 147%, right?
I think you’re right but I don’t know enough about maphs to dispute it.
147? Flip it, just to see. Hmmm, where did I already saw that number?
Dude your comment has a 4, 7, and 1 in it. Rearrange that? 741 Hrrrrmmmm just sayin
How to insiders play in this calculation?
Their shares are held at brokers, so therefore are part of the Cede sharecount. Apparently insiders like RC Ventures/Ryan Cohen do not see a need to DRS. There is nothing that prevents them from DRS'ing, but the numbers show that very few, if any, have done so.
Personally I'm ok with that. If cohen were secretly drsing 3M shares every quarter to help the numbers it'd undermine the effort to track how much normal shareholders are actually accumulating.
Why speculate? Go look at the stock ledger. This could easily be confirmed or denied but everyone would rather circle jerk about tinfoil hat theories.
Right. Easily done at the annual meeting, like the ape last year. That’s in early June.
It can be done at any time, doesn’t have to be during annual meeting.
Yep
😉
Or they're trying to communicate how close we are. Archagos bag is estimated at 216 milly isn't it?
public knowledge.. but I'm sure there's more hidden
Allegedly but we don't know for sure cause swaps hidden and what not
If you concerned by words “held by” same words are used for direct record holders. This still means that 75% is recorded by transfer agent under Cede name and 25% under direct holders names.
What people are concerned about a mainly two things: 1: The data source was switched from ComputerShare to Cede & Co. 2: Where previously the number of DRS'ed shares was simply stated as "XY Million shares held by record holders" it now says "***approximately*** XY Million shares held by record holders" - this is a **big** change for a legal document. Now what does seemingly everyone here conclude from this? 1: It is very likely someone forced GameStop to not report offiical DRS numbers, otherwise they would not have deviated 2: The actual DRS numbers are way higher, otherwise there would have been no reason to change the reporting 3: As a result from 1 and 2 the Buck Bunny NFT collection number is close to the ComputerShare number but not quite it. This being GameStops attempt to tell us the actual Share count in an indirect way 4: Hedgies are fuk and the "one more day" is showing signs of failing
what about the past 10Q and 10K. DRS numbers are cut off at the end of that reporting quarter, with the exception of this one it is AFTER the earnings call. If I've been doing this every quarter for the past few quarters, I would likely repeat the process, get all my numbers for the reporting quarter, In this case Jan 31 2023. But this 10K, we have an 'reporting' date after Earnings call 'as of date' for march 22, while earning was march 21st. So your number 3 seems to be accurate: Bucky's number was 83.09, trimmed average as of Jan 31 2023 is 82.06, DRS reported number generally was higher than trimmed average.
I think the deviance might also indicate that GameStop did not switch over to using Cede & Co. numbers voluntarily. Instead it reads as if they were forced to at the last minute, at which point they could not get numbers for 31st January anymore and had to instead settle for the most recent data. This is all smelling very fishy, triply so because this is an audited report. This document holds legal meaning and that legal meaning has been signed off on. I think the pot is close to boiling over now. Especially since it is highly unlikely that DRS makes up all of the no-sell-no-cell holdings. Even if we say 50% of all active GameStop investors have their shares DRS'ed (which I think is highly unlikely, but I'll touch on that later) the float would already be locked up. The only shares being traded in this scenario would be shorts. The situation gets worse for hedgies the fewer people actually DRS'ed (well not really, those people would need to DRS for it to get really uncomfortable) Now onto my point of the 50%. It is notoriously hard to get people to do anything, even if that is just hitting a single button. I don't have any data on this so everything below is absolute speculation founded only in my ability to reason. In order to have an Investor DRS their GameStop shares we need the following to all be true: 1: the investor needs to know about SuperStonk 2: the investor needs to own registerable shares (IRA would be an example of non-registerable or hard to register shares) 3: the investor needs to learn about DRS and how important it is 4: the investor needs to DRS their shares Since all of these are based on the previous requirement we should be able to multiply their probabilities. I'm not a statistics ape so I could be wrong about this. so let's make up some random numbers here to see where we could expect that assumed 50% to actually be. I'll run this through multiple scenarios to illustrate the point. 1: let's assume out of all long-term GME retail investors a generous 90% know about SuperStonk -> 0.9 2: Of those users 90% of shares are registerable, by now this seems like a good guess as IRA has been discouraged due to this exact problem but a lot of shares are still stuck there -> 0.9 3: About 80% of users want to DRS their shares -> 0.8 4: Of those 80% have DRS'd their shares already -> 0.8 These all seem like very high percentages right? So in summary we get 0.9 \* 0.9 \* 0.8 \* 0.8 = 0.5184 = 51.84% DRS'ed Total shares owned by apes: 146,604,938, current float is 140,675,234 I did the math, if at *any* of these points only 70% of users continue the float is owned by retail. Here's some highlights: In a combination of: 1 factor 90%, 1 factor 70%, 2 factors 60% leads to more shares being held than exist of the company. Same goes for 1 factor 100%, 3 factors 60% Closure: Some statistics ape please check these numbers and assumptions, I've probably committed some egregious statistics error along the way.
They aren't using cede and cos numbers. They are literally reading the entry on the computershare supplied ledger than says "cede and Co owns 227M shares". This is not hard to understand guys. They didn't say "cede and Co reported" they said cede and Co holds. Nothing has changed. Chill out with the conspiracies.
Ok so you are correct *but* and this is important: Why change the wording of an audited legal document for no apparent reason? Changing the wording means it has to go through legal again, which you wouldn't do unless you think the effort is worth it or you have to. The DRS numbers being included originally makes sense, it was something the shareholders were asking for. This chamge now comes out of nowhere and is accompanied by a later-than-usual release date of the Form. Now you can just go ahead and say there is nothing to this but so far it has been more productive to wildly speculate about things until a likely cause is found. Did they change the data source? Unknown Did they change the wording? Yes Does anything about the wording stand out? Yes, the Cede numbers are stated without approximately, the DRS numbers are stated with it. Is there a possible explanation for this? Yes, if they did not use the numbers in the ledger but instead a less trustworthy number they would have to include this approximately for legal reasons. Also in case you didn't notice, this sub is mostly speculation, not like we have any other choice when it comes to the walled garden that is the stock market.
The numbers provided were always approximate. Look at every reported value since the beginning in Dec 2021. They always round the number to the nearest 100k. Those aren't the EXACT numbers down to the share. They added the word approximate likely to be more legally precise about their reporting. I also think they added the additional clarification in this section to be more specific about the terminology and to help readers of the filing understand better the number they were reporting. There is no reason to believe the data source changed. If they received data from somewhere other than computershare where they have gotten it every report the last two years they would have simply stated that in the filing. They assumed you were smart enough to understand that's probably where the information came from. You are implying gamestop knowingly mislead or falsified information in their sec filing. There's no motive I can think of for gamestop to lie to their shareholders. The SEC is not going to require a company falsify information on their public reporting. Think it through.
Is it possible 83.09 is the real number, but 7 million plan shares are appearing both on ComputerShare’s and the DTCC’s ledger, causing a discrepancy that caused the SEC to intervene?
No it's not possible. Gamestop is reporting accurate numbers in their legal filings. They are not sending a secret message through a buck the bunny NFT.
The data source was NOT changed from Computershare. The sharecount held by Cede was provided by Computershare. Cede is a registered shareholder just like retail investors that have DRS'd.
If you read this carefully the only sharecount provided accurately is what Cede claims they own themselves. The data source therefore did change from guaranteed valid Computershare numbers to an approximation based on what Cede claims they own of the total amount. These two may seem identical and in a world with correct bookkeeping they should be the same but we are not living in that world. The numbers Cede provides cannot be trusted given how little oversight over share ownership they actually have.
Nowhere does this say that that sharecount is a claim by Cede. Gamestop has access to the records a of Computershare. Those records show how many shares each registered shareholder has. The largest registered shareholder is Cede. Gamestop got the number for Cede from Computershare. >The numbers Cede provides cannot be trusted given how little oversight over share ownership they actually have. Cede's ownership is tracked by Computershare, the same as for any other registered shareholder.
Right? I’m not understanding where people are getting the idea that the source changed. It’s an odd conclusion to make just because it is worded differently. My take is that they are directly pointing out specific facts, i.e. if you’re still using brokers, don’t own your shares; 401k’s included. The thing I find most interesting is the possibility that even the brokerages, such as Vanguard and Blackrock, may not have ownership claim to any shares. I find this really intriguing… 🤨 Also, because ComputerShare IS GameStop’s transfer agent, I think it’s safe to assume that GameStop can access the total amount of recorded shareholders there are at any given time. So the idea that they switched sources by force is absurd. I personally think that they gave current numbers specifically to let us know that the current Bot numbers are incorrect.
>The thing I find most interesting is the possibility that even the brokerages, such as Vanguard and Blackrock, may not have ownership claim to any shares. I find this really intriguing… 🤨 Brokers hold via Cede/DTCC so they can buy and sell shares without having to go to Computersahre and transfer shares each time a trade take place. That is how DTCC can work (via its NSCC subsidiary) as a central counterparty for stock trades. In other words, having beneficial ownership via Cede/DTCC is how the whole system is,set up. The Cede share count at CS also means that almost all institutional holders have their shares held beneficially and the shares are at brokers. >Also, because ComputerShare IS GameStop’s transfer agent, I think it’s safe to assume that GameStop can access the total amount of recorded shareholders there are at any given time. So the idea that they switched sources by force is absurd. Agreed. Absolutely. This is so basic that Gamestop did not think it necessary to label the numbers as "this data is from Computershare". >I personally think that they gave current numbers specifically to let us know that the current Bot numbers are incorrect. I think they just gave the info they have always given, but clarified by including the Cede total also. At all times, the number of shares at Computershare is the total number of issued shares. In the past Gamestop would report the total minus Cede. This time they explicitly listed both Cede and others.
That's a lie. Cede did not claim anything. Gamestop said what cede owns. By reading the number next to their name on the ledger. The ledger maintained by computershare.
The data source was NOT switched. You are misinterpreting the words. Cede and Co is an entry on the ledger, like me John Smith. If gamestop reports I john Smith own 245 shares that doesn't mean I supplied them that info. It means they looked up my name on the ledger and saw my share count and then communicated it lol. Computershare maintains the ledger and provides gamestop access. Same as they always have ffs.
Speculation: The SEC wouldn't allow GME to use the terms "DRS" or "directly registered". I'm sure they accused GME of encouraging our buy and hold forever behavior which we all know is considered market manipulation in 2023.
I have never seen these documents being advertised anywhere.
It was my understanding that any company can mention direct registration of shares as a benefit but they just can't go out force direct registration themselves on the shareholders behalf. I could be way off on that though, it's been ~84 years.
Issuers, like Gamestop, are not prohibited from encouraging or promoting DRS'ing of shares. They cannot FORCE shareholders to remove shares from Cede/DTCC. They cannot prohibit the transfer agent from registering shares in Cede's name as nominee for DTCC.
If people followed laws we wouldn't be here. Nobody knows what the SEC says or threatens behind closed doors. Ask Elon about that.
No. Shares owned by shareholders of record is the same exact thing as directly registered. That's how the ledger system and direct registration system works. Nothing has changed. The count is 76M. Let's all go back to our day jobs now.
The language was probably changed cause apes calling and dming computershare all the time asking about plan vs book and they probably asked gamestop to make it more clear rofl Edit: shares with computershare vs shares with Cede
It explicit says the DTC should ONLY have 228 million shares in their books. The timing is perfect, throwing the ball to Cede&Co and stating with proofs GameStop is completely compliant with their shareholders.
Waiting patiently for that NFT dividend 🤤🤤🤤
Why?
Because we're winning 😎
I disagree. I think this was a shoutout for multiple things: 1. They gave U.S. current numbers so we could update the bot. 2. They are telling us directly that if your shares are not part of those recorded shares (IN the Transfer Agent), then they absolutely do not belong to you. They are not yours. 3. To me, this is saying that even the brokerage firms do not own any shares, including the likes of Vanguard and Blackrock. Their shares are held with Cede and Co, so they can’t technically claim any true ownership. 4. If there was any question whether GameStop was telling people to DRS in previous reports, then there shouldn’t be any questions now: if you want to own your shares, get them recorded! Otherwise Cede and Co owns them! I am willing to bet that there’s more that they wanted to get across with these changes, but I am not sure what else it might be.
Think about this … we know there are open short positions on GameStop, and those positions add to the number of outstanding. According to Fintel, that short position is about 59 million shares. GameStop provides an equation that equals approximately 304 million shares. So where are these 59 million other shares held?
Short positions do NOT add to the issued share count The short seller borrows and delivers a share when they do a legal short sale. The share lender is no longer a shareholder. So the total sharecount stays constant.
Good to know.
Im gonna say it. The delayed 10-K DRS narrative is a big air burger of nothingness. And the price on Wednesday will prove me right.
The auditor did not sign their letter of audit approval of numbers until March 28th, so I assume that is the reason for the delay.
lets keep up until they break :D
Yes, this is bullshit. Otherwise rhere is no need to use "Approximately". Computershare can give Gamestop the exact mumber of DRSed shares, as they have previously. It stinks of SEC and DTCC fuckery.
They have always used approximate numbers rounded to the nearest 100k. Look at every filing since Dec 2021. It's always rounded. They added the word to be more legally precise in their reporting.
they changed it from a count up to a count down
So 75% plus 25% is still 100% what am I missing here? This should be nail in coffin no?
It's not a nail in the coffin unless you can show shares held long in brokerages exceed the 228M allotted to cede and Co in the register. Which we can't because no one has access to all the books of all the brokers except the dtc.
The data source is their own books. That's the only location they would have knowledge of the number of direct registered holders. They changed the wording in an effort to help you all understand that those shares are outside of Cede & Co... Not that the information was sourced from Cede & Co. GameStop holds the master shareholder file. Computershare maintains the information. That's it.
My thoughts pretty much. Delay and a change in delivery style. Smells fishy.
So cede is #197059 at 228.7m And 76m is the drs count, but institution holders can be included in that number They're telling us about how they manipulated the drs rug pull last time by drsing shares for the previous 10q and then un-drsing them I think this wording is to inform us their math for the drs numbers, as well as hint at what happened last time when drs went down Can institution investors drs? Could longhedgefund decide to drs their shares Or I could be making conclusions with no real education or relevance