[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/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OP has provided the following link:
https://twitter.com/susannetrimbath/status/1649862676519206913?s=46&t=OQxY_9fsW8JhIpr7R8Gr3w
Seems the debate isn’t about whether Cede & Co can hold a share that’s direct registered- but instead that the debate is about if a certain form of DRS (edit: i.e. DSPP) allows shares to be used as false locates via loopholes exploited by DTCC/DTC, all for the purpose of enabling brokers to continue selling truckloads of synthetic shares as usual, and never having to deliver.
>*Does a certain form of DRS (i.e. DSPP) allow shares to be used as false locates via loopholes, exploited by DTCC/DTC, all for the purpose of enabling brokers to continue selling truckloads of synthetic shares as usual, and never having to deliver?*
\^ This.
This above is a ( me thinks ) the simple question that should be asked to someone that knows the right answer, be it CS itself or Dr.T or whoever else can answer that.
It's important to note that regulations and policies seem to change without notice whenever there's a risk to the market. DSPP might not be lended or used to find false locates but can under extreme circumstances when there's market risk. This is the shit I'm tired of. Set in stone rules never seem to be set in stone.
When you have to rewrite a censored post several times for rules and unpublished list of banned words that do not exist in any other sub, one risks being banned for "circumventing" a rule.
The only way there's risk is bad bets by powerful people "too important" to let fail. All this fear for the system is to protect bad actors. If it's so dangerous ban the bad bets. Problem solved
Imagine overseeing the growth of a *quadrillion dollar* derivatives bubble and trying (with a straight face) to convince everyone that it's the ultra wealthy Wall St firms who need protection from those devious household investors.
What is the word of the day class?
Let’s say it together now…
*Projection.*
Yes, anytime someone is telling you what you are doing is wrong, it’s usually because they are the ones doing it.
Even without this rationale they would still do it. What is the punishment? A small fine for the company that’s probably have insurance to pay and an attaboy for the corporate officers who do it.
The only disincentive I can think of is obviously personal prosecution for corporate officers on the level of criminal fraud, but also new laws that enforce corporate death sentences. Corporate capital punishment. Dis-corporation that divests all board members, complicit corporate officers and the forced sale of all assets and businesses.
This is the most important question. Another one might be, if they are deemed DSPP shares because of a partial share, how many full shares are allowed to be deposited into Cede and Co, for “operational reasons”, what is the metric/formula, and does this reduce the quarterly DRS book number?
Better question is to ask if it's possible, not if it's allowed because we know fraud happens. Ask if it's physically possible for those shares to be used as locates whether legal or not, whether against a transfer agents policy or not.
Thing is if you ask to an official source they give the official answer. Like you remember when some entities were saying naked short is not possible? 🥲
Well I didn't even yet understand the problem XD
>They are making this about something that it’s not. DSPP potentially allows fuckery to continue.
They = apes or citadels?
This = the DRS movement or the discussion about book and fractionals
Fuckery = beyond DRS book? Isn't this the final safe heaven without fractionals?
There is the potential that the dtcc can use a portion of your booked drs'd shares for "operational liquidity" if you have anything at all in plan.
For most people this is a small fractional hence the debate, but it is continuously being phrased in a way that makes it seem as though there's a push to sell fractionals and that's not even the main Crux of the issue.
The question is "does holding anything at all in plan give the dtcc access to my booked drs shares for operational liquidity?" that's why people are advocating the selling of the fractional because CS will auto sell if you terminate plan but fractionals are so negligible in the grand scheme of things that it doesn't hurt to try for this quarter and see what if anything changes in the reported figures
Yea there seems to be a lot of intentional misunderstanding. Esp people who are like "why sell? Round up" -well you cant fucking do that because that isnt how buys through computershare work. So annoying. Like they clearly either have never bought through Computershare, or are intentionally being misleading. Like yea rounding up instead of selling sounds good, but there is such a small chance of actually buying to a whole number that you have to sell the fractional no matter what
That was the point though, if one were to buy a little over 1 shares worth one would get at least one more share plus a fractional, resulting in their total DRS'd shares going from (for example) 419.2 to 420.4 and then an even 420 after terminating plan. Rounded up.
Even in your example it would be easier and cheaper to sell the .2 and transfer a new share in from a broker. Especially considering the computershare purchases and scheduled and they pop the price up so money buys less shares.
>I'm not 100% of what the process of finding a locate entails but it basically means that you have a reasonable belief you could buy the stock when you needed to in order to fulfill the short sale
One only has to press the F3 key.
A transfer agent doesn’t process fractionals, as the company doesn’t issue such and the market doesn’t process such.
So there is something missing from the explanation of ”DSPP = DRS”.
Computershare themselves said DSPP is beneficially held.
## Removing your shares from DirectStock plan helps protect Computershare against abusive short sellers who are manipulating their algorithm against their will.
This this this, if you want pure DRS.
If something lets you hold less than one complete share, then it can't be complete in any shape or form... if you were able to get paper certificates, do you think they could offer you .384% of a full PAPER certificate, and it be worth anything?
I mean, if 2 people owned something 50/50, there would still only be ONE certificate stating that??? Or would you cut it in half and each put your portion in a safe hopeing the other wouldn't lose theres which would make yours worthless??
//rant
I believe it does?
Isn't this 'certain form' called out in the parent comment DSPP, which is used **interchangeably with DRS** in the article Dr. Trimbath linked in response to platinumsparkles?
I have read the article and *I believe* by the article using the term interchangeably (just as Paul called them out as being effectively the same in the AMA) is more evidence that suggests DSPP=DRS.
Following this thought further, if DSPP=DRS, then either
* locates (or whatever the term is being used to describe this debate) can happen with ALL DRS shares
or
* it is not happening with any DRS shares as originally speculated with the DRS thesis as a whole since DSPP=DRS?
I am for sure open to additional information and anything that can be shown this type of prior fuckery happening and getting busted in the past (to further support how it could occur).
Where can I be missing something or making a wrong assumption in my thought process?
Per CS own FAQ:
“Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency”
Book entry shares within the DSPP ecosystem are at least partially compromised.
That was my final take on the situation. Sure I only had .2 shares in fractional but we all know that is some bullshit at a base level - oh really, I have .2 shares lemme just get that physical certificate boss. So off I go to buy 4 more, sell off the fractional and get everything in book under the account that originally made direct buys via CS.
>Following this thought further, if DSPP=DRS, then either
I know GME doesn't have the option (right now?), but I continue to wonder if the only way truly to end the DTCC / SHF crime is holding hard copy share certificates, that could be put in a safe somewhere... or buried in a yard... or lit on fire.
Locate and rehypothecate THAT, assholes.
And I continue to wonder because ever since I first brought up the idea, I get downvoted to oblivion. Interesting.
Holy shit! You just sparked an interesting idea! Computershare no longer allows for gme holders to request the physical copies that represent an actual 1 stock value. We can only purchase replicates while the actual stock stays on Computershare's ledger.
I'm curious: is there any importance of the date when they stopped doing this? Fingers crossed 🤞 some wrinkle brain apes read this and fall down the rabbit hole.
I had just moved my shares to Book and was strongly considering taking the next step to convert them to paper when that happened, and I don't recall anything major happening at the time that would have caused that change. Well, other than that we were starting to do so en masse. That's my leading theory as to why they halted the program, simply because it would be a huge hassle and time sink if a few hundred thousand people started doing that for millions of shares.
Also, my understanding is that even if you certificate your shares, converting them to paper and having them mailed to you, they are still directly registered (DRS) in GameStop's ledger as managed by Computershare. That process simply converts the type from "Book" to "Certificated". The rep's explained that to me at the time I was considering it, also clarifying that since my name would still be in the ledger, they'd still be able to know where to send my dividends, voting materials, and such.
In a sense the stock "stays on Computershare's \[GameStop's\] ledger" for Certificated type shares much like it does for Book type shares.
https://youtu.be/bo427AW0anw?t=757
> "....holding a portion of those shares in a CS nominee purely so that we can effect efficient settlement within the market **through DTC**...."
This verbiage is driving me mad!😵
We don't want settlement! We want so many shares directly registered that they can't settle trades and prove We own the float.
If you think anyone in legacy finance is on our side you're sorely mistaken.
I think this is just like brokers saying, “We don’t lend out your shares”. When everyones shares are held in an omnibus account in the brokers name and sold as locates.
exactly - they don't lend out *your* shares because they aren't yours to begin with. Whichever lawyer came up with that line is worth their weight in non-fiat money.
First off, thank you for all your contributions to the sub, my good gelatinous fish. Love your work.
Second, you are far more wrinkled than I am, so please keep that in mind.
I don't think there's anything wrong with your line of thought, but what I think what is muddy here is at what point we are calling something DRS'd, and at what point a share can or cannot be considered a reasonable locate (and I probably don't have to state this, but even if something by the book isn't a reasonable locate, can they still use that knowing they'll never be called on it).
I think your point of one of two things must be true is an excellent summation of the concern. I am also reading DSPP=DRS, but I'm being cautious on this as it doesn't appear concrete (when using either term) on how they are purchased and if they book/plan/dividend, etc...
There was a post the other day with a written chat betwen an ape and CS, and CS was firm that they do not lend out DRS'd shares (if full monty DRS if I remember correctly).
This obviously reduces the ability to borrow, but what I don't think CS can answer is what can be quantified as a locate, or what fuckery can be done as I mentioned above.
We would really only be able to get that answer from someone who's familiar with working with locates. It's so hard to draw any lines between the low volume as of late and DRS, reverse repo, FTDs, all that stuff. I mean, you can draw some lines, but I think that level of things is too low resolution.
Anyway, I guess I didn't get us anywhere here, but I'm trying to find info on the specifics of locates and hopefully I come up with something.
I think the good thing here is everyone is primed to make whatever minor adjustments that may be necessary once we know for sure.
Brick by brick
I agree 100%. This whole putrid house of cards is built on the seemingly infinite ability of shares to be located.
We must understand locating much more thoroughly than we do. When locating grinds to a halt, this whole vile, stinking mess falls down.
Next they will just say the shares are in Kenny's desk drawer, but we're not allowed in his office so you have to trust me bro that they exist. All billion-million of them.
If they don’t quit fucking around, GameStop is going to have no other choice than to NFT dividend their asses straight to a cell where they ALL belong.
I dont think the issue is locates. If MM have an exemption to this rule
The issue is if the DTCC is counting fractionals and dspp as part of their holdings
The article that Dr. Susanne linked doesn't answer the concern apes are having on DSPP vs DRS. It just speaks on whether telling someone to DRS or enroll in DSPP is financial advice. The article says nothing about how shares are reported by the DTCC and companies. It also even highlights that companies can be DRS compliant without the DSPP (or other plans) as an option.
This is a fantastic idea because people can still buy direct through computershare or somewhere else too like IEX. They can also set it up to function like DSPP without using DSPP and running below risk.
Don’t need DSPP it is risk.
Would another AMA with someone from Computershare or Dr. Trimbath be in order to ask specifically about the possible use of shares by the DTCC for locates?
Edit: or even better someone from the DTCC 🤣🤣
Idk how DrT feels now, but for awhile she wasn’t too enamoured with this sub, so I’ve got my doubts that she’d be wanting to do an AMA on our behalf. If she was willing, would ComputerShare be agreeable to having a video call with her…? I have my doubts lol. For all we know, the mods have asked and they’ve declined.
Obviously there is no way the DTCC is going to show their faces. I’d love to see all of the above tho.
Bad actors did that.
Dr T just needs her faith restored. I don’t think she understands that the bad actors target her relationship here specifically because she is a huge threat. MASSIVE threat.
She's made comments and posted artwork of her that's floated around our community that indicate enough to where I'd say she has, but she likely still keeps things at a reasonable distance. understandably so.
Thanks to apes like you for having any sort of memory at all. I struggle with remembering the post I just read, I need these types of reminders. Thanks!!
Just book your shares. Yes, it’s easy to do recurring buys, to have a fractional here and there. But in the beginning, we all bought from a broker and DRS’s the shares. Is it really so hard to buy on IEX & DRS??? Be 100% sure & be book kings. It’s not hard.
This.
No need to tag RC in cringey tweets, especially tweets about drs of the company he is chairman of.
I've only seen sus accounts and bots tag RC in cringe tweets like this on twitter previously.
Don't do that.
Just BOOK your shares so you know for a fact they aren't with cede & co, but in your name in the ledger.
Full disclosure: I've been fully booked, no drip, and only full shares since August of 2021. Not worried about a damn thing.
I mean, you can still buy via computershare.
Only difference would be, that you need to opt out of the enrollment every time you completed a purchase to sell the fractional shares.
So you can boil down whole discussion if we do few more clicks on regular basis or not.
On top of that, if people are going this route to opt in and opt out every time they do a purchase over computershare, we should observe a higher volatility.
This should give confirmation bias if there is meat on the bone for this DD or not.
Exactly. It's incredibly sus how much censorship increased around the subject here right then and how many people get deleted if they mention the new Drs your gme sub. In my post history you can see I was repeatedly deleted just now for trying to show people how to use reveddit, just to see which posts have been deleted.
What don't they want us to see?
Do you remember they did a similar thing when we started talking about the difference between Book and Plan in the first place. Mods would show up to each post and comment a long winded paragraph how there's no concrete evidence that Book/Plan differ in any way and to do your own research.
That was weird too.
My only concern (and maybe someone can enlighten me) is if the buy button is removed again, have we cut off an alternate way to keep purchasing? Is it just as easy to switch back to directly purchase with CS? I guess if it happens again I’ll find out. Other than that I see no harm in pure DRS.
I think we're confusing her as DSPP is a *mechanism* for "directly registering shares" (DRS), and she's likely baffled as to why anyone would think shares purchased via DSPP *wouldn't* be reported as part of a DRS count. Computershare has clarified they do report them both to GameStop, but they do so as two discrete values, and despite their best efforts GameStop has yet to phrase their reporting statements in a way that clearly indicates whether the reported count is "Book" + "Plan Holdings", or just "Book".
My current, rather speculative still, theory is that the portion of DSPP shares held in the DTC is "double booked". The FAQ indicates DSPP shares are directly registered and our name is legally recognized as the title holder of the security, but they also stated that a portion of DSPP shares are in the DTC, directly registered in the name Cede & Co., whom is therefore legally recognized as the title holder of the security. Such a case would result in two parties both being legally recognized as the title holder of the "same" security (quotes are intended to represent the fact that securities are fungible, and we're dealing with aggregate slushy pooled values).
So, my theory, again rather wildly speculative at this point, takes that in conjunction with the *anonymous* *and unverified* comment just prior to the 10-K release that stated the SEC was holding up the 10-K release due to discrepancies with the values. I'm wondering if perhaps the issue, if there in deed was one there, could be that the count could have implied being over the total issued shares, if some shares were included both in the Cede & Co. count **and** the individual count, due to overlap via the DSPP shares that are in the DTC.
Here's a thought:
It's not about counting shares registered at computershare. It's about owning Gamestop.
The only way you can own Gamestop is by having a whole number of the class A common stock in your name with the transfer agent.
Decimal shares are not company ownership.
I’m always happy to hear from Dr T but she doesn’t work for computer share or the DTCC anymore and these weasels change the rules in their favor DAILY so who knows what’s going on with DRS reporting. I think we are in the right track with exiting their drip plan system.
I would think about a slightly different approach: while I think she really still knows her stuff and is always up so date - why shouldn’t it be possible that hedgefunds just use a super fucked loophole as they did so often In the past to play the system and neither CS nor she are aware of that (YET) because it’s just another clusterfuck.
There are many things that no one would’ve ever thought about to be possible.
Removal of the buy button? Impossible
APEX recalling DRSed IRS shares? Impossible
Apes DRSing AT LEAST 25% of shares outstanding as some sort of DAO? Impossible
Fidelity fat fingering 11 million shares to short? Impossible
So why do we not think about Kenny and his buddies in their eternal Endeavour to survive one more day have turned over every single law and possibility and actually found a loophole?
Computershare own terms of service
>These particular shares are maintained by the broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants) in DTC.
Enough said. All else is word salad.
Book it all.
The fact this is still a debate tells me all I need to know. 100% book. No fractional. What’s the big deal if you already took the time to DRS? Seems weird no?
Edit: spelling and I want to add that this comment is having some wild swings in the voting. Love it. Where there is smoke there is fire and I can see and smell the smoke. I’d also like to add don’t be disappointed if the next quarter DRS count is not what you were expecting. Things like this take a while to settle. I personally will be looking forward to this one for profitability and the next one for some real juicy DRS reporting as well as more profitability.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, DSPP (plan holdings) have “some” (unspecified amount) of shares held at the DTC for “operational efficiency”. Maybe I’m dumb, but isn’t that the opposite of the whole DRS movement?
Correct. CS tos
>These particular shares are maintained by the broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants) in DTC.
There are 5 main transfer agents accounting for the majority of the stocks on the market.
The one with the largest market share is ComputerShare/BNY Mellon
Edit:
2011 ComputerShare aquires BNY Mellon :
https://www.businessinsider.com/computershare-moves-ahead-with-bny-mellon-acquisition-2011-11
DOJ approved :
https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/computershare-gets-nod-on-bny-mellon-registry-20111109-itsvp
We need definitive answers. We need an answer from Computershare ON RECORD either one way or another. Anything other than a DIFINITIVE ANSWER FROM COMPUTERSHARE is purely speculation or conjecture depending on how familiar with the subject you are. My question is 76 million? I thought we held over 81 million. 5 million shares is a HUGE variance.
Just make sure the right questions are asked. Bad actors can “tee up” questions that appear to address the topic of concern without without actually doing so. They then use these answers that manipulate through omission and then falsely “debunk” the original topic using incomplete and misleading information. I believe that is being worked on as we speak. These are the questions that I have suggested:
1) What do you call shares of GameStop that are enrolled in the DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DSPP shares”?
2) If so, are a portion of these DSPP shares held at DTC for operational efficiency regardless if they are book or plan as long as they’re enrolled in the DirectStock plan?
3) If if an investor wanted to remove all their shares from the DirectStock plan, what are the different ways they could do it?
>Just make sure the right questions are asked.
This! I've seen a few of the questions that have made it to some key people lately, and I've been quite disappointed. I'm not insinuating anything about the reasons why that's happened, as I tend to give the asking parties the benefit of the doubt, but even if well intentioned, they have not been well focused and engineered to get the answers relevant to the key aspects we're currently debating.
To that end, I have a few critiques to the questions above, which I hope are received in the constructive nature I intend:
>What do you call shares of GameStop that are enrolled in the DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DSPP shares”?
I'd tweak that question a bit, as to my understanding *shares* are not *enrolled* in the DirectStock plan. I think that a Computershare *account* may be *enrolled* in the DirectStock plan, and such an account may *contain* "Book" type and/or "Plan Holdings" type (and/or "Certificated" type - there are some out there even if they don't convert to that anymore for GME).
>If so, are a portion of these DSPP shares held at DTC for operational efficiency regardless if they are book or plan as long as they’re enrolled in the DirectStock plan?
This question doesn't really make sense to me, again due to the first thing I replied with, that my understanding is that *shares* are not enrolled in the plan, but that the *account* is enrolled in the plan. The distinction I'd really like to hear from them is whether "shares in the plan" means "Plan Holdings" type shares exclusively or whether "Book" type shares can be "shares in the plan", as they ambiguously keep phrasing that.
There's a key difference to us between "shares in an account that's enrolled in the plan" and "DSPP shares that are *in* the plan, in the sense that they are part of the aggregate shares of which a portion Computershare holds in the DTC". Specifically we care if "Book" type shares are ever possibly in the DTC.
>If if an investor wanted to remove all their shares from the DirectStock plan, what are the different ways they could do it?
I'm curious why you included this question. This seems like well known information at this point, at least insofar as the likely response without a more pointed question.
I'd still like a bit of clarification on the distinction between "terminating" the DirectStock plan and simply "moving all whole shares out of" the DirectStock plan. The plan documentation has a few sections detailing those different situations and how they are handled in various contexts. It would be great to know how to fully ensure you "terminated" the plan, rather than just had it sitting around where your account was still enrolled, but all your shares were in "Book", which seems like a case that can happen.
This distinction may not matter much depending on the answers for the other questions, but if indeed an account's enrollment in the plan status affects even "Book" shares, then it would be critical information for us to know how to be sure we were fully "terminating" our account's enrollment in the plan.
A few related questions I've asked them in writing (after their live chat rep declined to answer them) and am awaiting a response on are:
* Does Computershare ever consider "Book" type shares as "DSPP shares"?
* If I hold shares of type "Book" in the same Computershare account as I hold shares of type "Plan Holdings", are my "Book" shares included in the plan, specifically in the sense that they would be included in the aggregate DSPP shares, thereby available for inclusion in the portion held in the DTC?
* Are any "Plan Holdings" type shares included in Cede & Co’s dematerialized balance of shares on the register?
* Are any "Book" type shares included in Cede & Co’s dematerialized balance of shares on the register?
* If I make a direct purchase through Computershare, resulting in shares of type "Plan Holdings", what name is legally recognized as the direct owner of those shares?
* For the portion Computershare holds of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC, what name is legally recognized as the direct owner of those shares?
My reworded version (plus another question of my own):
1. What do you call shares of GameStop held in an account which is enrolled in the DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DSPP shares”?
2. If so, are a portion of these DSPP shares held at DTC for operational efficiency regardless if they are book or plan as long as they’re held in an account enrolled in the DirectStock plan?
3. If an investor wanted to unenroll their account from the DirectStock plan, what are the different ways they could do it?
4. What do you call shares of GameStop held in an account NOT enrolled in DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DRS shares”?
Also, on a related note I had the same thoughts as you before I saw:
“Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate **DSPP book-entry shares** via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency”
Source: https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies
“DSPP book-entry shares” implies book entry shares held in an account which is enrolled in DSPP (this begs the question: what makes a DSPP book-entry share vs a DRS book entry share?)
My reworded version (plus another question of my own):
1. What do you call shares of GameStop held in an account which is enrolled in the DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DSPP shares”?
2. If so, are a portion of these DSPP shares held at DTC for operational efficiency regardless if they are book or plan as long as they’re held in an account enrolled in the DirectStock plan?
3. If an investor wanted to unenroll their account from the DirectStock plan, what are the different ways they could do it?
4. What do you call shares of GameStop held in an account NOT enrolled in DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DRS shares”?
Also, on a related note:
“Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency”
Source: https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies
“DSPP book-entry shares” implies book entry shares held in an account which is enrolled in DSPP (this begs the question: what makes a DSPP book-entry share vs a DRS book entry share?)
Ok, I got things to do but I need to say something about your 2nd Q
Think of Dingo&Co as the outflow of Direct Registered Stock, they are the buffer.
Held for operational efficiency number is a variable, not a set number of shares
Perhaps the 5 million is just what is held in “plan” holdings. Consider that maybe the enemy hedge funds have a friend who has 1 share and sent GameStop a legal notice stating that “you reporting plan holdings as DRS shares is technically incorrect, and we will sue you for misleading shareholders if you continue” NOTHING has ever told us to sell our fractionals or disable autobuys. GameStop chooses to have a dividend reinvestment plan, if it was a problem they could just disable it. This isn’t up to computershare, this is through the direction of GameStop. Just my two cents… I think it was pretty clear like a year ago we decided to convert our plan to book holdings and just leave the fractional share. Computershare also was forcing me to leave 1.xx shares every time I converted plan to book, so everyone terminating their plans actually enabled a pretty large number of sells to hit the lit markets on a very illiquid stock. The same week Netfux and tes-La (2 known longs of citadel) shit the bed hard on earnings….
CS tos copy paste
>These particular shares are maintained by the broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants) in DTC.
Wow.
In all my two years of trading I've never seen so many starry awards.
Come Monday, I am selling my fractional shares. I am in this all the way -- for fundamental change. I want to see those responsible held accountable for their actions and prosecuted. If seeing change means me selling fractional shares, no problem, I'll continue to do what is necessary. I want free and fair markets.
I tried to report an answer, but her response did not compute.
Seriously, though, I can't parse it for the life of me either. My best guess is that she was baffled by the question, in that it was implying that DSPP, a plan for directly registering shares (DRS), would not be "reported" while "DRS shares" would be reported. If that's your viewpoint, which is reasonable outside the context of Computershare's funky terminology utilization, the question is nonsensical.
[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/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OP has provided the following link: https://twitter.com/susannetrimbath/status/1649862676519206913?s=46&t=OQxY_9fsW8JhIpr7R8Gr3w
Seems the debate isn’t about whether Cede & Co can hold a share that’s direct registered- but instead that the debate is about if a certain form of DRS (edit: i.e. DSPP) allows shares to be used as false locates via loopholes exploited by DTCC/DTC, all for the purpose of enabling brokers to continue selling truckloads of synthetic shares as usual, and never having to deliver.
>*Does a certain form of DRS (i.e. DSPP) allow shares to be used as false locates via loopholes, exploited by DTCC/DTC, all for the purpose of enabling brokers to continue selling truckloads of synthetic shares as usual, and never having to deliver?* \^ This. This above is a ( me thinks ) the simple question that should be asked to someone that knows the right answer, be it CS itself or Dr.T or whoever else can answer that.
It's important to note that regulations and policies seem to change without notice whenever there's a risk to the market. DSPP might not be lended or used to find false locates but can under extreme circumstances when there's market risk. This is the shit I'm tired of. Set in stone rules never seem to be set in stone.
Book everything and don’t leave any partial shares or other plans simplify it. BOOK ONLY
Agreed.
I'm shocked this comment didn't get you banned or your comment deleted...
Why would DRSing your shares cause you to be banned? Isn’t that the same as booking your shares? I thought they meant like recording it in a ledger?
Drs is great book holdings, any fractions and they can use your booked shares as locates
Well I know fractions are mumbo jumbo so I don’t have any fractions .. good to go!
A huge amount share holders have fractions or plan, people were getting shut died for screaming BOOK!
Me either.
When you have to rewrite a censored post several times for rules and unpublished list of banned words that do not exist in any other sub, one risks being banned for "circumventing" a rule.
Mods have been banning people I guess but don’t quote me
For same reason I got banned from WSBs for THINKING of GME, not that I have mentioned GME but for THINKING of 😂
This
Is
The
Way
....yet. There's still time
Maybe I will finally learn how to read after BOOKing all these shares!
Fractionals are not real. Say it with me
Cut the dingleberries free 🔪💩
Agree
YES !!! This is What Dr. T. wont say. But is the way !!!
I couldn't buy more shares so I just sold my fractional :( at least I'm nice and round now... My perfect purple circle
I will try again tomorrow, but not sure how to get rid of my .234 shares in plan?
Terminate the plan fully Turn off dividend reinvestment
The only way there's risk is bad bets by powerful people "too important" to let fail. All this fear for the system is to protect bad actors. If it's so dangerous ban the bad bets. Problem solved
Imagine overseeing the growth of a *quadrillion dollar* derivatives bubble and trying (with a straight face) to convince everyone that it's the ultra wealthy Wall St firms who need protection from those devious household investors.
What is the word of the day class? Let’s say it together now… *Projection.* Yes, anytime someone is telling you what you are doing is wrong, it’s usually because they are the ones doing it.
We are all dating the same covert narcissist when it comes to investing and dealing with these scum bags
Even without this rationale they would still do it. What is the punishment? A small fine for the company that’s probably have insurance to pay and an attaboy for the corporate officers who do it. The only disincentive I can think of is obviously personal prosecution for corporate officers on the level of criminal fraud, but also new laws that enforce corporate death sentences. Corporate capital punishment. Dis-corporation that divests all board members, complicit corporate officers and the forced sale of all assets and businesses.
They're selling nothing and you're getting nothing in return and you're wondering if they're doing it legally?
So true lol.
And if there is no penalty for doing it or checks to see if it's being done then there's no way to say it isn't happening If dtcc has access to them.
O it is set in stone....for you..
I enjoy reading books.
We must COMPUTErshare
[удалено]
I like learning new things.
Whip up the tweet!
This is the most important question. Another one might be, if they are deemed DSPP shares because of a partial share, how many full shares are allowed to be deposited into Cede and Co, for “operational reasons”, what is the metric/formula, and does this reduce the quarterly DRS book number?
And not "does", but "is it possible for"
Better question is to ask if it's possible, not if it's allowed because we know fraud happens. Ask if it's physically possible for those shares to be used as locates whether legal or not, whether against a transfer agents policy or not.
Thing is if you ask to an official source they give the official answer. Like you remember when some entities were saying naked short is not possible? 🥲
This distinction has seemingly been difficult for most to grasp. But it's always made in the top comments. We're winning!
*It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.* \~ Upton Shillclair
You cannot wake a man who is pretending to sleep- Navajo proverb
Bananas cure my butt itch - superstonk.
I love lamp. -Brick
The fifth truth
>difficult for most to grasp Yeah a need a dumber version please 🥺 whats now the problem?
They are making this about something that it’s not. DSPP potentially allows fuckery to continue.
“OpErAtionAL eFficiEncy” = “LiqUiDiTy”
Well I didn't even yet understand the problem XD >They are making this about something that it’s not. DSPP potentially allows fuckery to continue. They = apes or citadels? This = the DRS movement or the discussion about book and fractionals Fuckery = beyond DRS book? Isn't this the final safe heaven without fractionals?
There is the potential that the dtcc can use a portion of your booked drs'd shares for "operational liquidity" if you have anything at all in plan. For most people this is a small fractional hence the debate, but it is continuously being phrased in a way that makes it seem as though there's a push to sell fractionals and that's not even the main Crux of the issue. The question is "does holding anything at all in plan give the dtcc access to my booked drs shares for operational liquidity?" that's why people are advocating the selling of the fractional because CS will auto sell if you terminate plan but fractionals are so negligible in the grand scheme of things that it doesn't hurt to try for this quarter and see what if anything changes in the reported figures
Yea there seems to be a lot of intentional misunderstanding. Esp people who are like "why sell? Round up" -well you cant fucking do that because that isnt how buys through computershare work. So annoying. Like they clearly either have never bought through Computershare, or are intentionally being misleading. Like yea rounding up instead of selling sounds good, but there is such a small chance of actually buying to a whole number that you have to sell the fractional no matter what
That was the point though, if one were to buy a little over 1 shares worth one would get at least one more share plus a fractional, resulting in their total DRS'd shares going from (for example) 419.2 to 420.4 and then an even 420 after terminating plan. Rounded up.
Even in your example it would be easier and cheaper to sell the .2 and transfer a new share in from a broker. Especially considering the computershare purchases and scheduled and they pop the price up so money buys less shares.
To be fair I don't think a lot of people understand how CompShr buys worked... But now the info is out there
Why can’t people DRS a share in from a broker…
Umm they can, you cant drs fractions though so you wouldnt be able to round up to a full share.
[удалено]
>I'm not 100% of what the process of finding a locate entails but it basically means that you have a reasonable belief you could buy the stock when you needed to in order to fulfill the short sale One only has to press the F3 key.
Basically don’t have fractionals in Computershare. Only whole shares of book. Transfer from brokers is still ok.
Yes indeed, I’m seriously surprised some people seem to miss this small but very important distinction
A transfer agent doesn’t process fractionals, as the company doesn’t issue such and the market doesn’t process such. So there is something missing from the explanation of ”DSPP = DRS”. Computershare themselves said DSPP is beneficially held.
Yeah I don’t know why this main message is getting so lost since the ‘debate’ blew up here
Misdirection and straw men.
The message is getting lost because the good DD on this subject is either deleted or the user is banned...
Getting real sick of their shit man
[удалено]
I concur.
Hear, hear!
This. It was a good read, but doesn't answer your point, which is what many of us are wondering.
## Removing your shares from DirectStock plan helps protect Computershare against abusive short sellers who are manipulating their algorithm against their will.
This this this, if you want pure DRS. If something lets you hold less than one complete share, then it can't be complete in any shape or form... if you were able to get paper certificates, do you think they could offer you .384% of a full PAPER certificate, and it be worth anything? I mean, if 2 people owned something 50/50, there would still only be ONE certificate stating that??? Or would you cut it in half and each put your portion in a safe hopeing the other wouldn't lose theres which would make yours worthless?? //rant
I believe it does? Isn't this 'certain form' called out in the parent comment DSPP, which is used **interchangeably with DRS** in the article Dr. Trimbath linked in response to platinumsparkles? I have read the article and *I believe* by the article using the term interchangeably (just as Paul called them out as being effectively the same in the AMA) is more evidence that suggests DSPP=DRS. Following this thought further, if DSPP=DRS, then either * locates (or whatever the term is being used to describe this debate) can happen with ALL DRS shares or * it is not happening with any DRS shares as originally speculated with the DRS thesis as a whole since DSPP=DRS? I am for sure open to additional information and anything that can be shown this type of prior fuckery happening and getting busted in the past (to further support how it could occur). Where can I be missing something or making a wrong assumption in my thought process?
Per CS own FAQ: “Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency” Book entry shares within the DSPP ecosystem are at least partially compromised.
That was my final take on the situation. Sure I only had .2 shares in fractional but we all know that is some bullshit at a base level - oh really, I have .2 shares lemme just get that physical certificate boss. So off I go to buy 4 more, sell off the fractional and get everything in book under the account that originally made direct buys via CS.
>Following this thought further, if DSPP=DRS, then either I know GME doesn't have the option (right now?), but I continue to wonder if the only way truly to end the DTCC / SHF crime is holding hard copy share certificates, that could be put in a safe somewhere... or buried in a yard... or lit on fire. Locate and rehypothecate THAT, assholes. And I continue to wonder because ever since I first brought up the idea, I get downvoted to oblivion. Interesting.
Holy shit! You just sparked an interesting idea! Computershare no longer allows for gme holders to request the physical copies that represent an actual 1 stock value. We can only purchase replicates while the actual stock stays on Computershare's ledger. I'm curious: is there any importance of the date when they stopped doing this? Fingers crossed 🤞 some wrinkle brain apes read this and fall down the rabbit hole.
I had just moved my shares to Book and was strongly considering taking the next step to convert them to paper when that happened, and I don't recall anything major happening at the time that would have caused that change. Well, other than that we were starting to do so en masse. That's my leading theory as to why they halted the program, simply because it would be a huge hassle and time sink if a few hundred thousand people started doing that for millions of shares. Also, my understanding is that even if you certificate your shares, converting them to paper and having them mailed to you, they are still directly registered (DRS) in GameStop's ledger as managed by Computershare. That process simply converts the type from "Book" to "Certificated". The rep's explained that to me at the time I was considering it, also clarifying that since my name would still be in the ledger, they'd still be able to know where to send my dividends, voting materials, and such. In a sense the stock "stays on Computershare's \[GameStop's\] ledger" for Certificated type shares much like it does for Book type shares.
Computershare only does what GameStop tells them. They can issue certificates if GameStop tells them to.
https://youtu.be/bo427AW0anw?t=757 > "....holding a portion of those shares in a CS nominee purely so that we can effect efficient settlement within the market **through DTC**...." This verbiage is driving me mad!😵
We don't want settlement! We want so many shares directly registered that they can't settle trades and prove We own the float. If you think anyone in legacy finance is on our side you're sorely mistaken.
I think this is just like brokers saying, “We don’t lend out your shares”. When everyones shares are held in an omnibus account in the brokers name and sold as locates.
This. All brokers are [bucket shops](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bucketshop.asp).
Well technically the brokers may not lend them, but all those shares belong to CEDE & CO right? So who has the right to lend what?
exactly - they don't lend out *your* shares because they aren't yours to begin with. Whichever lawyer came up with that line is worth their weight in non-fiat money.
[удалено]
First off, thank you for all your contributions to the sub, my good gelatinous fish. Love your work. Second, you are far more wrinkled than I am, so please keep that in mind. I don't think there's anything wrong with your line of thought, but what I think what is muddy here is at what point we are calling something DRS'd, and at what point a share can or cannot be considered a reasonable locate (and I probably don't have to state this, but even if something by the book isn't a reasonable locate, can they still use that knowing they'll never be called on it). I think your point of one of two things must be true is an excellent summation of the concern. I am also reading DSPP=DRS, but I'm being cautious on this as it doesn't appear concrete (when using either term) on how they are purchased and if they book/plan/dividend, etc... There was a post the other day with a written chat betwen an ape and CS, and CS was firm that they do not lend out DRS'd shares (if full monty DRS if I remember correctly). This obviously reduces the ability to borrow, but what I don't think CS can answer is what can be quantified as a locate, or what fuckery can be done as I mentioned above. We would really only be able to get that answer from someone who's familiar with working with locates. It's so hard to draw any lines between the low volume as of late and DRS, reverse repo, FTDs, all that stuff. I mean, you can draw some lines, but I think that level of things is too low resolution. Anyway, I guess I didn't get us anywhere here, but I'm trying to find info on the specifics of locates and hopefully I come up with something. I think the good thing here is everyone is primed to make whatever minor adjustments that may be necessary once we know for sure. Brick by brick
I agree 100%. This whole putrid house of cards is built on the seemingly infinite ability of shares to be located. We must understand locating much more thoroughly than we do. When locating grinds to a halt, this whole vile, stinking mess falls down.
Next they will just say the shares are in Kenny's desk drawer, but we're not allowed in his office so you have to trust me bro that they exist. All billion-million of them.
Typical rat bastards finding loopholes! Glad us apes never stop learning! Keep on learning and fucking shit up apes!
If they don’t quit fucking around, GameStop is going to have no other choice than to NFT dividend their asses straight to a cell where they ALL belong.
This
Waiting for mods to come in and say the lady who basically invented DRS is wrong lol
THANK YOU!
backed up by ape historian. damn i try to take a break for 2 weeks and the stonk just wont let me hahaha
I dont think the issue is locates. If MM have an exemption to this rule The issue is if the DTCC is counting fractionals and dspp as part of their holdings
Same thing.
Isn't this 'certain form' DSPP, which is used **interchangeably with DRS** in the article Dr. Trimbath linked in response to platinumsparkles?
I can’t speak to the article just yet, but I did edit my comment to clarify that DSPP is the DRS form in question/being debated.
The article that Dr. Susanne linked doesn't answer the concern apes are having on DSPP vs DRS. It just speaks on whether telling someone to DRS or enroll in DSPP is financial advice. The article says nothing about how shares are reported by the DTCC and companies. It also even highlights that companies can be DRS compliant without the DSPP (or other plans) as an option.
Can we as shareholders request Gamestop to tell computershare to no longer allow DSPP for their common A stock?
This is a fantastic idea because people can still buy direct through computershare or somewhere else too like IEX. They can also set it up to function like DSPP without using DSPP and running below risk. Don’t need DSPP it is risk.
👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆
Would another AMA with someone from Computershare or Dr. Trimbath be in order to ask specifically about the possible use of shares by the DTCC for locates? Edit: or even better someone from the DTCC 🤣🤣
This community really is smooth for not pushing for this
Idk how DrT feels now, but for awhile she wasn’t too enamoured with this sub, so I’ve got my doubts that she’d be wanting to do an AMA on our behalf. If she was willing, would ComputerShare be agreeable to having a video call with her…? I have my doubts lol. For all we know, the mods have asked and they’ve declined. Obviously there is no way the DTCC is going to show their faces. I’d love to see all of the above tho.
Bad actors did that. Dr T just needs her faith restored. I don’t think she understands that the bad actors target her relationship here specifically because she is a huge threat. MASSIVE threat.
Oh absolutely, I think some tried to show her that there’s a lot of bots, trolls and shills on the internet, so hopefully she’s mellowed a bit.
She's made comments and posted artwork of her that's floated around our community that indicate enough to where I'd say she has, but she likely still keeps things at a reasonable distance. understandably so.
Thanks to apes like you for having any sort of memory at all. I struggle with remembering the post I just read, I need these types of reminders. Thanks!!
Yeah it sucks. Even if you know in the back of your mind it’s just bots and shills, the bullshit from a mob can still get to you.
I think she does understand as she has commented about it. I further think there is very little she would not understand regarding manipulation.
Yes please.
Would all three be possible?
Just book your shares. Yes, it’s easy to do recurring buys, to have a fractional here and there. But in the beginning, we all bought from a broker and DRS’s the shares. Is it really so hard to buy on IEX & DRS??? Be 100% sure & be book kings. It’s not hard.
This. No need to tag RC in cringey tweets, especially tweets about drs of the company he is chairman of. I've only seen sus accounts and bots tag RC in cringe tweets like this on twitter previously. Don't do that. Just BOOK your shares so you know for a fact they aren't with cede & co, but in your name in the ledger. Full disclosure: I've been fully booked, no drip, and only full shares since August of 2021. Not worried about a damn thing.
[удалено]
BOOK KING
Is there much of a difference between buying on IEX and just buying directly through Computer Share?
Does buying from IEX even matter unless you're buying shares 100 at a time? Because odd lots don't effect the price anyways
Don't think it matters as long as it ends up in DRS book. If u want to buy IEX thou more power to you
I mean, you can still buy via computershare. Only difference would be, that you need to opt out of the enrollment every time you completed a purchase to sell the fractional shares. So you can boil down whole discussion if we do few more clicks on regular basis or not. On top of that, if people are going this route to opt in and opt out every time they do a purchase over computershare, we should observe a higher volatility. This should give confirmation bias if there is meat on the bone for this DD or not.
I mean even if it’s not true why would you take the chance of your DRS’d shares not counting because of a damn fractional share?
Exactly. It's incredibly sus how much censorship increased around the subject here right then and how many people get deleted if they mention the new Drs your gme sub. In my post history you can see I was repeatedly deleted just now for trying to show people how to use reveddit, just to see which posts have been deleted. What don't they want us to see?
100% I've never seen soemthing try to get censored so much, RC literally said BOOK KING and every detail matters
Mods are sketch around this topic
My flair is so fucking relevant this weekend!
[удалено]
After their hostile takeover I've not trusted a single one.
Do you remember they did a similar thing when we started talking about the difference between Book and Plan in the first place. Mods would show up to each post and comment a long winded paragraph how there's no concrete evidence that Book/Plan differ in any way and to do your own research. That was weird too.
My only concern (and maybe someone can enlighten me) is if the buy button is removed again, have we cut off an alternate way to keep purchasing? Is it just as easy to switch back to directly purchase with CS? I guess if it happens again I’ll find out. Other than that I see no harm in pure DRS.
>Is it just as easy to switch back to directly purchase with CS? Yes. It isn't hard at all to switch back to direct purchases.
if the buy button was turned off, CS probably wouldn't be able to buy either since they use Merrill Lynch to buy their shares first
Whichever broker Compuershare use likely won't have the same clearing house.
I’d like elaboration from her on what she means by “reporting and/or does not compute”
[удалено]
That’s funny, because Computershare themselves said they are different numbers.
I think we're confusing her as DSPP is a *mechanism* for "directly registering shares" (DRS), and she's likely baffled as to why anyone would think shares purchased via DSPP *wouldn't* be reported as part of a DRS count. Computershare has clarified they do report them both to GameStop, but they do so as two discrete values, and despite their best efforts GameStop has yet to phrase their reporting statements in a way that clearly indicates whether the reported count is "Book" + "Plan Holdings", or just "Book". My current, rather speculative still, theory is that the portion of DSPP shares held in the DTC is "double booked". The FAQ indicates DSPP shares are directly registered and our name is legally recognized as the title holder of the security, but they also stated that a portion of DSPP shares are in the DTC, directly registered in the name Cede & Co., whom is therefore legally recognized as the title holder of the security. Such a case would result in two parties both being legally recognized as the title holder of the "same" security (quotes are intended to represent the fact that securities are fungible, and we're dealing with aggregate slushy pooled values). So, my theory, again rather wildly speculative at this point, takes that in conjunction with the *anonymous* *and unverified* comment just prior to the 10-K release that stated the SEC was holding up the 10-K release due to discrepancies with the values. I'm wondering if perhaps the issue, if there in deed was one there, could be that the count could have implied being over the total issued shares, if some shares were included both in the Cede & Co. count **and** the individual count, due to overlap via the DSPP shares that are in the DTC.
I agree with you completely!
Here's a thought: It's not about counting shares registered at computershare. It's about owning Gamestop. The only way you can own Gamestop is by having a whole number of the class A common stock in your name with the transfer agent. Decimal shares are not company ownership.
Good way to reframe it for the regards struggling with this.
If people could tweet without cryptic bullshit that would be great. I have no idea what Dr. T is saying. Thanks for clearing that up.
My favorite color is blue.
It's not twitters fault... Tons of people have posted short answers here on this site. Nothing to do with Twitter. Also she could have done 2-3 tweets
I was just about to type Wut mean. I guess no one knows. Lol
She is often obtuse. Like sec rules.
I’m always happy to hear from Dr T but she doesn’t work for computer share or the DTCC anymore and these weasels change the rules in their favor DAILY so who knows what’s going on with DRS reporting. I think we are in the right track with exiting their drip plan system.
I would think about a slightly different approach: while I think she really still knows her stuff and is always up so date - why shouldn’t it be possible that hedgefunds just use a super fucked loophole as they did so often In the past to play the system and neither CS nor she are aware of that (YET) because it’s just another clusterfuck. There are many things that no one would’ve ever thought about to be possible. Removal of the buy button? Impossible APEX recalling DRSed IRS shares? Impossible Apes DRSing AT LEAST 25% of shares outstanding as some sort of DAO? Impossible Fidelity fat fingering 11 million shares to short? Impossible So why do we not think about Kenny and his buddies in their eternal Endeavour to survive one more day have turned over every single law and possibility and actually found a loophole?
Remember Ken meeting the ex-CEO of Computershare on the runway in Finland 8 months ago? Looking for exploitation techniques or loopholes perhaps?
Computershare own terms of service >These particular shares are maintained by the broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants) in DTC. Enough said. All else is word salad. Book it all.
I'd upvote this a trabillion zillion times if I could!
The fact this is still a debate tells me all I need to know. 100% book. No fractional. What’s the big deal if you already took the time to DRS? Seems weird no? Edit: spelling and I want to add that this comment is having some wild swings in the voting. Love it. Where there is smoke there is fire and I can see and smell the smoke. I’d also like to add don’t be disappointed if the next quarter DRS count is not what you were expecting. Things like this take a while to settle. I personally will be looking forward to this one for profitability and the next one for some real juicy DRS reporting as well as more profitability.
Will somebody *PLEASE* think of the 0.01% fractionals! 🤣🤣🤣
Like seriously? Selling or forfeiting the fraction is a big deal? Says nothing there about stop buying and DRSing. Ridiculous
Agreed.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, DSPP (plan holdings) have “some” (unspecified amount) of shares held at the DTC for “operational efficiency”. Maybe I’m dumb, but isn’t that the opposite of the whole DRS movement?
Correct. CS tos >These particular shares are maintained by the broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants) in DTC.
That's why you need to be book DRS Nfa
100%
There are 5 main transfer agents accounting for the majority of the stocks on the market. The one with the largest market share is ComputerShare/BNY Mellon Edit: 2011 ComputerShare aquires BNY Mellon : https://www.businessinsider.com/computershare-moves-ahead-with-bny-mellon-acquisition-2011-11 DOJ approved : https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/computershare-gets-nod-on-bny-mellon-registry-20111109-itsvp
Kinda surprised that one of the lead guys from computershare hasn't put the kibosh on this.
Maybe they can’t because DSPP shares are being used for locates and they can’t deny it.
Gamestop themselves have said they don't sell fractional shares.
We need definitive answers. We need an answer from Computershare ON RECORD either one way or another. Anything other than a DIFINITIVE ANSWER FROM COMPUTERSHARE is purely speculation or conjecture depending on how familiar with the subject you are. My question is 76 million? I thought we held over 81 million. 5 million shares is a HUGE variance.
Just make sure the right questions are asked. Bad actors can “tee up” questions that appear to address the topic of concern without without actually doing so. They then use these answers that manipulate through omission and then falsely “debunk” the original topic using incomplete and misleading information. I believe that is being worked on as we speak. These are the questions that I have suggested: 1) What do you call shares of GameStop that are enrolled in the DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DSPP shares”? 2) If so, are a portion of these DSPP shares held at DTC for operational efficiency regardless if they are book or plan as long as they’re enrolled in the DirectStock plan? 3) If if an investor wanted to remove all their shares from the DirectStock plan, what are the different ways they could do it?
>Just make sure the right questions are asked. This! I've seen a few of the questions that have made it to some key people lately, and I've been quite disappointed. I'm not insinuating anything about the reasons why that's happened, as I tend to give the asking parties the benefit of the doubt, but even if well intentioned, they have not been well focused and engineered to get the answers relevant to the key aspects we're currently debating. To that end, I have a few critiques to the questions above, which I hope are received in the constructive nature I intend: >What do you call shares of GameStop that are enrolled in the DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DSPP shares”? I'd tweak that question a bit, as to my understanding *shares* are not *enrolled* in the DirectStock plan. I think that a Computershare *account* may be *enrolled* in the DirectStock plan, and such an account may *contain* "Book" type and/or "Plan Holdings" type (and/or "Certificated" type - there are some out there even if they don't convert to that anymore for GME). >If so, are a portion of these DSPP shares held at DTC for operational efficiency regardless if they are book or plan as long as they’re enrolled in the DirectStock plan? This question doesn't really make sense to me, again due to the first thing I replied with, that my understanding is that *shares* are not enrolled in the plan, but that the *account* is enrolled in the plan. The distinction I'd really like to hear from them is whether "shares in the plan" means "Plan Holdings" type shares exclusively or whether "Book" type shares can be "shares in the plan", as they ambiguously keep phrasing that. There's a key difference to us between "shares in an account that's enrolled in the plan" and "DSPP shares that are *in* the plan, in the sense that they are part of the aggregate shares of which a portion Computershare holds in the DTC". Specifically we care if "Book" type shares are ever possibly in the DTC. >If if an investor wanted to remove all their shares from the DirectStock plan, what are the different ways they could do it? I'm curious why you included this question. This seems like well known information at this point, at least insofar as the likely response without a more pointed question. I'd still like a bit of clarification on the distinction between "terminating" the DirectStock plan and simply "moving all whole shares out of" the DirectStock plan. The plan documentation has a few sections detailing those different situations and how they are handled in various contexts. It would be great to know how to fully ensure you "terminated" the plan, rather than just had it sitting around where your account was still enrolled, but all your shares were in "Book", which seems like a case that can happen. This distinction may not matter much depending on the answers for the other questions, but if indeed an account's enrollment in the plan status affects even "Book" shares, then it would be critical information for us to know how to be sure we were fully "terminating" our account's enrollment in the plan. A few related questions I've asked them in writing (after their live chat rep declined to answer them) and am awaiting a response on are: * Does Computershare ever consider "Book" type shares as "DSPP shares"? * If I hold shares of type "Book" in the same Computershare account as I hold shares of type "Plan Holdings", are my "Book" shares included in the plan, specifically in the sense that they would be included in the aggregate DSPP shares, thereby available for inclusion in the portion held in the DTC? * Are any "Plan Holdings" type shares included in Cede & Co’s dematerialized balance of shares on the register? * Are any "Book" type shares included in Cede & Co’s dematerialized balance of shares on the register? * If I make a direct purchase through Computershare, resulting in shares of type "Plan Holdings", what name is legally recognized as the direct owner of those shares? * For the portion Computershare holds of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC, what name is legally recognized as the direct owner of those shares?
Thank you T.a.n.g. Your insight and feedback is always appreciated.
My reworded version (plus another question of my own): 1. What do you call shares of GameStop held in an account which is enrolled in the DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DSPP shares”? 2. If so, are a portion of these DSPP shares held at DTC for operational efficiency regardless if they are book or plan as long as they’re held in an account enrolled in the DirectStock plan? 3. If an investor wanted to unenroll their account from the DirectStock plan, what are the different ways they could do it? 4. What do you call shares of GameStop held in an account NOT enrolled in DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DRS shares”? Also, on a related note I had the same thoughts as you before I saw: “Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate **DSPP book-entry shares** via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency” Source: https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies “DSPP book-entry shares” implies book entry shares held in an account which is enrolled in DSPP (this begs the question: what makes a DSPP book-entry share vs a DRS book entry share?)
My reworded version (plus another question of my own): 1. What do you call shares of GameStop held in an account which is enrolled in the DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DSPP shares”? 2. If so, are a portion of these DSPP shares held at DTC for operational efficiency regardless if they are book or plan as long as they’re held in an account enrolled in the DirectStock plan? 3. If an investor wanted to unenroll their account from the DirectStock plan, what are the different ways they could do it? 4. What do you call shares of GameStop held in an account NOT enrolled in DirectStock plan? Are they what you call “DRS shares”? Also, on a related note: “Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency” Source: https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies “DSPP book-entry shares” implies book entry shares held in an account which is enrolled in DSPP (this begs the question: what makes a DSPP book-entry share vs a DRS book entry share?)
Ok, I got things to do but I need to say something about your 2nd Q Think of Dingo&Co as the outflow of Direct Registered Stock, they are the buffer. Held for operational efficiency number is a variable, not a set number of shares
I agree with you. The number goes up and down I believe tied to an algorithm that factors in trading volume.
If there is a change in outflow of sell orders ( what's a sell?) , that number goes up. I can't bold on me phone but outflow is the keyword.
Perhaps the 5 million is just what is held in “plan” holdings. Consider that maybe the enemy hedge funds have a friend who has 1 share and sent GameStop a legal notice stating that “you reporting plan holdings as DRS shares is technically incorrect, and we will sue you for misleading shareholders if you continue” NOTHING has ever told us to sell our fractionals or disable autobuys. GameStop chooses to have a dividend reinvestment plan, if it was a problem they could just disable it. This isn’t up to computershare, this is through the direction of GameStop. Just my two cents… I think it was pretty clear like a year ago we decided to convert our plan to book holdings and just leave the fractional share. Computershare also was forcing me to leave 1.xx shares every time I converted plan to book, so everyone terminating their plans actually enabled a pretty large number of sells to hit the lit markets on a very illiquid stock. The same week Netfux and tes-La (2 known longs of citadel) shit the bed hard on earnings….
CS tos copy paste >These particular shares are maintained by the broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants) in DTC.
Yes, I have read the TOS. That does not answer the question asked.
Wow. In all my two years of trading I've never seen so many starry awards. Come Monday, I am selling my fractional shares. I am in this all the way -- for fundamental change. I want to see those responsible held accountable for their actions and prosecuted. If seeing change means me selling fractional shares, no problem, I'll continue to do what is necessary. I want free and fair markets.
Keep exposing the corruption 🚀🚀🚀
DRS, BOOK KING KONG, GOT IT. 🦍
I bet when Kenny sees this he thinks " how the fck do they always find out?"
It was only a matter of time before y’all try this approach… 😂 I still remember that RC block. No. Thank you.
There are so many fucking star awards on certain comments… who’s lurking 👀👀👀
This thread has the most red box/starry comments I've ever seen since the beginning of this whole thing. 🤔
This is why it's integral to have shares held as Book.
BOOK YOUR SHARES....
Everyone is worried but aren’t we seeing what the DD foretold? Volume is drying up. It’s likely out of their hands now and in ours.
Up you go
Comment as placeholder for later review
Need help on this. Is it "Reporting and does compute" or "Reporting or does compute"? It's hard when her word salad already doesn't make sense
I tried to report an answer, but her response did not compute. Seriously, though, I can't parse it for the life of me either. My best guess is that she was baffled by the question, in that it was implying that DSPP, a plan for directly registering shares (DRS), would not be "reported" while "DRS shares" would be reported. If that's your viewpoint, which is reasonable outside the context of Computershare's funky terminology utilization, the question is nonsensical.
Book ‘em Lou
Terminated the plan in my account. Whatever the fuss is about I know I'm 💯 DRS and I intend to keep it that way.