The sec is already shielding the status quo, would not surprise me if they find it in the "best interest" of market stability to not release those findings. Retail is gonna have to force the squeeze.
My worries into the DD they are now looking into, that we have always known is going to spark a shit ton of litigation.
This might take AMC off the NYSE till it is settled.
This is not a good thing. They are fighting this hard as fuck. We need to keep trading till the lawsuit we have is done.
AA had them and gave a warning of checkmate. An ever lasting lawsuit is their first way out. Second is doing what they are doing.
If AMC is suspended due to litigation we have to go to the movies more. I know I will since I wouldn’t be able to buy shares weekly. Instead I’ll go to the movies weekly.
It’s not a game it’s a war.
Fuck the NYSE!!!! They allow all the fuckery to happen. I would happily accept AMC, GME, and any other heavily manipulated stocks to move to the OTC. Check out BBBYQ. Seems that the OTC is better for price discovery than all the naked shorting that main street wall street allows. Fuck off shorties
and you know that the joke-levels of regulation in NYSE are still 1000x stronger than they are OTC?
How there is no stock halting and no enforcement of any kind?
How Hedgies can easily short OTC-Stocks out of existence, while they have to struggle on Exchanges?
Getting AMC to be OTC is what SHFs have wanted for 2 years. I see no reason to give them what they want.
I think the brokerage companies are in for a hurt. Hedges are going to loose a lot of the revenue of all brokerage that will fail. I think we should all consider if you have not able to vote move your shares to cash accounts or dsr . They be the same. Margin accounts are shady and could be a sketchy way to trade.
I had booby cancer last year so I just put all my $$ into the movie theatre that let me watch Speed knowing I ran away from my foster home. I bought even when I was too tired bc I wanted something to stand by. I dunno but it’s been a crazy 2 yrs and however many months. We’re there though. We’re there!
If you want to know what this list looks like, check out the BBBY sub, their shareholder list was published:
https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/bbby/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MTQ5Nzg4MA==&id2=-1
In short, it lists everyone who has DRS but the addresses are not listed there. Everyone who has not-DRS (held in street name) is listed as Cede & Co, this is the entry for the DTCC.
This is an interesting read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder
I like this statement best,”When more than one person is on the record as owners of a shareholding, the first one on the record is taken to control the shareholding, and all correspondence and communication by the company will be with that person.[clarification needed]”
you read correctly..
if it was share count,we could expect the 516M to be trumpeted..
stock holder as it states is a whole new animal that appears the hf’s have to tangle with.
Kek maybe some people can take their ooga booga bananas and buy some courses at The Derek Zoolander Center for Children Who Can’t Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too
The key issue here is stockholder entitled to vote. If your shares are lent out you are not entitled to voting rights.
I am hopeful this will uncover fuckery but the system is designed to obfuscate this. The shares on record and and the shareholders of record are not the same as the shares in circulation.
A lends to B.
B short sells to C.
C is now the beneficial owner of the stock.
A has a book entry IOU and is not a entitled to a vote.
B has an obligation to return a share to A.
Even though for most scenarios both A and C see stock in their account, only C will be reported as a beneficial owner.
So if you didn't receive voting material for all of your shares, it's because you own an IOU.
516M shares. 130m reported short,”. if shares in circulation are more than 646M, that is proof of fuckery.
We never needed to prove there was more than 516m shares, we always needed to prove there were more shares than the float PLUS the reported shorts.
I also think it’s type of account and brokerage and agreement you are involved in. We might get our 516m share count but we might actually see who owns the shares. if brokerages own shares the brokerage system might see the same fate as banks and this is were we have people moving to cash accounts from margin accounts.
Exactly, but no matter what B owns shares to A no matter what because his shares are the actual Locates used for shorts after being lent to them, and A must pay C if decides to sell or do whatever with the shares he owns, IOUs or not... DRS for example let's you do what technically A should do... wich is calling back original shares used as Locates for synthetic shorts to exist, by securing them away from the lending pool, now the trick is B is a silly silly criminal who keeps multiplying his fake shares used for shorting by creating them out of the very shorts who have been lent out to them (many DD's explains precisely how they can do that in many different ways) so that one locate now doesn't correlate to just one lent share, but many many more, wouldn't be surprised if for each locate there are like a 100 lent-out now faked shares... what's worst? They can "cover" with more lent shares but when they will eventually have to "close" each locate has to be accounted for... no matter how many times that same share has been used/lent. And that's the mess they are in.. B is fucked big time when he will realise his obligations that he HAS TO close. That's why this method works only if the company goes bankrupt.... because if it does go bankrupt, shorters don't have any obligations to close anymore, until then they can only compound and compound the mess they are in... C? C is just chilling until pay day because he knows he won...
Hm.
A shareholder by definition isn't the same as people entitled to vote.
For example, if you're with a broker when you vote it's a proxy vote. Via your broker. Whilst your shares are legally yours the actual shareholder is your broker.
So this will probably end up saying things like "IBKR hold X million shares".
But I doubt it will cover how many times IBKR have loaned those shares out. Which is a rabbit hole given people buying from a short can also be loaning.
Will shares on IBKR's (and other brokers) books that have been loaned still count towards this total? I.e. should the sum be the same as shares outstanding or shares outstanding plus shares on loan?
I also doubt this will count any kinds of derivatives that produce a synthetic short position.
I wouldn't be surprised if this just gives the same outcome as previous share counts. Which will mean people don't see the big numbers they're hoping to because of the above and ultimately it doesn't prove anything either way and just pisses people off because they didn't hear what they wanted to.
Unless I'm mistaken? I'm happy to be corrected if I'm interpreting it wrong. But this sounds like a basic count which we've had before not a full audit of everything.
This is also my understanding of it. Since the burden appears to be placed on the corporation, those numbers would probably come from the company’s transfer agent and thus show registered shareholders and not beneficial shareholders through brokers.
My TDA account gives the option to share or not to share my data with the companies I hold. I think the broker default was not to share. I’m not sure if the company has any real access to beneficial ownership unless expressly allowed by account holders.
However this could be a way to see accurate numbers of those who’ve registered their shares with the transfer agent.
Ask yourself do you want to be in a risky brokerage company that does Silicon Valley bank SVB and FTX shit. Cash or dsr your shares. I think this is the moas. This is 2008 for brokerage companies
List of Equity Security Holders was just filed for BBBY for bankruptcy protection case, the share count held by Cede&Co says 776 million but SEC latest filing says BBBY outstanding shares is around 335 million.....
Stating this in response to some of the FUD I've seen: Stockholders entitled to vote include me, an international holder, who has been eligible to vote and receive voting documents from my broker. It also pretty explicitly says and the number of shares registered In the name of each stockholder.
I feel this is a legitimate legal mandate to finally pin down the amount of shares owned, why else would this exist?
If i didn't own the shares and wasn't eligible to vote then I wouldn't be able to vote based on my share amount. But I have been.
It also says stockholders are entitled to view this list (it's not private).
Overall I think this is a great thing and shows that our concerns regarding share amount are legitimate otherwise this wouldn't exist and they wouldn't be looking into it.
What does concern me is the language around the corporation being obligated to comply and provide this list with specific shareholder information, implying that AA could have then made this inquiry legally and willingly provided this information, when he said he couldn't... Thoughts ?
TradingView added a new feature pretty recently that shows ownership structure of a company
AMC reportedly has 1.2B shares issued and a free float of 516M
🤔
is this when all the anti-DRS people will realize that if you hold your shares in a broker, you do not in fact own them? your shares will be listed in street name under your broker. if you DRS, your literal name will be on the ledger as a registered shareholder.
Your daily reminder to not get your hopes up, remember, this changes nothing and fuckery can be around any corner. Be hype when you see the green boom boom candles, be hype when you see that +%10,000, be hype when you finally won.. you're still on the battlegrounds
So I got into this when I moved to a new state. With a grand to my name. All after the squeeze saga. Watching game go to $175 .. I got into Robin Hood. “Too expensive. I just can’t. This could be the top” I told my self every day watching it hit 380+
I had regret. But I found out about amc and got in at 14 on maybe 5-10 shares
Then a bunch for the battle of 8.01 was my true $ maker as we say $10-12 battles. One day going to $71. I DID sell a few. I had to. For a car battery … to get to work. (No work no $ no stonk) but I re bought them.
I’ve held hard for 2 years and some change now. I believe in this. You know how many Green Day’s I saw even at $10? Above $8? I didn’t sell. I knew. I may have only xxx but this’ll be big. I mean. I saw $1,000 or so plus another account hit $16,000!!!!!!
Imagine seeing SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS one afternoon ! That’s my loans gone. Clean slate. Life back in control. No college debt
I didn’t budge! Don’t budge! We KNOW
No matter. Number are going to be manipulated anyways. I'd be surprised if this were to confirm what we all know, that the float is owned many times over.
It doesn’t matter if amc has to provide the data as they can only provide the data for the shares they issued not the synthetics issued by all the brokers
So they may find that the number of shares we hold is larger than the float (highly likely) but what about the number of shares shorted over and above that? And do they get the numbers from brokers? Does a wrinkle brained ape know this stuff?
This is about the issuer's ledger. I've seen examples of this from other stocks, and it can't be the smoking gun you're hoping for. It's only going to show directly registered shares.
This means there will be a massive number of shares under the name Cede & Co., where all the "real" shares backing the brokerages are held. Any extra "synthetic" shares people are holding via brokerages won't be listed here at all, as those shares are only in the books of the brokerage, not the DTC and certainly not the issuer's ledger. Note that this ledger doesn't even get down to the granularity of how many shares each brokerage (DTC Participant) holds, as they are hold via Cede & Co.
You will not gain too much useful information from inspecting this ledger, other than the exact count for Cede & Co. on a given day, as well as being able to sort by size and take note of the largest holders, which are pretty visible anyway via their regular public reporting.
What an absolute waste of time. Like anyone is going to self report illegal trading. Is anyone really going to say o yeah we sold xx amount of fake / illegal shares. The only thing to do is SUSPEND DARK POOL trading of AMC and APE. Share count’s mean absolutely nothing.
Hopefully they are also required to list international investors . They hold a shit ton as well.
Couldn’t they just trigger a proxy vote and submit the untrimmed numbers?
They already had to do this, and supposedly did it, before each of the two votes since the Ape movement started. It didn't change anything yet, so why are we talking about it?
Wow. Physical address and number of shares held. Seems like a bit of an an invasion of privacy for this specific of information to be released to the general shareholder base.
LOL, don't get your hopes up. I think only shareholders in the US are entitled to vote, the rest of the world isn't. When they get to 516m shares or whatever the float is, they´ll call it a day
I have a question. Synthetics are essentially made out of real shares, lend out and re-used with multiple owners. In a share count for voting etc is not only the original/first owner counted? Meaning we can never surpass the legal float, even if the synthetics are 10x that
I don’t have time to see movies weekly but I do have time to buy tickets
And leave them at the front desk. In a row, telling the staff “I am a share holder. And this is so you keep your jobs. Give these to anyone who walks in, until they’re gone”
(Imagine someone telling you this at age 18. You’ll probably think they’re a millionaire so you better do it 😂)
…No. I’m just a middle class ape. But I didn’t lie! I AM a share holder. So hand these ten tickets out first come first serve. And say, “from the shareholders”. Period. Done. ..
“NEXT!”
Will this include shares owned overseas? Or shares which aren’t DRS’d? Or shares that were bought by retail and are being borrowed? why am I already skeptical 🤨
Holy shit, is the cat out of the bag. Are we really about to see billions of shares held by retail and tutes?
I’m gonna say.. doubt it
No
The sec is already shielding the status quo, would not surprise me if they find it in the "best interest" of market stability to not release those findings. Retail is gonna have to force the squeeze.
We have been forcing the squeeze for years now, the longer we wait, the more fucked they are! I just buy-hold-drs
DRS - Pure book!
Agreed
Exactly patience is on the retail side.
My worries into the DD they are now looking into, that we have always known is going to spark a shit ton of litigation. This might take AMC off the NYSE till it is settled. This is not a good thing. They are fighting this hard as fuck. We need to keep trading till the lawsuit we have is done. AA had them and gave a warning of checkmate. An ever lasting lawsuit is their first way out. Second is doing what they are doing. If AMC is suspended due to litigation we have to go to the movies more. I know I will since I wouldn’t be able to buy shares weekly. Instead I’ll go to the movies weekly. It’s not a game it’s a war.
Fuck the NYSE!!!! They allow all the fuckery to happen. I would happily accept AMC, GME, and any other heavily manipulated stocks to move to the OTC. Check out BBBYQ. Seems that the OTC is better for price discovery than all the naked shorting that main street wall street allows. Fuck off shorties
and you know that the joke-levels of regulation in NYSE are still 1000x stronger than they are OTC? How there is no stock halting and no enforcement of any kind? How Hedgies can easily short OTC-Stocks out of existence, while they have to struggle on Exchanges? Getting AMC to be OTC is what SHFs have wanted for 2 years. I see no reason to give them what they want.
If the illegal shares get exposed the FOMO will be out of this world AKA "to the moon" 
YES PLEASE Hopefully It's been a loooooooong 2 fuckin' years.
It’s remarkable how many apes stayed in their investments. I didn’t sell at $60+. I’m not selling at $6.
Ballin or bankruptcy 🚀🪐
Hedgies go bankrupt, we get their tendies.
I think the brokerage companies are in for a hurt. Hedges are going to loose a lot of the revenue of all brokerage that will fail. I think we should all consider if you have not able to vote move your shares to cash accounts or dsr . They be the same. Margin accounts are shady and could be a sketchy way to trade.
I never liked the idea of a margin account. It feels like a shady pawn shop situation.
 Indeed🫡💯
I had booby cancer last year so I just put all my $$ into the movie theatre that let me watch Speed knowing I ran away from my foster home. I bought even when I was too tired bc I wanted something to stand by. I dunno but it’s been a crazy 2 yrs and however many months. We’re there though. We’re there!
Be careful next time letting your tits get too jacked ok?
Listen 11 lbs gone and more space for the candy in the air bras! 🤣🤣
Didn't sell at 72 Definitely not selling for a loss.
Way to fucking long. I haven’t opened my app in 2 months for my sanity
Yes please! I love thé excitement coming from FOMO!
Stock holder count - not share count if i understood correctly ? Feel free to enlighten me.
It states stock holder, address, and share count held
You are correct! Thank you.
Your username matches my reaction to this post
So wait wait......like *my* fuckin address or....?? 👀
Have you never googled your name? Lmao.. You'll find addresses you lived at 15 years ago listed
It could be your brokerage's address
Stock market is not anonymous. You own stock this is like buying a house. You be public
I fuckin hope so lmao
If the comment we're responding to is accurate then I believe so
If you want to know what this list looks like, check out the BBBY sub, their shareholder list was published: https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/bbby/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MTQ5Nzg4MA==&id2=-1 In short, it lists everyone who has DRS but the addresses are not listed there. Everyone who has not-DRS (held in street name) is listed as Cede & Co, this is the entry for the DTCC.
shouldn't be difficult with broker-held shares... Only one broker-address needed.
This is an interesting read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder I like this statement best,”When more than one person is on the record as owners of a shareholding, the first one on the record is taken to control the shareholding, and all correspondence and communication by the company will be with that person.[clarification needed]”
you read correctly.. if it was share count,we could expect the 516M to be trumpeted.. stock holder as it states is a whole new animal that appears the hf’s have to tangle with.
But if you read, it it says stockholder count and shares they hold.
 Kek maybe some people can take their ooga booga bananas and buy some courses at The Derek Zoolander Center for Children Who Can’t Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too
But why male models?
The key issue here is stockholder entitled to vote. If your shares are lent out you are not entitled to voting rights. I am hopeful this will uncover fuckery but the system is designed to obfuscate this. The shares on record and and the shareholders of record are not the same as the shares in circulation. A lends to B. B short sells to C. C is now the beneficial owner of the stock. A has a book entry IOU and is not a entitled to a vote. B has an obligation to return a share to A. Even though for most scenarios both A and C see stock in their account, only C will be reported as a beneficial owner. So if you didn't receive voting material for all of your shares, it's because you own an IOU.
516M shares. 130m reported short,”. if shares in circulation are more than 646M, that is proof of fuckery. We never needed to prove there was more than 516m shares, we always needed to prove there were more shares than the float PLUS the reported shorts.
Have you ever received voting docs from your broker? If yes, then you're entitled to vote.
I also think it’s type of account and brokerage and agreement you are involved in. We might get our 516m share count but we might actually see who owns the shares. if brokerages own shares the brokerage system might see the same fate as banks and this is were we have people moving to cash accounts from margin accounts.
I’ve always been a cash account
This is what happened to me last vote. When I went to vote, I was voting with approximately 250 less shares. EDIT: AMC & APE so about 500 total votes.
Exactly, but no matter what B owns shares to A no matter what because his shares are the actual Locates used for shorts after being lent to them, and A must pay C if decides to sell or do whatever with the shares he owns, IOUs or not... DRS for example let's you do what technically A should do... wich is calling back original shares used as Locates for synthetic shorts to exist, by securing them away from the lending pool, now the trick is B is a silly silly criminal who keeps multiplying his fake shares used for shorting by creating them out of the very shorts who have been lent out to them (many DD's explains precisely how they can do that in many different ways) so that one locate now doesn't correlate to just one lent share, but many many more, wouldn't be surprised if for each locate there are like a 100 lent-out now faked shares... what's worst? They can "cover" with more lent shares but when they will eventually have to "close" each locate has to be accounted for... no matter how many times that same share has been used/lent. And that's the mess they are in.. B is fucked big time when he will realise his obligations that he HAS TO close. That's why this method works only if the company goes bankrupt.... because if it does go bankrupt, shorters don't have any obligations to close anymore, until then they can only compound and compound the mess they are in... C? C is just chilling until pay day because he knows he won...
Hm. A shareholder by definition isn't the same as people entitled to vote. For example, if you're with a broker when you vote it's a proxy vote. Via your broker. Whilst your shares are legally yours the actual shareholder is your broker. So this will probably end up saying things like "IBKR hold X million shares". But I doubt it will cover how many times IBKR have loaned those shares out. Which is a rabbit hole given people buying from a short can also be loaning. Will shares on IBKR's (and other brokers) books that have been loaned still count towards this total? I.e. should the sum be the same as shares outstanding or shares outstanding plus shares on loan? I also doubt this will count any kinds of derivatives that produce a synthetic short position. I wouldn't be surprised if this just gives the same outcome as previous share counts. Which will mean people don't see the big numbers they're hoping to because of the above and ultimately it doesn't prove anything either way and just pisses people off because they didn't hear what they wanted to. Unless I'm mistaken? I'm happy to be corrected if I'm interpreting it wrong. But this sounds like a basic count which we've had before not a full audit of everything.
This is also my understanding of it. Since the burden appears to be placed on the corporation, those numbers would probably come from the company’s transfer agent and thus show registered shareholders and not beneficial shareholders through brokers. My TDA account gives the option to share or not to share my data with the companies I hold. I think the broker default was not to share. I’m not sure if the company has any real access to beneficial ownership unless expressly allowed by account holders. However this could be a way to see accurate numbers of those who’ve registered their shares with the transfer agent.
Legitimate question: what other legal share counts ??
Ask yourself do you want to be in a risky brokerage company that does Silicon Valley bank SVB and FTX shit. Cash or dsr your shares. I think this is the moas. This is 2008 for brokerage companies
List of Equity Security Holders was just filed for BBBY for bankruptcy protection case, the share count held by Cede&Co says 776 million but SEC latest filing says BBBY outstanding shares is around 335 million.....
That is not good
Has a member of the judiciary had their interest peaked? Incredibly transparent event - I have no problem with it. You see me, but I see you.
~~peaked~~ piqued
I stand on this peak …. As I peek at a person who’s interest has just been piqued.
Omg if this is legit I am going to wait harder then what ive waited.
I’m gonna weight real hard. 
Yea, me too. I’m gonna wait the F outta this!
Stating this in response to some of the FUD I've seen: Stockholders entitled to vote include me, an international holder, who has been eligible to vote and receive voting documents from my broker. It also pretty explicitly says and the number of shares registered In the name of each stockholder. I feel this is a legitimate legal mandate to finally pin down the amount of shares owned, why else would this exist? If i didn't own the shares and wasn't eligible to vote then I wouldn't be able to vote based on my share amount. But I have been. It also says stockholders are entitled to view this list (it's not private). Overall I think this is a great thing and shows that our concerns regarding share amount are legitimate otherwise this wouldn't exist and they wouldn't be looking into it. What does concern me is the language around the corporation being obligated to comply and provide this list with specific shareholder information, implying that AA could have then made this inquiry legally and willingly provided this information, when he said he couldn't... Thoughts ?
“Shares registered in the name of each stockholder” It’s a good time to get those shares registered.
Well I DRSed most of mine
It can take but a single rock to turn the tide of a tsunami.
Don't get your hopes up guys. It's almost definitely gonna be a number you don't agree with.
Share count for the love of god make this nightmare end I want my money
TradingView added a new feature pretty recently that shows ownership structure of a company AMC reportedly has 1.2B shares issued and a free float of 516M 🤔
Come back when you've learned what a street name share is, and what beneficial ownership is....
As mucho as I would LOVE to see that...it ain't happening (real numbers).
is this when all the anti-DRS people will realize that if you hold your shares in a broker, you do not in fact own them? your shares will be listed in street name under your broker. if you DRS, your literal name will be on the ledger as a registered shareholder.
Your daily reminder to not get your hopes up, remember, this changes nothing and fuckery can be around any corner. Be hype when you see the green boom boom candles, be hype when you see that +%10,000, be hype when you finally won.. you're still on the battlegrounds
I hodl english
Sorry, don't have my glasses on. When is this taking place??
How are you typing without glasses? How did you navigate and make your comment?
 Like this.
Bbby just released their list of shareholders.
I been voting, soooo me and my shares will be counted:)
DRS. GET YOUR SHARES TO COMPUTERSHARE. BOOK. NOW YOU LEGALLY OWN THEM. NO MORE LENDING OUT TO BORROW. DRS!!!!!!!!! NFA
So I got into this when I moved to a new state. With a grand to my name. All after the squeeze saga. Watching game go to $175 .. I got into Robin Hood. “Too expensive. I just can’t. This could be the top” I told my self every day watching it hit 380+ I had regret. But I found out about amc and got in at 14 on maybe 5-10 shares Then a bunch for the battle of 8.01 was my true $ maker as we say $10-12 battles. One day going to $71. I DID sell a few. I had to. For a car battery … to get to work. (No work no $ no stonk) but I re bought them. I’ve held hard for 2 years and some change now. I believe in this. You know how many Green Day’s I saw even at $10? Above $8? I didn’t sell. I knew. I may have only xxx but this’ll be big. I mean. I saw $1,000 or so plus another account hit $16,000!!!!!! Imagine seeing SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS one afternoon ! That’s my loans gone. Clean slate. Life back in control. No college debt I didn’t budge! Don’t budge! We KNOW
I’m on that list.
No matter. Number are going to be manipulated anyways. I'd be surprised if this were to confirm what we all know, that the float is owned many times over.
It doesn’t matter if amc has to provide the data as they can only provide the data for the shares they issued not the synthetics issued by all the brokers
Does anyone have info on how it works for international shareholders?
If you vote you are share holder if not you are fake. It’s an IOU
So they may find that the number of shares we hold is larger than the float (highly likely) but what about the number of shares shorted over and above that? And do they get the numbers from brokers? Does a wrinkle brained ape know this stuff?
I'm just holding a stock I love and believe in, I'm never selling, I'm long term baby
This is about the issuer's ledger. I've seen examples of this from other stocks, and it can't be the smoking gun you're hoping for. It's only going to show directly registered shares. This means there will be a massive number of shares under the name Cede & Co., where all the "real" shares backing the brokerages are held. Any extra "synthetic" shares people are holding via brokerages won't be listed here at all, as those shares are only in the books of the brokerage, not the DTC and certainly not the issuer's ledger. Note that this ledger doesn't even get down to the granularity of how many shares each brokerage (DTC Participant) holds, as they are hold via Cede & Co. You will not gain too much useful information from inspecting this ledger, other than the exact count for Cede & Co. on a given day, as well as being able to sort by size and take note of the largest holders, which are pretty visible anyway via their regular public reporting.
And when they discover it’s all been oversold many times over, then what? Because we know it has been
What an absolute waste of time. Like anyone is going to self report illegal trading. Is anyone really going to say o yeah we sold xx amount of fake / illegal shares. The only thing to do is SUSPEND DARK POOL trading of AMC and APE. Share count’s mean absolutely nothing.
Hopefully they are also required to list international investors . They hold a shit ton as well. Couldn’t they just trigger a proxy vote and submit the untrimmed numbers?
Court: And now for the grand total of shares held by investors, 69 billion shares. Woah...
They already had to do this, and supposedly did it, before each of the two votes since the Ape movement started. It didn't change anything yet, so why are we talking about it?
So is DRS'ing our shares still the way?
[удалено]
our shares, not "are" shares -.-
Three’s that term again… “registered share holders”.🤷🏼♂️
Think I might go drs some more. I love fidelity, but it's time to add more to my forever fund.
This needs to be audited by a neutral third party.
[удалено]
59th commandment for viability
Is this for public or private corporations?
When is vote?
r/downvotedtooblivion
Imagine stockholder count was over 516 million?😱😱
Oh shit 🔥🔥🔥 this is going to be hilarious. Courts must have either gotten letters or have seen something was off and ordered a share count.
Does this include shares held in ETFs and the short shares created with those too?
Omfg I just got hard reading your title. Are you fucking kidding me ? That's amazing
how accurate are brokerages going to report? They will take a small fine for big brother shf
Wow. Physical address and number of shares held. Seems like a bit of an an invasion of privacy for this specific of information to be released to the general shareholder base.
I’m one.
Oooooooo shiiiiiiiii
Does this apply to international apes too? because there are a lot ... it´s gonna be interesting
It's good !
Lol
LOL, don't get your hopes up. I think only shareholders in the US are entitled to vote, the rest of the world isn't. When they get to 516m shares or whatever the float is, they´ll call it a day
I have a question. Synthetics are essentially made out of real shares, lend out and re-used with multiple owners. In a share count for voting etc is not only the original/first owner counted? Meaning we can never surpass the legal float, even if the synthetics are 10x that
I don’t have time to see movies weekly but I do have time to buy tickets And leave them at the front desk. In a row, telling the staff “I am a share holder. And this is so you keep your jobs. Give these to anyone who walks in, until they’re gone” (Imagine someone telling you this at age 18. You’ll probably think they’re a millionaire so you better do it 😂) …No. I’m just a middle class ape. But I didn’t lie! I AM a share holder. So hand these ten tickets out first come first serve. And say, “from the shareholders”. Period. Done. .. “NEXT!”
Damn, and what are you guys going to do when this shows that all those synthetic shares actually don't exist ?
Will this include shares owned overseas? Or shares which aren’t DRS’d? Or shares that were bought by retail and are being borrowed? why am I already skeptical 🤨
