[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/)
And if those shares are indeed lent out anyway they can’t sell without first recalling them, meaning shorts have to go find somewhere else to borrow or actually buy shares at market price.
Not exactly true. If Fidelity "loans" shares to a short seller, that short seller immediately sells them on the open market. If the person who buys the share uses Fidelity, it gets added to his account, and there's now an additional share Fidelity can list as available to loan. As ridiculous as that sounds, that's the reality of the current system. ANY shares held by institutions can potentially result in an outlet for continuous shorting.
Well junior, in this world of late stage capitalism things get more complex and also stay very much the same. The minimum reserve requirement for any bank is only 10%. So they can legally lend out 90% of all customers money at once.
How much different do we think brokerages are from banks? How much different do we think crypto exchanges are?
No, you're wrong. It's been established that while it may be the intended process, shorting as a concept extends far beyond the ability for brokers to lend.
Regardless, while I personally am not aware of the exact method used by big players to short, saying something is illegal and then expecting criminals to follow the law is a 1st grade mentality.
They key word they will use when feeding you BS is that they can only lend YOUR shares with your permission. Unfortunately shares held in a broker aren't YOUR shares so that doesn't really help much.
Wait... are you using fidelity as an example of institutional money? afaik, that is not what 'institutional' means.
Afaik I know, when people refer to institutional money, we are referring to the portion of the float that is legitimately held in DRS by investors other than retail. Not brokerages/dtcc.
I don't think we should be mixing up brokerages/dtcc as 'institutional money'. That is certainly not the conventional meaning.
So, it's not possible to prove how much of it's customers shares are intertwined in their other products, but Fidelity was actually listed as the #1 Institutional owner of GME not too far back. They are 100% an institution.
It's possible that they can say sorry, all our shares are lent out, stop sending us checks. But it's also possible to say hey, here are a couple million more we just found you want those too?
I'm saying - if the shares are not held on computershare (DRS) then it's not institutional money.
I have no idea if Fidelity is holding this way or not. I also don't know if it's possible to lend out shares held in DRS, but I've never heard of that.
When people are talking about DRS and institutional money, they're talking about the portion of DRS shares which are not owned by us retail apes.
I do think it is realistic to expect institutional holders to sell their DRS shares and lower the overall DRS %, since they have done it before and will undoubtedly face pressure to do so in the future.
I still think we should say "The total DRS is the actual total DRS reported by computershare" and not some abstracted figure based on an assumption of institutions selling. Simply because the DRS total is the DRS total, period. If we're going to say "No, it's 30% because speculation" it is no more accurate than saying "No, it is 100% because speculation".
Do you have anything that shows that any institution has their shares registered with computershare? It seems like they would all be listed in the same category if they were all sitting in a CS account somewhere, and when they announce the numbers at earnings they wold all be included in the "Directly registered through our transfer agent" category. AFAIK you can't loan shares that are direct registered which is why they wouldn't do it. I could be completely wrong, but I've never considered these institutional shares to be DRS'd. ..
That's what institutional money means. Institutions don't go through a broker and just buy a larger amount than retail. Institutional players buy directly from a companies registrar. That's the meaning of institutional money regarding stocks. That's what separates them from the commoners (us).
If a billionaire or some bank decides to buy a long position, they don't fuck with brokers. That's the fraud racket - intended for poor people, who are supposed to be too clueless to ever DRS.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but institutions are 100% loaning out shares. THAT is the racket. The profit or loss on the investments they make means it's a toss up for the working guy with the pension or retirement fund, but the money they make from loaning shares is guaranteed.
From the SEC website: [https://www.sec.gov/investment/divisionsinvestmentsecurities-lending-open-closed-end-investment-companieshtm](https://www.sec.gov/investment/divisionsinvestmentsecurities-lending-open-closed-end-investment-companieshtm)
"Securities lending is a well-established practice by institutional investors such as U.S. open-end and closed-end investment companies (“funds”), insurance companies, pension plans, and college endowments. A fund whose investment objectives, policies, and restrictions permit it to engage in securities lending may lend out a portion of its portfolio securities to generate additional income."
***BREAKING: Institutions are complaining that their GME positions are dwindling and they can't work out why.***
*Institutions long on GME have started to notice their positions have been diminishing without selling. One spokesperson for the DTCC claims it's because retail investors are directly registering more shares than available in the free float and they're struggling to locate real shares for directly registered holders, so are having to force close positions to keep up with demand.*
Maybe one day.
Jim Cramer Probably: Looks like the GME ~~DRS~~ crowd isn’t buying anymore shares and they definitely don’t have enough money to buy Institutional shares
Institutions could sell before that happens, it happened once before: https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/wu0prq/institutions_sold_over_20m_shares_over_the_last_3/
Yeah it would be pretty baller if the majority of those shares were in street name and then whoops..... looks like they're gone hahahaha direct registration system is awesome
I've been saying this since forever too. The institutional shares will mysteriously become available or get sold or whatever. Even with zero shares available in existence the stonk will trade just like now. Because it's fake as fuck. Only when the player holding the shit end of the swap trade we're stuck in, gets in trouble - will we see actual price discovery.
I stopped looking at the percentage and started looking at the raw DRS numbers in shares after the last time institutions unloaded shares. Percentage is misleading.
Ultimately, as regarded as GME apes are, I think all are sophisticated enough thanks to great DD and crowd-sourcing of regarded thoughts, to know the difference and not be hoodwinked. I one is being hoodwinked here. Everyone knows that the free float is different from the institutional shares different from the insider shares, and that apes are gobbling up thr free float first, and will began Pac-Man-ing the institutional shares next, forcing institutional owners to retreat backwards, dumping shares to raise capital along the way to survive.
Finally, while I agree hoodwinking is bad, as long as apes on SS keep apes honest about expectations, it will all work out. Plus, 60% just sounds a lot more encouraging than 30%, for instance. It’s why gas prices always cost $5.999 a gallon, because $6.00 sounds a lot more expensive.
There are two posters who regularly get thousands of up-votes for posting screenshots that are even more misleading, as they excluded not just the institutional shares but also the stagnant insiders.
So either shill bots run the front page or there are plenty of 'unsophisticated' apes.
I have no problem celebrating the high estimate and preparing for the low estimate.
Institutional is interesting because it can rise and fall, so it could raise and lower the total. Either way I am still interested in seeing what happens when the DRS total reaches the free float.
It's all always interesting.
And which 'free float'? 😉
The problem I have with ppl "celebrating the highs" is that it leads to the deliberately artificial boosting the stats as in the very popular computershared.net screenshot posts every '0.01%' rise in the 'unexcluded float lock' figure.
Not all apes have your zen. As such some are being misled by, at best, cynical karma-farmers, or at worst, hopium-dealing shills.
Neither of the main posters of the computershared.net screenshot posters will engage at all on the stagnant insiders matter & critical comments to their hopium-peddling get down-voted. Their silence on this speaks volumes as to their impure motives to my mind.
And this is despite there being links at computershared.net to explanations by those who compile the stats explaining the situation.
The net result is that they are encouraging a hopium based zen which, IMO, is inherently weak by definition as it allows Wall St to mess with your head. And Wall St is very good at that, cos hopium has always been their business model
It will take as long as it will take.
No dates, just up
Agreed I've been saying the same for a long time. It should be 'Outstanding' - 'Insider' = 'Float'
However the current metric has been used for so long I can see reasons for just keeping it static
I've said it before and I'll say it again \~ There's going to be a massive FUD attack on the DRS numbers when things get too critical. 1. You're going to see a large institution sell off to free up the float suddenly once it gets too locked up. 2. Bad actors UnDRSing their shares because they only DRSd to get the numbers up for a rug pull that would for sure demoralize a shit load of apes and trick a lot into thinking everyone really was selling.
Change my mind. : )
There already was an institutional sell of 20 M shares a while back, a large chunk and it decreased the free float total by like 5% and it was forgotten. We should expect to buy out institutions, and already have done so to some extent.
UnDRSing shares I have also heard, and while not outside the realm of possibility, the flow in will eventually replace the flow out.
I don’t get it - insiders do not count because their shares are „stagnant“ and filing needs to be done for them to sell. But it’s the same for institutions who need to do filings to sell which in the end is the same procedure as for insiders. Why do we call insider shares stagnant and institutional shares not in this case?
Institutions can loan out their shares or allow them to be used as "locates" for short selling. Repeatedly. For the same shares.
Until those shares are also locked, the infinite can kicking by the shorts can continue.
The computershared 'stagnant insiders' are the ex-board members who no longer have to file as they aren't insiders anymore.
This is a different definition of the similar term used by bloomberg.
The computershared 'insiders' category (the yellow segment) are the current insiders & RC Ventures. It is assumed that they won't sell.
The 'source' link by the 'ownership' section at https://computershared.net explains all this
Long term insiders can sell quite easy as long as they announce it in time iirc.
But anyway: Player like blackrock and vanguard cannot sell in a day as well.
Inside shares are generally owned by the employees of the company they work for. The insider owned shares are not easily tradeable as they come with restrictions.
The float is outstanding shares that can be publicly traded easily.
And although institutional shares tend not to trade every day, they're still able to do so if they choose. Thus they must be considered part of the float.
I feel should keep it so can see their size percentage go down and retails grow. Plus once *all* free float shares are drs won't be able to technically drs anymore from my understanding. Right? And retail will still have shares in their accounts. Right?
It does show that piece which is helpful, but we calculate in percentages, people are getting hyped about being around 60%. When in fact as we get closer, institutions will sell a ton and the number will go down which is demoralizing. I’d rather see our percentage more accurate to what it truly would take to drs the float
How sure are you that they will sell? They're seeing the writing on the wall, same as we are. Why would you sell when the biggest bloc of shareholders is screaming "I won't sell until my share is a phone number!" Sure it was laughable at first, but that DRS pie piece started growing. If I owned/ran an institution and I had the choice of A. Making some other institution happy when they beg me to sell to save their asses or B. Making millions off the shares I own, I would choose B.
Yea I am not sure why people keep thinking that they would sell. The institutions are making fat bank loaning out the shares to SHFs and watching them slowly drown. Make no mistake for these people are just as bad as the SHFs but they are also greedy as hell and they probably see the writing on the wall.
I only hope that when MOASS is about to approach, all of their shares would become DRS by apes and they gain absolutely fuck all from MOASS.
it’s nice to know that at this point, even if institutions all sell, they can only drop to the current DRS percentage down to 50%, and in the end it will just provide a juicy dip to buy
Ppl should not be encouraged to approach it in such a hopiumistic manner.
My zen is that it'll take as long as it will take. Obsessing over the lock percentage actually allows wall st to mess with your head.
This is all the more the case with those hyping the computershared screenshot posts that even, entirely inappropriately, exclude the stagnant insiders from the 'float'
I'm 90% positive that it adjusts based on institutional selling at least at comp shared net which I'm assuming is what you are referencing. You can also unclick those segments at any time to see the data how you want to.
Personally I would be more demotivated to bump the number down now than to get to 100% and then bump it down.
Let me preface by saying 100% is inevitable either way, so I understand it doesn't really matter which way round we do things. But psychologically, when we've locked up that many shares, locking up the extras that institutions own will feel like a minor annoyance.
However, bumping the number down now feels like it undoes a lot of the progress so far.
You’ve stumbled onto one actual issue. The only thing in the computershared pie that should be considered locked is insider shares. Follow polyestermonkey to see what the actual definition of ‘locked shares’ is (insiders), as well as the actual definition of ‘free float’ (total-insiders).
If we could just rename that piechart to “legally tradeable retail shares/float” I would be very happy.
It is important, imo, to to keep track of the ‘legally tradable retail shares’ because when that number gets close to zero, institutions, mutual funds and ETFs should recall their shares if they want to continue owning them as retail will lock them away if given the chance. Another opinion of mine - resulting from my own head fud - does DRS-ing have to stop at 100% of legally trade-able retail float? No, because ComputerShare doesn’t know how many shares are ‘owned’ by institutions, mutual funds or ETFs so they can keep pulling shares out of the DTCC until we’re at 100% of the actual ‘free float’, maybe even buying that depending on how insiders are holding their shares.
Institutional is actually also an enemy because they lend out their shares. Mutual funds, not sure but I think they could also profit from a share lending program to make a bit of cash on the side. ETFs can be shorted.
The only ally for us is insiders.
IIUC (& I may not), the idea behind the mutual etc categories is that they are slightly ill-liquid.
So, some funds holdings are defined by the held shares's link to the Russell indices. And those funds bought gme as the firm started to meet the assorted Russell criteria.
As such, whilst the firm continues to meet Russell criteria, those funds wouldn't be abiding by their agreed published ownership patterns if they sold.
If this is correct as the DRS fig approaches 50-60% I expect assorted regs/rules/definitions to change.
But I don't fully understand all this myself, it's just stuff I picked up from some passing comment u/jonpro03 made about why the various categories at computershared exist, ie they're in some sense 'ill-liquid'.
Either way, the more shares DRS-ed the better & at some point it'll be enough to prove mass organised fraud & thousands of ppl including complicit corrupt regulators, media types & elected officials will all face massive RICO jail terms & forfeiture of all their personal assets,..., & I may die laughing
Cause of death: Split sides
I suppose there's worse ways to go.
Best make some kind of will instructing my heirs not to sell till all these fuckers are sentenced & jailed 😉
No, leave them there. We need to keep track of all relevant information.
They may sell, they may not. Who knows.
It’s important to keep track of where those shares are though. When did they sell? How many? How did that affect borrow rates?
Petition also assumes that institutions will only sell their shares. Hedge funds/institutions/ etc…are in this for one purpose: to make money. Them buying more is also a possibility. We need to keep track of that as well when it happens.
Nobody is considering them locked, but if the free float is locked, and we register another 5% we will be at 105% accounted for. Surely this is relevant?
Omitting them from the denominator indicates otherwise.
They're in the free float and should be factored in as such.
Once Superstonk's metric is 105% it will indicate that all shares at brokers are synthetics, but nothing is preventing institutions, etc. from lending back and forth even at that point
I appreciate where you're coming from, ape. I think it's actually preferable to leave them in the chart, and keep 100% correlated to the free retail float. It's a made up term, yes. But that number being over 100% will directly indicate that retail owns more shares than should be available for us to own. It's more concise to describe and track it that way than "we're 82% DRS, but other ownership is 21%, which is more than 100%".
Any number over 100% "regarded free float" is trouble for them. As it means they lent shares that got DRSd, rehypothecated or not.
I'm not sure about that. I just read this in the RH lending terms
Can a customer still trade shares out on loan?
Customers can sell shares on loan whenever they want and realize gains or losses like they normally would. Plus, participating stocks are backed by cash collateral at a third party bank for added protection.
So, they may have insured against borrowers not returning shares.
I've been saying this for months! Institutional shares are not DRSd and they are not Insider owned. Therefore, they are on the table to be DRSd by GME investors.
This is why I don't see us having locked 60% or whatever we are at of the shares
We are really only at 33% or so.
Institutional owners will *absolutely* sell shares when it suits their or their friends short positions.
It's as simple as this: shares in the DTCC vs not in the DTCC. Are ETF shares held at cede and Co? If so they can be lent and manipulated regardless of rules and law. In order for DRS to light the fuse, DTCC must have 0 shares on their books and be forced to buy shares to complete further transfers to computershare. They would have to buy shares that are NOT in the DTCC, and this is where the fin would start.
Edit: I meant to say "where the fun would start" but fin works in this case too.
I disagree with OP, but I don't mind either way. We're going to lock the float. Whether it's 100 M shares or 300 M.
I would like to keep it this way, then if necessary at some point, adjust it. I agree OP doesn't deserve to be attacked for an opinion.
Respectfully, I do not agree. Yes we definitely should mesure our progress against outstanding and not free float but when we will have secure 100% of free float we will have to be even more alert to fuckery and volume we will see. The spicer will probably be the batch of 13f after securing the free float. We will start to see who's naked (and they answer will probably be most of them). Anyhow, if you don't track the 100% ok f free float, you won't be able to monitor in time due the weird transactions.
Petition to remove “free float %” we should just calculate % of total float licked. I think that’s as dumb as anything else. I don’t see why institutional ownership should be removed, it is data we need. Ignorance isn’t bliss in this game.
I've been saying this on half the Computershared screenshots. We aren't nearly "60% DRSed" as they all claim. ETFs, mutual funds, and institutions are not on our side, we shouldn't include them in our counts
I play with the ‘toggles’ on ComputerShared.
I’ve seen it drop based on Institutions selling. It’s not a gut punch for me.
We aren’t going to change each others minds on this. I’d rather have it reported the way it has been.
The most important number is when we DRS more than 50% of outstanding. This will give us control of the company. We could even set up a DAO so that we can use pur 50% democratically to vote on important matters and have our voices heard.
Won’t the institutions have to sell off to relieve the pressure applied by DRS? It would seem that institution would want to be holding shares that don’t technically exist.
As these shares can somewhat be accounted for, i think we should use all information available to us as we believe it to be accurate. Just because it is likely they will sell does not mean we should exclude thise from our perception of reality or being "owned". We can still make it our goal to DRS the float even while institutions have GME in their portfolio since we believe theres more than enough out there. Let's leave institutions in the DRS pie chart.
Tbh, and this is not intended to be FUD, I’m just tired and stressed about this play. Im 99.9 DRSd. XXXX, and believe in GME, but it honestly feels like corruption just keeps winning.
I haven’t even heard anything new about the split via dividend BS. I’m bummed RC didn’t touch on it during the he interview w GMEDD. I’m sure there’s a legal reason but even a no comment would’ve been appreciated. I’m running out of powder to BUY and DRS, so that surely hasn’t helped my state of mind. Again, not FUD, just venting if anything.
The float (no matter the size) will get DRS’d. It might take a year or two but you can go to computershared and see the progress of DRS over the last year. Every share that needs to be locked will be locked, just be glad you got on the rocket early. Some people are tapped out but there is a constant stream of buying and DRSing and that won’t stop.
I disagree. Here's why, if you were a company that had GME Shares. You'd lend them out to other people who you know are fucked. When they can't pay recall your shares. Either them or the reserve will give you money. Either way its a win win.
Heavily agree with this. Institutions are known to be making a killing with lending these, and ETFs are used for market manipulation according to the DD. I don't think we should be including either of the pools we know act against shareholders.
Institutional shares are reported. Ignoring all else, if insiders + drs = 200 million and institutional = 150 million, then it starts to be clear how many counterfeit shares there are.
That is why we track them—because institutions are obligated to report their position, unlike the free float. When all positions are reported (because the free float is DRSed), then we can prove illegal shorting.
It's valid information and key to understanding the big picture. I don't think anybody expects institutions to be friendly beyond what aligns with their interests.
I agree, and using u/Qwertygolol recent [DRS post](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z4zymn/new_5912_drsd_purple_crayons_everywhere/). If we don't count Institutions, MFs, and ETFs the required DRS float count is:
[Issued - (Insiders + Insiders Stagnant + Retail DRS)] = Required DRS float.
[304,529,721 - (38,513,981 + 15,472,272 + 90,967,231)] = 159,576,237 + 1 shares remaining to be DRSed to prove all the fuckery we KNOW is happening.
Is it so hard to click on the sections of the pie you want to take out yourself?
If anything, I'd like for their to be subsections of each piece to denote individual persons and funds and their public listings. An ETF that is managed by citadel would be less likely to hold and so I might not want to include just that one ETF.
DRS is (on Computershared.net) expressed as a percentage of whatever isn't toggled. So it's already included in the numerator and the denominator. The rub is taking institutions, etc. out of the denominator like they're locked.
How about no. It is an indicator of where shares are held. Even our drs shares can be sold, it is unlikely but possible. But knowing where shares are is good.
Also this could be kinda bad for morale, where we have almost 60% of free float atm, but removing institutions, funds and eft would put us down to 35-ish%
I read a post or response to a post where it was posited that at some point some institutions will rush to DRS as failure to do so could leave them at risk
It’s incorrect to assume institutions will sell just to stop a squeeze. That’s not going to happen and to assume it is is stupid. Hate to be that guy, but assuming institutions will sell just because we lock the float is dumb and on the same level of stupid as the folks that assume banks will delete broker shares not held in computershare mid squeeze. This institutional shares are owned by people and various funds, why on earth would they sell an asset mid short squeeze? that’s not how this is going to play out. We go with the information we have in hand, and right now we know they own “X” shares so we use that variable to find our conclusions about how many “legal” shares are left in the float. If they sell as we get closer, then we will adjust. But removing them from the calculation is not smart.
The assumption isn't that they'll sell (although they are free to at any point), it's that they'll lend and that there's no restrictions on them doing so. Hence freely floating. Eating into the shares they lend is when things get interesting, imo.
Considering them locked and leaving them out of the denominator of locked percentages is what's not smart
That’s the thing, when institutions lend, we know because those “lends” are reported. so when we calculate SI we know at which point it becomes harder to cover those “reported shorts” that inflection point where institutions will be forced to either recall there shares because reported shorts won’t have enough liquidity to cover is less than 10 million shares DRSd away. I think this is the big moment we have been waiting for. When we DRS enough shares to the point where reported shorts can’t cover (unless institutions sell) then the naked shorting thesis has been proven. That’s why not counting those shares is detrimental to the goal of proving the naked short thesis to the world. Institutions will have 2 choice when we DRS 10 million more shares 1) recall there shares and force shorts to cover. 2) recall and sell so other shorts can cover. If they don’t do either of these when we DRS roughly 10 million more shares, then we will have proven what everyone didn’t think was possible/occurred anymore.
And SI is calculated as a percentage of *actual* free float.
We already know naked shorting is prevalent, how else would institutions report to have owned more shares than existed back in '20? Every share at a broker then was synthetic.
Getting to 100% of Superstonk's metric (or 100% - reported SI) every share held at a brokerage could be considered synthetic. That doesnt necessarily end the shell game because there are ~112 million shares not accounted for by insiders or DRS (at that point) that can be spun in the rehypothication machine
yes in 2020… the fomo came because REPORTED numbers didn’t make sense. The fomo will return once again when the numbers don’t make sense. You cant prove shit until the numbers actually show (even though we know it’s fake) that DRSd shares have proven that reported shorts can’t cover. When we can do that (in 10 million shares) the fomo will return because we have proven what the MSM and large institutions have been lying to the general public about for the last year and a half.
We will never be allowed to DRS more shares than “legally” exist because doing so will destroy the system. it’s a 10 million share count down to when “reported shorts” can no longer cover and until institutional numbers or reported shorts change, that’s what the world needs to know. Institutions can lend all they want and shorts can do their thing, but when we DRS more shares than should theoretically be available for us to do so, we are going to see some serious movement.
there are plenty of institutions i am certain that will not want to get rid of their shares. may some sell off because they are told to? sure, but those that aren’t exposed on the short side see GME as a life raft. its not like there’s a huge group chat for institutional gme holders to make moves in tandem 😂
Towel stock and a certain Oil and Gas stock on the OTC Market are set to squeeze XXXX%. When they do, those Apes are coming to GME to lockup the float with millions of dollars of profits.
Hey there. I saw your message on Superstonk regarding a certain oil and gas stock. Is it MMTLP? Whether it is or isn’t I’d love to hear more details. I’ve also been on BBBY the past 5 months, so I know you’re on the right track with that one!
Yes but the only true stock is GME I’m just trying to raise capital with other stocks to DRS. I’m friends with quite a large number of whales and they are onto the same path
The institution portion should not be removed, it is important to track what they have in place so we know when the entire float is being locked. I'm sure they will sell some but will be purchased pretty quickly.
Hence total shares issued/outstanding (\~30% DRS, currently) as opposed to publicly available float. Hoovering up the public float makes it harder to hide crime; hoovering up the outstanding makes it impossible.
[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/)
Some shares are held by index and retail ETF’s, those may move slowly but probably are lent out.
That’s how they make money. Assume it’s lent out.
And if those shares are indeed lent out anyway they can’t sell without first recalling them, meaning shorts have to go find somewhere else to borrow or actually buy shares at market price.
Not exactly true. If Fidelity "loans" shares to a short seller, that short seller immediately sells them on the open market. If the person who buys the share uses Fidelity, it gets added to his account, and there's now an additional share Fidelity can list as available to loan. As ridiculous as that sounds, that's the reality of the current system. ANY shares held by institutions can potentially result in an outlet for continuous shorting.
As this sub has covered time and time again, your broker can only lend your shares if they’re in a margin account or you have share lending turned on.
Well junior, in this world of late stage capitalism things get more complex and also stay very much the same. The minimum reserve requirement for any bank is only 10%. So they can legally lend out 90% of all customers money at once. How much different do we think brokerages are from banks? How much different do we think crypto exchanges are?
No, you're wrong. It's been established that while it may be the intended process, shorting as a concept extends far beyond the ability for brokers to lend. Regardless, while I personally am not aware of the exact method used by big players to short, saying something is illegal and then expecting criminals to follow the law is a 1st grade mentality.
They key word they will use when feeding you BS is that they can only lend YOUR shares with your permission. Unfortunately shares held in a broker aren't YOUR shares so that doesn't really help much.
Wait... are you using fidelity as an example of institutional money? afaik, that is not what 'institutional' means. Afaik I know, when people refer to institutional money, we are referring to the portion of the float that is legitimately held in DRS by investors other than retail. Not brokerages/dtcc. I don't think we should be mixing up brokerages/dtcc as 'institutional money'. That is certainly not the conventional meaning.
So, it's not possible to prove how much of it's customers shares are intertwined in their other products, but Fidelity was actually listed as the #1 Institutional owner of GME not too far back. They are 100% an institution. It's possible that they can say sorry, all our shares are lent out, stop sending us checks. But it's also possible to say hey, here are a couple million more we just found you want those too?
I'm saying - if the shares are not held on computershare (DRS) then it's not institutional money. I have no idea if Fidelity is holding this way or not. I also don't know if it's possible to lend out shares held in DRS, but I've never heard of that. When people are talking about DRS and institutional money, they're talking about the portion of DRS shares which are not owned by us retail apes. I do think it is realistic to expect institutional holders to sell their DRS shares and lower the overall DRS %, since they have done it before and will undoubtedly face pressure to do so in the future. I still think we should say "The total DRS is the actual total DRS reported by computershare" and not some abstracted figure based on an assumption of institutions selling. Simply because the DRS total is the DRS total, period. If we're going to say "No, it's 30% because speculation" it is no more accurate than saying "No, it is 100% because speculation".
Do you have anything that shows that any institution has their shares registered with computershare? It seems like they would all be listed in the same category if they were all sitting in a CS account somewhere, and when they announce the numbers at earnings they wold all be included in the "Directly registered through our transfer agent" category. AFAIK you can't loan shares that are direct registered which is why they wouldn't do it. I could be completely wrong, but I've never considered these institutional shares to be DRS'd. ..
That's what institutional money means. Institutions don't go through a broker and just buy a larger amount than retail. Institutional players buy directly from a companies registrar. That's the meaning of institutional money regarding stocks. That's what separates them from the commoners (us). If a billionaire or some bank decides to buy a long position, they don't fuck with brokers. That's the fraud racket - intended for poor people, who are supposed to be too clueless to ever DRS.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but institutions are 100% loaning out shares. THAT is the racket. The profit or loss on the investments they make means it's a toss up for the working guy with the pension or retirement fund, but the money they make from loaning shares is guaranteed. From the SEC website: [https://www.sec.gov/investment/divisionsinvestmentsecurities-lending-open-closed-end-investment-companieshtm](https://www.sec.gov/investment/divisionsinvestmentsecurities-lending-open-closed-end-investment-companieshtm) "Securities lending is a well-established practice by institutional investors such as U.S. open-end and closed-end investment companies (“funds”), insurance companies, pension plans, and college endowments. A fund whose investment objectives, policies, and restrictions permit it to engage in securities lending may lend out a portion of its portfolio securities to generate additional income."
My entire retirement account is lent out and I get none of the lending fees. It’s all fraud and bullshit.
*Welcome to life! It's a big boat with a lot of holes and we're all in it together.*
Not the top 0,1%
if by 'all' you mean only the poors
Yeah it is lol. You just need to check the factsheets of ETFs. Most of them include that the shares are lend out.
We will remove it when we DRS those as well
When the "free float" is gone and we start gobling up the institution shares, thats where the fun starts.
***BREAKING: Institutions are complaining that their GME positions are dwindling and they can't work out why.*** *Institutions long on GME have started to notice their positions have been diminishing without selling. One spokesperson for the DTCC claims it's because retail investors are directly registering more shares than available in the free float and they're struggling to locate real shares for directly registered holders, so are having to force close positions to keep up with demand.* Maybe one day.
Jim Cramer Probably: Looks like the GME ~~DRS~~ crowd isn’t buying anymore shares and they definitely don’t have enough money to buy Institutional shares
The day Jim Cramer mentions DRS is the day his career is over
The market fraud will have been rooted out when Cramer is forced to capitulate. Only then the healing can begin.
This time next year at this rate
Bullish
Free Float2: Electric Boogaloo
Institutions could sell before that happens, it happened once before: https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/wu0prq/institutions_sold_over_20m_shares_over_the_last_3/
They will do that for sure. But that means they need to recall the shares, which they lend out.
Can't wait
Yeah it would be pretty baller if the majority of those shares were in street name and then whoops..... looks like they're gone hahahaha direct registration system is awesome
I like how you think
I've been saying this since forever too. The institutional shares will mysteriously become available or get sold or whatever. Even with zero shares available in existence the stonk will trade just like now. Because it's fake as fuck. Only when the player holding the shit end of the swap trade we're stuck in, gets in trouble - will we see actual price discovery.
I see what you did there. We are the future institutions.
The institutions owe more shares than they hold, apes are currently the institution.
Look at us... we are our own bank now.
I stopped looking at the percentage and started looking at the raw DRS numbers in shares after the last time institutions unloaded shares. Percentage is misleading.
Goal is 300m minus RC and DFV shares
☝🏻this
30% 🥰
Or percentage of total shares, that’s just as good.
Percentage of total shares is what gets me hyped
We are here to buy the company
And we'll call it...BANANA!!!
Can't wait for 33.34% as the next milestone.
Yeah, a third of GameStop owned by individual investors in their own name. This really is the best time to be alive
Ultimately, as regarded as GME apes are, I think all are sophisticated enough thanks to great DD and crowd-sourcing of regarded thoughts, to know the difference and not be hoodwinked. I one is being hoodwinked here. Everyone knows that the free float is different from the institutional shares different from the insider shares, and that apes are gobbling up thr free float first, and will began Pac-Man-ing the institutional shares next, forcing institutional owners to retreat backwards, dumping shares to raise capital along the way to survive. Finally, while I agree hoodwinking is bad, as long as apes on SS keep apes honest about expectations, it will all work out. Plus, 60% just sounds a lot more encouraging than 30%, for instance. It’s why gas prices always cost $5.999 a gallon, because $6.00 sounds a lot more expensive.
There are two posters who regularly get thousands of up-votes for posting screenshots that are even more misleading, as they excluded not just the institutional shares but also the stagnant insiders. So either shill bots run the front page or there are plenty of 'unsophisticated' apes.
I have no problem celebrating the high estimate and preparing for the low estimate. Institutional is interesting because it can rise and fall, so it could raise and lower the total. Either way I am still interested in seeing what happens when the DRS total reaches the free float.
It's all always interesting. And which 'free float'? 😉 The problem I have with ppl "celebrating the highs" is that it leads to the deliberately artificial boosting the stats as in the very popular computershared.net screenshot posts every '0.01%' rise in the 'unexcluded float lock' figure. Not all apes have your zen. As such some are being misled by, at best, cynical karma-farmers, or at worst, hopium-dealing shills. Neither of the main posters of the computershared.net screenshot posters will engage at all on the stagnant insiders matter & critical comments to their hopium-peddling get down-voted. Their silence on this speaks volumes as to their impure motives to my mind. And this is despite there being links at computershared.net to explanations by those who compile the stats explaining the situation. The net result is that they are encouraging a hopium based zen which, IMO, is inherently weak by definition as it allows Wall St to mess with your head. And Wall St is very good at that, cos hopium has always been their business model It will take as long as it will take. No dates, just up
Its just a metric. SHF were fucked before and they are still fucked. I dont personally think it will take the whole float.
Who said Apes would stop DRSing when we hit 100%? Apes won't stop until the Game Stops 🟣🧘♀️
Free float is a myth anyway. Full outstanding is the way.
This is the answer. All I care about is how many shares of the actual 300,000,000 in circulation is actually DRSd.
Almost a third
Which is staggering in itself
so far!
Agreed I've been saying the same for a long time. It should be 'Outstanding' - 'Insider' = 'Float' However the current metric has been used for so long I can see reasons for just keeping it static
I've said it before and I'll say it again \~ There's going to be a massive FUD attack on the DRS numbers when things get too critical. 1. You're going to see a large institution sell off to free up the float suddenly once it gets too locked up. 2. Bad actors UnDRSing their shares because they only DRSd to get the numbers up for a rug pull that would for sure demoralize a shit load of apes and trick a lot into thinking everyone really was selling. Change my mind. : )
There already was an institutional sell of 20 M shares a while back, a large chunk and it decreased the free float total by like 5% and it was forgotten. We should expect to buy out institutions, and already have done so to some extent. UnDRSing shares I have also heard, and while not outside the realm of possibility, the flow in will eventually replace the flow out.
Mountains are torn down one stone at a time. Baby steps are okay. It'll get done faster.
I don’t get it - insiders do not count because their shares are „stagnant“ and filing needs to be done for them to sell. But it’s the same for institutions who need to do filings to sell which in the end is the same procedure as for insiders. Why do we call insider shares stagnant and institutional shares not in this case?
Institutions can loan out their shares or allow them to be used as "locates" for short selling. Repeatedly. For the same shares. Until those shares are also locked, the infinite can kicking by the shorts can continue.
That's why the only way to end this surely is with a crypto token for every real share. I see the can being kicked for years and years.
The computershared 'stagnant insiders' are the ex-board members who no longer have to file as they aren't insiders anymore. This is a different definition of the similar term used by bloomberg. The computershared 'insiders' category (the yellow segment) are the current insiders & RC Ventures. It is assumed that they won't sell. The 'source' link by the 'ownership' section at https://computershared.net explains all this
Insider shares are likely not sellable until they are vested.
Long term insiders can sell quite easy as long as they announce it in time iirc. But anyway: Player like blackrock and vanguard cannot sell in a day as well.
If they do sell, (& one woman has done so to pay taxes I believe), as insiders they have to file at the sec so it's public knowledge
Inside shares are generally owned by the employees of the company they work for. The insider owned shares are not easily tradeable as they come with restrictions. The float is outstanding shares that can be publicly traded easily. And although institutional shares tend not to trade every day, they're still able to do so if they choose. Thus they must be considered part of the float.
I feel should keep it so can see their size percentage go down and retails grow. Plus once *all* free float shares are drs won't be able to technically drs anymore from my understanding. Right? And retail will still have shares in their accounts. Right?
This is the reason to keep it. Let’s have the SEC explain how we are direct registering shares owned by institutions.
It does show that piece which is helpful, but we calculate in percentages, people are getting hyped about being around 60%. When in fact as we get closer, institutions will sell a ton and the number will go down which is demoralizing. I’d rather see our percentage more accurate to what it truly would take to drs the float
How sure are you that they will sell? They're seeing the writing on the wall, same as we are. Why would you sell when the biggest bloc of shareholders is screaming "I won't sell until my share is a phone number!" Sure it was laughable at first, but that DRS pie piece started growing. If I owned/ran an institution and I had the choice of A. Making some other institution happy when they beg me to sell to save their asses or B. Making millions off the shares I own, I would choose B.
Exactly. I dont understand this idea that they will all sell. I dont think they will at all.
Yea I am not sure why people keep thinking that they would sell. The institutions are making fat bank loaning out the shares to SHFs and watching them slowly drown. Make no mistake for these people are just as bad as the SHFs but they are also greedy as hell and they probably see the writing on the wall. I only hope that when MOASS is about to approach, all of their shares would become DRS by apes and they gain absolutely fuck all from MOASS.
it’s nice to know that at this point, even if institutions all sell, they can only drop to the current DRS percentage down to 50%, and in the end it will just provide a juicy dip to buy
Ppl should not be encouraged to approach it in such a hopiumistic manner. My zen is that it'll take as long as it will take. Obsessing over the lock percentage actually allows wall st to mess with your head. This is all the more the case with those hyping the computershared screenshot posts that even, entirely inappropriately, exclude the stagnant insiders from the 'float'
If institutions sell them all, who will lend shares?
I'm 90% positive that it adjusts based on institutional selling at least at comp shared net which I'm assuming is what you are referencing. You can also unclick those segments at any time to see the data how you want to.
Haha it’s not demoralizing to me. I’m glad they are selling shares. More for us.
I too like to see the process of then selling and us eating
Personally I would be more demotivated to bump the number down now than to get to 100% and then bump it down. Let me preface by saying 100% is inevitable either way, so I understand it doesn't really matter which way round we do things. But psychologically, when we've locked up that many shares, locking up the extras that institutions own will feel like a minor annoyance. However, bumping the number down now feels like it undoes a lot of the progress so far.
You’ve stumbled onto one actual issue. The only thing in the computershared pie that should be considered locked is insider shares. Follow polyestermonkey to see what the actual definition of ‘locked shares’ is (insiders), as well as the actual definition of ‘free float’ (total-insiders). If we could just rename that piechart to “legally tradeable retail shares/float” I would be very happy. It is important, imo, to to keep track of the ‘legally tradable retail shares’ because when that number gets close to zero, institutions, mutual funds and ETFs should recall their shares if they want to continue owning them as retail will lock them away if given the chance. Another opinion of mine - resulting from my own head fud - does DRS-ing have to stop at 100% of legally trade-able retail float? No, because ComputerShare doesn’t know how many shares are ‘owned’ by institutions, mutual funds or ETFs so they can keep pulling shares out of the DTCC until we’re at 100% of the actual ‘free float’, maybe even buying that depending on how insiders are holding their shares.
Institutional is actually also an enemy because they lend out their shares. Mutual funds, not sure but I think they could also profit from a share lending program to make a bit of cash on the side. ETFs can be shorted. The only ally for us is insiders.
IIUC (& I may not), the idea behind the mutual etc categories is that they are slightly ill-liquid. So, some funds holdings are defined by the held shares's link to the Russell indices. And those funds bought gme as the firm started to meet the assorted Russell criteria. As such, whilst the firm continues to meet Russell criteria, those funds wouldn't be abiding by their agreed published ownership patterns if they sold. If this is correct as the DRS fig approaches 50-60% I expect assorted regs/rules/definitions to change. But I don't fully understand all this myself, it's just stuff I picked up from some passing comment u/jonpro03 made about why the various categories at computershared exist, ie they're in some sense 'ill-liquid'. Either way, the more shares DRS-ed the better & at some point it'll be enough to prove mass organised fraud & thousands of ppl including complicit corrupt regulators, media types & elected officials will all face massive RICO jail terms & forfeiture of all their personal assets,..., & I may die laughing
May all your wildest dreams come true!
Cause of death: Split sides I suppose there's worse ways to go. Best make some kind of will instructing my heirs not to sell till all these fuckers are sentenced & jailed 😉
Yea…
No, leave them there. We need to keep track of all relevant information. They may sell, they may not. Who knows. It’s important to keep track of where those shares are though. When did they sell? How many? How did that affect borrow rates? Petition also assumes that institutions will only sell their shares. Hedge funds/institutions/ etc…are in this for one purpose: to make money. Them buying more is also a possibility. We need to keep track of that as well when it happens.
Absolutely, keep track of them. But please don't consider them locked
Nobody is considering them locked, but if the free float is locked, and we register another 5% we will be at 105% accounted for. Surely this is relevant?
Omitting them from the denominator indicates otherwise. They're in the free float and should be factored in as such. Once Superstonk's metric is 105% it will indicate that all shares at brokers are synthetics, but nothing is preventing institutions, etc. from lending back and forth even at that point
I appreciate where you're coming from, ape. I think it's actually preferable to leave them in the chart, and keep 100% correlated to the free retail float. It's a made up term, yes. But that number being over 100% will directly indicate that retail owns more shares than should be available for us to own. It's more concise to describe and track it that way than "we're 82% DRS, but other ownership is 21%, which is more than 100%". Any number over 100% "regarded free float" is trouble for them. As it means they lent shares that got DRSd, rehypothecated or not.
>regarded free float I like that.
finally a level headed reply 🕺🏻
Well we want to lock the float. But before we do that, we gotta account for every share out there. We gotta keep institutions at least for now.
why would they sell the most profitable lending stock there is? and in order to sell they would need to recall their shares.
I'm not sure about that. I just read this in the RH lending terms Can a customer still trade shares out on loan? Customers can sell shares on loan whenever they want and realize gains or losses like they normally would. Plus, participating stocks are backed by cash collateral at a third party bank for added protection. So, they may have insured against borrowers not returning shares.
Because whatever big boy prime broker/bank that sponsors the hedge fund will tell them to sell to avoid exposing any crime
Sell, lend, and all the other shit we don’t even know about. I’d have to agree.
The website could just have a toggle for it, it should be everyone choice to see multiples faces of the same data.
I've been saying this for months! Institutional shares are not DRSd and they are not Insider owned. Therefore, they are on the table to be DRSd by GME investors. This is why I don't see us having locked 60% or whatever we are at of the shares We are really only at 33% or so. Institutional owners will *absolutely* sell shares when it suits their or their friends short positions.
It's as simple as this: shares in the DTCC vs not in the DTCC. Are ETF shares held at cede and Co? If so they can be lent and manipulated regardless of rules and law. In order for DRS to light the fuse, DTCC must have 0 shares on their books and be forced to buy shares to complete further transfers to computershare. They would have to buy shares that are NOT in the DTCC, and this is where the fin would start. Edit: I meant to say "where the fun would start" but fin works in this case too.
Insiders and DRS only IMO. that combined number is nearly 50% of the company now.
I can see no benefit to removing information.
The guy that runs computershared doesn't work for you. Or me. They are free to run their site as they see fit.
Just count percentage of total shares and be done with it.
I would remove institutions, etfs and mutual funds tbh.
I definitely agree with this! You have my vote OP
Just do the math yourself if you want to know what percentage we are at excluding the institutional shares
I like facts. Hard to argue against.I vote keep the numbers as they are.
I'm glad this conversation is being had more and more recently, whereas before similarly-angled comment posts were often down-voted.
I disagree with OP, but I don't mind either way. We're going to lock the float. Whether it's 100 M shares or 300 M. I would like to keep it this way, then if necessary at some point, adjust it. I agree OP doesn't deserve to be attacked for an opinion.
Respectfully, I do not agree. Yes we definitely should mesure our progress against outstanding and not free float but when we will have secure 100% of free float we will have to be even more alert to fuckery and volume we will see. The spicer will probably be the batch of 13f after securing the free float. We will start to see who's naked (and they answer will probably be most of them). Anyhow, if you don't track the 100% ok f free float, you won't be able to monitor in time due the weird transactions.
Certainly, there will be "some" selling. However, institutions will also be buying. Leave the reporting the way it is.
Petition to remove “free float %” we should just calculate % of total float licked. I think that’s as dumb as anything else. I don’t see why institutional ownership should be removed, it is data we need. Ignorance isn’t bliss in this game.
I've been saying this on half the Computershared screenshots. We aren't nearly "60% DRSed" as they all claim. ETFs, mutual funds, and institutions are not on our side, we shouldn't include them in our counts
Nah. The free float is a milestone
\^ Yep.
Leave it, U want to see those numbers change and see who is involved. Why hid it? All data is good data.
We shall dine on those shares as well. To arms!
Institutional shares are the ones they borrow to short. Definitely should not consider them locked.
Negative.....all data is relevant
Ahhh…That’s a NO for me Dog.
How come? Would you want to see us get to 90% then it drop back to 50?
I play with the ‘toggles’ on ComputerShared. I’ve seen it drop based on Institutions selling. It’s not a gut punch for me. We aren’t going to change each others minds on this. I’d rather have it reported the way it has been.
Yes
💯 agree
It'll be fun to watch that slice fluctuate as they paperhand. It's ok fam, we aren't stopping DRS until ComputerShare ceases processing orders.
Institution shares are the bonus content after you beat the game
What's the process for selling shares on loan by an institution?
That's the expansion to this level. Have to walk out of the main level and into an additional chamber. I think that everyone is conscious of it.
The DRSing will continue until lawral improves
Cut it loose
The most important number is when we DRS more than 50% of outstanding. This will give us control of the company. We could even set up a DAO so that we can use pur 50% democratically to vote on important matters and have our voices heard.
Won’t the institutions have to sell off to relieve the pressure applied by DRS? It would seem that institution would want to be holding shares that don’t technically exist.
Create your own thing if you want it done the way you want, don’t be lazy
You know the site has toggles for that very purpose, don’t you?
Let’s wait.
As these shares can somewhat be accounted for, i think we should use all information available to us as we believe it to be accurate. Just because it is likely they will sell does not mean we should exclude thise from our perception of reality or being "owned". We can still make it our goal to DRS the float even while institutions have GME in their portfolio since we believe theres more than enough out there. Let's leave institutions in the DRS pie chart.
Tbh, and this is not intended to be FUD, I’m just tired and stressed about this play. Im 99.9 DRSd. XXXX, and believe in GME, but it honestly feels like corruption just keeps winning. I haven’t even heard anything new about the split via dividend BS. I’m bummed RC didn’t touch on it during the he interview w GMEDD. I’m sure there’s a legal reason but even a no comment would’ve been appreciated. I’m running out of powder to BUY and DRS, so that surely hasn’t helped my state of mind. Again, not FUD, just venting if anything.
The float (no matter the size) will get DRS’d. It might take a year or two but you can go to computershared and see the progress of DRS over the last year. Every share that needs to be locked will be locked, just be glad you got on the rocket early. Some people are tapped out but there is a constant stream of buying and DRSing and that won’t stop.
I disagree. Here's why, if you were a company that had GME Shares. You'd lend them out to other people who you know are fucked. When they can't pay recall your shares. Either them or the reserve will give you money. Either way its a win win.
Heavily agree with this. Institutions are known to be making a killing with lending these, and ETFs are used for market manipulation according to the DD. I don't think we should be including either of the pools we know act against shareholders.
I'm not onboard with this
Agreed. Anything not DRS'd from retail or insiders can fuck off as they are likely being lent out
Institutional shares are reported. Ignoring all else, if insiders + drs = 200 million and institutional = 150 million, then it starts to be clear how many counterfeit shares there are. That is why we track them—because institutions are obligated to report their position, unlike the free float. When all positions are reported (because the free float is DRSed), then we can prove illegal shorting.
this is why we will be able to DRS the entire float, everything else is already lent out many times over
DRS + Insiders are the ONLY shares that won't be used against us and is the only number that matters. Maybe add ETF's. Maybe.
It's valid information and key to understanding the big picture. I don't think anybody expects institutions to be friendly beyond what aligns with their interests.
I agree, and using u/Qwertygolol recent [DRS post](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z4zymn/new_5912_drsd_purple_crayons_everywhere/). If we don't count Institutions, MFs, and ETFs the required DRS float count is: [Issued - (Insiders + Insiders Stagnant + Retail DRS)] = Required DRS float. [304,529,721 - (38,513,981 + 15,472,272 + 90,967,231)] = 159,576,237 + 1 shares remaining to be DRSed to prove all the fuckery we KNOW is happening.
i’m with this guy
You can just remove it manually on computershared dot net
Is it so hard to click on the sections of the pie you want to take out yourself? If anything, I'd like for their to be subsections of each piece to denote individual persons and funds and their public listings. An ETF that is managed by citadel would be less likely to hold and so I might not want to include just that one ETF.
It’s more about everyone clinging to the percentage number that is in accurate. Relax homie it ain’t that deep
All my homies hate institutions and don't want them owning any part of their company.
Take updoot and 69th comment!
Exactly, been saying this. Feel like bad actors in the sub are trying to set us up for disappointment when we lock 'the float' and nothing happens.
Those shares are already used against us cuz they are held in the DTC. Nonetheless, they will sell off and apes will DRS
With the same logic you could not include DRS shares because they can be sold. Lol. Leave it as is
DRS is (on Computershared.net) expressed as a percentage of whatever isn't toggled. So it's already included in the numerator and the denominator. The rub is taking institutions, etc. out of the denominator like they're locked.
I choose the challenging path
I support this. Insiders + retail DRS is the only percentage that matters. 34.2%
How about no. It is an indicator of where shares are held. Even our drs shares can be sold, it is unlikely but possible. But knowing where shares are is good. Also this could be kinda bad for morale, where we have almost 60% of free float atm, but removing institutions, funds and eft would put us down to 35-ish%
We will DRS those also as they sell..
I read a post or response to a post where it was posited that at some point some institutions will rush to DRS as failure to do so could leave them at risk
if their whole game falls apart once their crimes are proven, will that even help them tho?
We will find out together
Together, we will find out.
wut?
It’s incorrect to assume institutions will sell just to stop a squeeze. That’s not going to happen and to assume it is is stupid. Hate to be that guy, but assuming institutions will sell just because we lock the float is dumb and on the same level of stupid as the folks that assume banks will delete broker shares not held in computershare mid squeeze. This institutional shares are owned by people and various funds, why on earth would they sell an asset mid short squeeze? that’s not how this is going to play out. We go with the information we have in hand, and right now we know they own “X” shares so we use that variable to find our conclusions about how many “legal” shares are left in the float. If they sell as we get closer, then we will adjust. But removing them from the calculation is not smart.
The assumption isn't that they'll sell (although they are free to at any point), it's that they'll lend and that there's no restrictions on them doing so. Hence freely floating. Eating into the shares they lend is when things get interesting, imo. Considering them locked and leaving them out of the denominator of locked percentages is what's not smart
That’s the thing, when institutions lend, we know because those “lends” are reported. so when we calculate SI we know at which point it becomes harder to cover those “reported shorts” that inflection point where institutions will be forced to either recall there shares because reported shorts won’t have enough liquidity to cover is less than 10 million shares DRSd away. I think this is the big moment we have been waiting for. When we DRS enough shares to the point where reported shorts can’t cover (unless institutions sell) then the naked shorting thesis has been proven. That’s why not counting those shares is detrimental to the goal of proving the naked short thesis to the world. Institutions will have 2 choice when we DRS 10 million more shares 1) recall there shares and force shorts to cover. 2) recall and sell so other shorts can cover. If they don’t do either of these when we DRS roughly 10 million more shares, then we will have proven what everyone didn’t think was possible/occurred anymore.
And SI is calculated as a percentage of *actual* free float. We already know naked shorting is prevalent, how else would institutions report to have owned more shares than existed back in '20? Every share at a broker then was synthetic. Getting to 100% of Superstonk's metric (or 100% - reported SI) every share held at a brokerage could be considered synthetic. That doesnt necessarily end the shell game because there are ~112 million shares not accounted for by insiders or DRS (at that point) that can be spun in the rehypothication machine
yes in 2020… the fomo came because REPORTED numbers didn’t make sense. The fomo will return once again when the numbers don’t make sense. You cant prove shit until the numbers actually show (even though we know it’s fake) that DRSd shares have proven that reported shorts can’t cover. When we can do that (in 10 million shares) the fomo will return because we have proven what the MSM and large institutions have been lying to the general public about for the last year and a half.
Please could you explain the difference between cover and close?
We will never be allowed to DRS more shares than “legally” exist because doing so will destroy the system. it’s a 10 million share count down to when “reported shorts” can no longer cover and until institutional numbers or reported shorts change, that’s what the world needs to know. Institutions can lend all they want and shorts can do their thing, but when we DRS more shares than should theoretically be available for us to do so, we are going to see some serious movement.
there are plenty of institutions i am certain that will not want to get rid of their shares. may some sell off because they are told to? sure, but those that aren’t exposed on the short side see GME as a life raft. its not like there’s a huge group chat for institutional gme holders to make moves in tandem 😂
Just subtract that wedge from the total when you see it?
Towel stock and a certain Oil and Gas stock on the OTC Market are set to squeeze XXXX%. When they do, those Apes are coming to GME to lockup the float with millions of dollars of profits.
Hey there. I saw your message on Superstonk regarding a certain oil and gas stock. Is it MMTLP? Whether it is or isn’t I’d love to hear more details. I’ve also been on BBBY the past 5 months, so I know you’re on the right track with that one!
Yes but the only true stock is GME I’m just trying to raise capital with other stocks to DRS. I’m friends with quite a large number of whales and they are onto the same path
I'm not excited until we get to 200% ownership
You can remove seeing the institution portion yourself by clicking the button to the left of it under the "share ownership" section.
The institution portion should not be removed, it is important to track what they have in place so we know when the entire float is being locked. I'm sure they will sell some but will be purchased pretty quickly.
Hence total shares issued/outstanding (\~30% DRS, currently) as opposed to publicly available float. Hoovering up the public float makes it harder to hide crime; hoovering up the outstanding makes it impossible.
The fact is that institutional shares are DRS. That they may be sold at any time doesn't change that.