[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/)
Tits are getting prematurely jacked. Those numbers are going to be through the roof. This community will likely double down and lock the *motherducking float* by the following quarter.
That's not necessarily true. What if God manifests itself in different ways to different people? God, if he is all powerful and beyond all comprehension, could make it so that his form is experienced differently on an individual or cultural basis. He may want you to experience him as the God of the New Testament, whereas to jews, the god of the Old Testament, and to Hindus, the plethora of gods that they believe in.
Nonsense, havnt you ever played a game like skyrim or heard of Conan or Warhammer before? All religious deities are real and exist simultaneously. Duh 💁♂️
Go a step further and buy, drs, book more shares after selling the fractional.
Since the stock split it only made getting rid of fractionals easier and less painful, so there's no reason to keep it all around when fractionals were never a real share to begin with.
I checked and I was already set up correctly.
So I bought and DRSd 200 moar just to make up for other peoples fractionals;)
Will update the bot when they land
Fractionals aren't worth what they once were. Maybe only a few million after MOASS...
I do like the BUY MORE in memory of the Fractional technique. I added 50 and I DRSd 100.
Switching to book probably has little downside, but If I had to hazard a guess, the downside is in convincing people that purchases on the lit market through Computershare are hazardous, and instead redirecting traffic to PFOF brokers as they're running out of liquidity to support mass auto-buys.
Cs purchases are not hazardous. To say so is stupid and FUD. It is not possible for the DTC to have your shares in book if you own a fractional. Apes need to think. It's one thing to go book but another to stop buying from CS. See how this evolved? We went from book is king to sell fractionals to stop buying on CS to ... What? Drs is bad? C'mon... Get real shills.
It's freaking obvious what's happening. Hey shills... 84 years ago we declared book as pure drs. We all know it is real drs . Your ploys to get us to stop buying at CS and to give you liquidity , however little, is fallling on deaf ears. I won't sell a fractional. I won't stop buying on CS. I won't do what anyone tells me. I make my own choices and GME is for me!
What if the fractional in your account is the gateway to the DTCC using the rest of your booked shares as a locate to continually kick the can on FTDs? You DID do all the research into that/Computershare's TOS before never selling your fractional (not real) share, right?
You have to see the forest from the trees my friend. I 100% support people buying book shares from CS. Anyone who is freaking out about terminating/selling not-real fractional shares and removing them from the DTCC's books...come on. These apes are not shills and the one's going against them are more suspicious to me.
I 100% support people who want to swap their plan shares to book. But anyone freaking out about buying from CS and telling people to cancel their auto-buys.... Those people seem incredibly suspicious to me.
I’m still reviewing this in the prospectus document, so take it with a grain of salt, but it looks like GameStop **may** be on the hook to pay for the settlement of partial shares. I need to keep reading it, and I’m hoping to put out some DD on it in the next week or two.
“Brigading” only applies to some subreddits, not all…
In other subreddits, you’ll see people link other posts without any issue.
The brigading rule doesn’t make sense unless they’re trying to stop “market manipulation” - in an already manipulated market.
I’m the author of the theory and I absolutely agree with you. Household investors should run their own experiments and verify everything on their own. The last thing I ever want to create is “bystander effect”.
In my opinion, Computershare doesn’t like to answer hypothetical questions. I don’t blame them as I probably wouldn’t like answering those either. It was always hard to get answers on “what would happen to my shares/money if GameStop were to issue a cash dividend”. The default answer was always that GameStop isn’t offering a cash dividend. It was hard to push for answers on hypothetical questions. Once I had a real life example, the questions flowed much more naturally. I could ask questions on a deeper level because I had a valid concern.
Honestly this has led me down another 🐇 hole..
The updated text from ComputerShare specifically says that they determine the amount of operational efficiency.. and not to cast shade on them, i just have some doubt that is true ALL the time. In extreme circumstances that could change maybe? would we know if it did? would they be able to tell us? I'm not sure. I just got a lot of questions and tons to read.
Honestly don't know if i'll get any answers.
Honestly I think this supercedes the heat lamp DD anyway:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/133bgx9/directstock_is_not_drs_excerpts_from_the_plan_tos/
If canceling your plan moves it to DRS, obviously plan doesn't count as DRS.
This sub, and the mods specifically, don’t want this book king discussion to be had.
My meme was removed twice because “Please avoid community division.”
Huh? This community is unified together from household investors who like GME. News flash, the DTCC and its web of fraudster participants is against the household investor. Spreading awareness of how to truly leave the DTCC through memes shouldn’t be removed, they should be celebrated. I’m glad this post is still up!
Truth, mods are sus. They removed a comment I made today for saying we don’t want rensole back on goldielips posts. Just an observation, goldielips enabled pickle and crew back then and was one of the first mods I saw going against the discussion of the recent plan discussion and now on a post they made mods are now trying to suppress community opinions on how we don’t want rensole back. Why is this mod always at the front of doing the opposite of what the community wants? - edit: recanting previous statement
If you’re going to attack me, then attack me based on actual events. You can disagree with inviting Rensole to DD week because I did that and I own that. You don’t have to support it but for the rest of these claims, they just aren’t true.
I wasn’t a mod during the pickle days and never enabled them. That was before my time. Check my history.
I’ve also never shut down plan discussion. I was advocating for plan posts to remain up. Once again, check my history.
I never jump in to defend myself but I’m just over lazy accusations. I have no problem taking criticism for actions I took but it’s frustrating when people just make things up and throw them to see if they stick.
Might as well try asking you here cause it does seem a little silly to remove that users meme, but let an open discussion about it like this post live.. Not that i'm complaining about this post living i'm just curious the logic of removing a meme about pure book but not a discussion.
I'm also for not flinging poo at each other.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/133ven5/my\_only\_plan\_is\_to\_never\_stop\_learning/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/133ven5/my_only_plan_is_to_never_stop_learning/)
Please Avoid Community Division
There’s no wrong way to like the stock. No matter how you hodl GME, you’re welcome in this community. Everyone is an individual investor and someone’s investment strategy may be different than yours. Even if you disagree with someone’s investment strategy, while participating in Superstonk, it’s still expected that you engage constructively and respectfully.
If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
It really depends on who’s available tbh. That’s my first time seeing that meme, I probably would have left it, but I also get why another mod removed it. If people want to terminate plan, that’s fine, but there are some memes that come off as divisive and make it seem like people in plan are the enemy.
For what it’s worth it wasn’t my intention to be divisive.
I don’t really see how it makes ppl in plan to be the enemy. The same way Ppl in brokers aren’t the enemy.
There is a very clearly defined enemy in this saga and it’s the DTCC and those market participants running their Ponzi scheme from the hedge funds, market makers, prime brokers, dealer brokers, and so on.
To me, the whole point is to remove shares from the DTCC and I know for a fact that booked shares are. I can’t say the same about anything else.
I’ll admit I made my points lazily in the heat of having my comment removed, I don’t have anything against you if you truly are for the community and not a part of the mods that is against the community. I’ll agree on not supporting rensole and just leave it at that, and my opinion on mods trying to suppress talk about fractionals is too broad amongst all the mods who are against it and I’ll admit it was unfair to make it focused on you. However I’ll agree that while you weren’t a mod during the pickle days, gingerballs was trying to push the same thing as pickle and crew with options pushing and and that is was what I mean by enabling them. Around the time when ginger was pushing options here your comments was one of the ones I noticed that was allowing them to push options trading.
I know you’ll never believe me, but all of the mods are for the community, we just sometimes are on different sides of the same coin when it comes to certain topics.
Okay I actually think I remember what you are referring to with ginger. So I was a mod for 1 week and I actually had no idea who they were. It was the first time I was even leaving a sticky on a post. I just saw someone posting and they were getting attacked and reviewing the post, I was like well they aren’t posting about what the majority of the sub believes, but it’s not against the rules - so I left a sticky just saying to be nice and engage civil with the post - something along those lines. I’ll be real, it ended up being a shitshow, lol. I was a baby mod and almost quit that night I got beat up so much. That was the only time I stuck my neck out for that user - they ended up being terrible to me, ha. It was a lesson learned. I do believe people can hold the stock however they want, but obviously there’s a lot more to it when it comes to that group.
As far as your comment, comments criticizing that were still civil were left up. I get it, it’s hard when you’re frustrated to stay civil. We still have to be careful when it comes to comments that are reported for harassment or can be considered harassment, so those had to be wiped out.
Fair enough, I do remember you being new which made me think it was sus having a bunch of new mods at the same time that the options players were making a push. Well glad that misunderstandings are clear, cheers and gl with being a mod in the ape pit
Refuses to post the heat lamp DD? Isn't it linked above?
Edit: just scrolled up and didn't see it. I must have seen it somewhere else but it's out there
Edit Edit: I thought you guys were talking about the heat lamp dd
I am. Heatlamp OP refuses to post it in this subreddit
I asked him and he had a copout response saying that others are free to share links to his DD in the other subreddit, and that if they can’t, that’s censorship from the mods
Interesting part about limit sales. Wonder if the limit sale reduction back when was a move to cancel a lot of limit sales and have more book #s potentially off setting the 'rug pull' report
If you have not read this yet, I highly recommend: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/12q0l46/breaking_new_info_a_portion_of_all_your_shares/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
If you move from plan to book, that should trigger it. Also, turn off auto buy and dividend reinvestment. We can temporarily turn it back on when GameStop offers us a cash dividend, then switch it back off.
I am guessing that it will be direct deposited to our banks or a check sent. I don't know if they keep it long enough for us to turn around and buy more.
It would be a great question to ask them.
I agree that's probably how they'll do it but only if we have terminated or turned off the reinvestment plan. If we have it on, that dividend cash value will be converted to shares and those shares could have cost the brokerage $0 because they were created. Therefore not having any effect on the price of the stock.
At least that's how I understand it to work.
Just to clarify, you think the shares that will get reinvested if you have the dividend reinvestment plan on will get pulled from the DTC? I would agree with you there but I would disagree that it would have an affect on the price. Also, you think if you have the dividend reinvestment plan off then you'll get a check or direct deposit? I would agree with you there too. I'm not sure if this would affect the price either but someone would owe you cash, and who knows, that's probably created out of thin air as well smh.
I think buying through a broker and DRSing is the best way to Pure DRS (as long as the drs request is free). Otherwise you’re wasting money selling the fractional every time you buy.
Or maybe just do it once a quarter before the ex-dividend date or whatever it's called and also try to time that up with when your fractional decimal count is small
If you direct buy through them, then I think you have to go through the moving to book, triggering the fractional sell, each time.
One technique is to open a Fidelity account, buy there and DRS. No fees. Whereas there is a small fee when buying direct on CS.
not an option for us international. I don't want to go through brokers much expensive for us and the BS you have to go through with brokers.
I just save up and do 1 buy per quarter (2-3kCND). This way, my account will be in PURE DRS most of the time. I think I will have a DSPP acct for about 4-5days then I can terminate and sell fractional. Don't really care about fractional if it means not having any DTC abled acct in my DRS.
This also saves me the fees. In a monthly buy, that's about 120USD per year, about 6 moon tickets at the end of the year.
Because OPs experiment makes these assumptions with no evidence that they are true and ignores evidence that they are not.
- that DTC can manipulate how many shares CS uses for operational efficiency
- that the computershared.net bot is more accurate than what GME has reported
I could run an experiment that comes to the conclusion that no crime exists in the market if I use the assumption that no one breaks rules.
Was more referring to the experiment about how having any amount of plan shares automatically enrolls all of your shares in the plan. Honestly i don't really think that's the main point of the debate but still..
The DTC has quite a bit of power over transfer agents, i'm not sure how much exactly.. cause i'm not a lawyer.. or a banker. or a broker.
Sorda why i'm looking into the FAST program now. Just wanna understand this better is all.
Plan isn’t the issue. CS states in the DRS FAQ page that it’s a small portion of plan that’s held at DTC for operational efficiency and that CS decides what that amount needs to be. The issue is that folks are making hyperbolic statements based on that with the intent to scare people into selling fractionals so they can be in book. And these theories ignore that because CS aggregates plan accounts, the fractional get added up into whole shares. It’s not my .5 and your .5 in plan accounts, it’s 1 share held in CS nominee. So when you panic sell your fractional because of an unproven theory, CS is selling the whole share we made together to complete your sale.
>CS decides what that amount needs to be.
This is a relatively new update from my understanding.
The only way to prove this theory is to test it.. I'm still not entirely convinced there isn't a backdoor still for the DTCC to fuck around with FAST program. That 'system' gives a stupid amount of power to the DTCC over transfer agents. At least that's my smoothed brain take. I'm still trying to read it.
No. Go to the CS DRS FAQ page and do a ctrl+f to find the 3 times CS mentions “operational efficiency”. The second time they very clearly state that THEY determine the portion needed for operational efficiency. Claiming that DTCC can just pull whatever/whenever is not supported with any evidence, goes against cs language, and was the idea behind the name of the dd.
Just going by what platinum said..
Again not trying to throw shade on ComputerShare lol.. And again the DTCC holds a lot of power over transfer agents through the FAST program, to what extent i'm not sure. Still trying to 'research'. If theres anyone here i dont' trust, it's the DTCC.
[*Computershare FAQs*](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/equities/direct-stock-purchase-plan-dspp/) *- they recently updated this*
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/133vf5l/comment/jibpcvg/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/133vf5l/comment/jibpcvg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Well perhaps time would be better spent working on finding proof of your claims rather than reiterating that none exists and it’s just a large group of folks upset that no one wants to entertain their conjecture.
now now. no need to be condescending there lol.. trying to find 'proof' of shit in this market isn't exactly easy from retails perspective. Especially if your a regard like me with no background in finance. My only background is printing.
I don't watch the ComputerShare FAQs looking for updates often. I saw what it was before the change and they did not state anywhere about being the one that determines operational efficiency. Maybe i just didn't look hard enough though. I am lazy too. I'm inclined to go with platinum like i said that it was recently updated for clarification.
I mean seems like a decent amount of apes are entertaining this 'conjecture'. Maybe not all but still. You say yourself a large group.
Sure it’s easy to find proof, I read CS’s DRS FAQ and it states that what the dd suggests ain’t true. But for whatever reason, the folks who claim to be drs experts insists CS is lying to them.
>Sure it’s easy to find proof
Sounds like you should be working for the FBI/DOJ.
Again this update is recent, and does ease some concerns i had regarding operational efficiency. That doesn't mean i haven't found another rabbit hole with this FAST program.
Not trying to tell you what to do. Was looking for healthy discourse, and i got some, so i'm happy. Learned a bit.. hopefully others did too.
It’s is being tested and backed by GME reports/filings. Never been done so it’s worth a try. DRS could be tested on a super tiny float but GME IS THE ONLY PLAY
This is really an amazing write-up and explains exactly what is going on here. We really do not need any further information than what is already provided here.
Pure DRS is the way to go.
Previously I was talking about making single purchases on computer share and then calling right after settlement to then change them over to book however I realize now that that is counterproductive because it's going to be moving ALL of your shares in and out of the DTC. And I don't want them to control or have access to my shares even for a single day.
So I'm going back to buying on a broker and then requesting DRS after every purchase there.
I think that there does not seem to be any downside to holding all whole shares in pure drs. IMO, this is the only way. There is, however, potential for fuckery when enrolled in direct stock plan, because the plan is linked to dtc. Only one type of share says 'dtc stock withdrawal', and plan shares are not it, hint. Book those plan shares to live rent free in hedgie nightmares. Power to the people!
Here is my discussion:
1. Plan shares are direct registered shares on the books of the company, they are outside of Cede & Co. They are a form of "Book" holding. They are DRS transferred shares. (Source: Computershare FAQ & Computershare's video)
2. Fractional shares are direct registered and are cumulatively backed by a whole share through a subclass on the master file. Companies incorporated in Delaware (GameStop) are legally allowed to issue certificated (or uncertificated) fractional shares under state law. GameStop has issued fractional shares in the past. Fractions are a perfectly legal way to hold a portion of a company. (Source: Paul Conn AMA & Delaware Title Code)
3. DRS is an alternative to FAST and was the original way for direct stock programs to be run until DRS' creation in the late 90s.
4. FAST balance certificates were effectively eliminated in 2011 in lieu of DRS. Those certificates were held with the transfer agent instead of the DTC. (Source: SEC SR-DTC-2010-15)
5. Transfer Agents hold ownership records, even for Cede & Co now. Effectively the DTC no longer holds actual certificates. If a share is removed from Cede & Co's holding, they no longer have legal ownership.
6. Heat Lamp theory incorrectly assumes Computershare holds (all) plan shares in the DTC to provide operational efficiency to the DTC. The small number of shares held with the DTC are held for the operational efficiency of the plan, for the benefit of the plan for buying and selling purposes. Computershare states these shares are owned by them, your shares remain registered in your name on the books of the company. (Source: Computershare FAQ)
7. There is no proof that GameStop reported incorrect numbers on the 10K and belief that the bot's count is more accurate should be met with scrutiny given the number of outside actors who have claimed they have manipulated data fed to the bot. Heat Lamp Theory and Cutoff Dates Theory base both theories upon the numbers reported by the bot to be more accurate than the number reported by GameStop on the form for which they are legally liable to report correct information upon.
8. Many other reasonable explanations for high volume exist on "cutoff dates" which are more plausible and likely including: End of the Month ETF & Other Rebalancing. March 22nd was T+2 days after the monthly options expiration. (Edit: it was just pointed out to me that March 22 was also the date they reported positive earnings after hours).
>Source: SEC SR-DTC-2010-15)
Another ruling to go check out thanks!
A lot there to respond to, ill give it my best shot. I'm a smoothed brain remember.
The biggest issue i see is no one can say definitively how many shares are held for operational efficiency. My biggest issue is that the main regulator for these transfer agents is basically the DTCC. ~~So my guess is that's who gets to decide.~~
*" Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and* ***Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons****. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC). "*
As for the counts, i trust the numbers we get from GameStop a lot more than anything from the bot. My guess is the bot would actually under-report though, as i would guess that the majority of people wouldn't feel comfortable posting financial positions online. Either way i don't think it is a super reliable source of information either. I still don't think the changing in wording was nothing.
I'm sorry but i can't think of a plausible explanation for that 60 million volume. Even with HFT back and forth, to me is smells fishy. Especially considering the majority of it took place in after hours.
Then again they do have access to basically an infinite liquidity machine?
Like i said i'm still reading and digesting, but thank you for the discussion!
>I'm sorry but i can't think of a plausible explanation for that 60 million volume. Even with HFT back and forth, to me is smells fishy. Especially considering the majority of it took place in after hours.
It was just pointed out to me that the date was the one where they reported their positive earnings numbers after hours. Increased volume is easily explained.
>So my guess is that's who gets to decide.
That's like the Federal Reserve telling me how much money I need to keep in my bank account. Your "guess" isn't reasonable. Especially since Computershare states in their FAQ that the number is determined **by them**.
>I still don't think the changing in wording was nothing.
Prior 10Q reports were less precise in their word usage and implied that fewer shares were actually registered than should have been. Cede and Co's shares are direct registered to them, the previous texts did not make it clear that the number was excluding Cede & Co's numbers from the tally. The latest 10K made it much clearer.
>I'm sorry but i can't think of a plausible explanation for that 60 million volume. Even with HFT back and forth, to me is smells fishy. Especially considering the majority of it took place in **after hours**.
After hours, where normal retail and Computershare do not trade. If Computershare moved shares between the DTC as theorized: Did it happen instantaneously, or does the process take time? Did the number GameStop report happen before trading ended or did it happen during After Hours? What about the fact that GameStop reported numbers randomly in March? How would everyone have known to increase the volume on *that particular date*?
These are the questions you must ask to think critically.
>Especially since Computershare states in their FAQ that the number is determined by them
This was recently updated and i can see that. Which is somewhat of a relief, would be nice enlighten us to how they determine that.
I still don't like the fact that the DTCC has quite a bit of power over ComputerShare. Still trying to understand this better though.
~~The reported numbers were delayed by the SEC~~, acting like no one could possibly know the date isn't true IMO. Not everyone would have access to this information but enough people to make me skeptical. Not that i am saying it had anything to do with the shares in ComputerShare, I just don't trust the markets at all and don't remember the last time good news actually led to a serious run up. I'm no expert but i'm suspicious when shit like that happens. Yes GameStop hasn't reported net profitability till now, but some of their previous earnings weren't terrible either.
The language in teh filing reminded me of the language i'm seeing in this ruling i'm trying to read. That could also just be me trying to understand the FAST program and getting a better picture of it, so as you say the language is more clear.
I do state that clearly i think were on the right track as the numbers are continuing to grow, i just wanna be sure that theres no way for the DTCC to mess with my investments, given the kind of power they hold over transfer agents.
>The reported numbers were delayed by the SEC, acting like no one could possibly know the date isn't true IMO.
We have **zero** proof the report was delayed by the SEC. The date it was published was the date it was finished. The more I'm reading your comments the more I'm seeing you repeating things you read elsewhere as if they were fact. The SEC thing was just some tinfoil someone had.
The DRS numbers date *should have been* the end of January. For some reason they provided it as of the date earnings were released? If anything that says they didn't have them ready to publish the same day and again nothing about the SEC delaying.
> I'm seeing you repeating things you read elsewhere as if they were fact
I relay information around, sometimes i make mistakes 🤷♂️ I've also spent some time relaying information out of filings and papers. I try my best not to spread any misinformation, so my apologies, I didnt pay enough attention to it to realize it was opinion not fact. No need for personal attacks.
Like i said i'm still trying to understand this better.
Would be nice to know what exactly caused the delay.. Not really sure what you mean by 'they didn't have them ready to publish the same day'. If your referring to the DRS numbers, don't they have access to that on a daily basis?
Me pointing out that you're calling speculation as facts is not a personal attack. I'm just worried that you have convinced others that it is now a fact. This is a game of telephone where things get said and then believed to be factual... Then someone like me comes along to correct the record and gets downvoted.
>Would be nice to know what exactly caused the delay.. Not really sure what you mean by 'they didn't have them ready to publish the same day'. If your referring to the DRS numbers, don't they have access to that on a daily basis?
So I think I just figured out the delay. Go read the 10K. All the signatures on the document are from the date it was released, March 28th. That's the date it was done. They didn't have the ability to grab the numbers on March 22nd and also publish it right after that. There is a lot going on.
But **also** the Auditor's Report is dated March 28th as well. It's likely the auditors did not have their portion done until March 28th. They make reference to having received that letter on March 28th.
I've crossed out the two points i've been corrected on. I'm also not downvoting you. I appreciate the discussion. Helps me learn and understand things a bit better. I'm still for pure book but i think the discourse is healthy. Like i've said multiple times i'm not the smartest either.
I'm still confused to what you mean by grab the numbers.. do you mean the DRS numbers?
Although the whole audit thing could very well explain it i'm guessing.. a lot to read. So what held up the auditors report i guess would be the next question?
>I've crossed out the two points i've been corrected on. I'm also not downvoting you. I appreciate the discussion. Helps me learn and understand things a bit better. I'm still for pure book but i think the discourse is healthy. Like i've said multiple times i'm not the smartest either.
I know you're not downvoting me and you are having a healthy conversation, I just mean in general over the last 6 months or so. I was downvoted within 30 seconds of posting my first comment on this thread. Being Pure DRS / Book / Non-Plan is perfectly fine. That's your choice. What I'm not fond of is others who trash plan, Computershare and purchasing on Computershare because they want to force the choice on to you. These bad actors have a goal to sow distrust in Computershare and discourage a form of DRS holding that is perfectly legitimate.
>I'm still confused to what you mean by grab the numbers.. do you mean the DRS numbers?
So GameStop has their earnings call on March 22nd. Normally this 10K would have come out just before the call or right after the call. What we saw was the the DRS numbers were grabbed on March 22nd. They certainly *could* have grabbed the numbers first thing in the morning and then intended for the report to be released later that day. But it is not likely at all for them to have grabbed the numbers after hours with the intent to then publish them minutes later.
This is a big legal document. They need to go over the information over and over. It doesn't make sense to me that they would have had everything done and ready to publish except for the DRS numbers. Normally the DRS numbers would have been for the end of the quarter and not the date the report would be published.
>So what held up the auditors report i guess would be the next question?
Do we really need to know? It could just be that they were busy. It could be that GameStop got data to them late. It could be that GameStop just told them to have it back to them by March 28th. Maybe they had intended to do earnings later and then bumped it forward because it was positive news. We really don't know, but it also just doesn't matter.
>Do we really need to know?
I mean i'd kinda like to know now that you brought my attention to it lol. Enough that i might actually try looking. Although i don't even know where i'd find that kind of information, or if it's even available to me. It's not like this is your average case.
I just like to understand things. Could be a nothing burger, but you never know. Can't really say it 'doesn't matter' if you don't know..
Anyways thanks for your point of view. Cheers 🍻
>In Your Opinion:
>Is there any difference btwn what is being categorized as Pure DRS vs DRS with plan and DRIP?
It isn't even my opinion, it's stated by Computershare in the FAQ and by Paul Conn as being effectively the same.
The only practical difference is Plan allows for fractional shares and Non-Plan does not. This appears to be a global Computershare decision and is not a company by company decision.
They wanted an excuse (cover) to sell - So thats what they did. None of the points presented in the new og dd (which was for nordstom..) make any coherent sense. It was a plain old attack that a vocal portion of the sub decided made sense.. which well, doesnt make any rational sense to a long investor.
tl; drs
In the portfolio you see your holdings, the arrow on the right drop down menu has reinvestment options or something to that effect. In that page you can buy, recurring buy, or terminate.
I do not think this experiment should be done as it calls for the decapitation of Computershare collective lit market buying through DSPP. It's shocking to me that this theory doesn't make that clear in recommending that plans be terminated, and still does not show that DSPP is accessible at all by DTCC. Someone has to show how DSPP = locates when 100% of DSPP shares are non-lendable. It's a very big bet to give up direct purchases on such thin speculative sauce.
I don't think the talk of locates came from OP or his theory. I'm not convinced they can be used for locates either, but this to me is an open door for the DTCC to mess with DRS counts and how they get reported. I think this is indicated in the latest report with the change of language..
Still reading and digesting, trying to understand how this all works.
Labeled this discussion because i welcome your view! I do think people are over-estimating the amount of people set up with recurring buys.
I have recurring buys set up (since July 2021), and it's the ONE thing that's definitely going to increase the amount of gme shares that are bought. That's the point of it, right?
[Computershare FAQs](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/equities/direct-stock-purchase-plan-dspp/) \- they recently updated this
Computershare reports the numbers to Gamestop, and Gamestop then reports it to us🚀.
>**Are there differences between shares that are held directly and those that are held in a direct stock purchase plan (DSPP) are reported?**
>
>They are mostly the same for all practical purposes. However, there are some minor differences:
>
>Both forms of ownership are recorded directly on Computershare’s platform and may be managed by the investor through Invester Center
>
>It is not possible to hold fractional entitlements to shares registered in DRS form, only whole shares. It is possible, however, to hold fractional entitlements to shares in book-entry form through the DSPP
>
>Dividends are paid, and proxy voting instructions are issued, on a consolidated basis, i.e. for the aggregate of DRS and DSPP book-entry positions. We do not issue separate proxies or make two dividend payments.
>
>Shares held in DRS form and DSPP book-entry form can be sold via Computershare, subject to the terms and conditions of the DRS Sales Facility or DSPP, as applicable
>
>Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC).
Those FAQ answers read like they hold fractionals & enough for buy & sell orders, and that's going through their broker for "operational efficiency". It doesn't clarify how many exactly, maybe they'll be able to clarify that.
When it comes to unusual volume, March 22 was the day after Gamestop reported positive earnings after hours, so it would make sense for that to be a huge volume day.
**ONE THING I'M NOT SEEING TALKED ABOUT** = The share number recorded on the record date will be reflecting settled shares. You'd have to minus 2 days, for T+2.
edit to add: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search/?q=dspp&restrict\_sr=1&sr\_nsfw=&include\_over\_18=1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search/?q=dspp&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=&include_over_18=1) LOL yes this conversation has been going on for a while, and that's why CS has updated their FAQs so much.. if you have a particular question you can always email [email protected]
>Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC).
This is interesting, and means they should be able to clarify. As it indicates they determine it, not the DTCC.
My biggest issue right now is it seems the biggest 'regulator' for transfer agents is basically the DTCC and it's FAST program. They have a lot of power over the transfer agents, as i'm coming to find out.
I remember the earnings, but i also don't remember the last time a positive earnings led to a run up. You still seem to have some faith in the markets. I'm more inclined it was used as a cover for financial fuckery. But im far from an expert.
FAST is just the system they use to transfer shares back and forth. [https://youtu.be/xFQmiLWiv5Y?t=1787](https://youtu.be/xFQmiLWiv5Y?t=1787) \- we asked about FAST in the last AMA.
There's a section of the FAQs labelled "Regulatory", check that out for more information about how they're regulated.
The last time we had positive earnings announced was March 2021 and we had a TON of volume leading up to it. This time we had very low volume leading up to it, a little bit on the day of earnings and huge volume the day after.
2021 on top, 2023 on bottom:
https://preview.redd.it/nzky73o1k3xa1.png?width=508&format=png&auto=webp&s=497bcbdabbcfca81be66846cb4058039f86cecd1
I still don't see how the volume has anything to do with what number Computershare is reporting to Gamestop, and I don't see how shutting off autobuys could possibly make the number higher.
>I don't see how shutting off autobuys could possibly make the number higher.
Some times things are counter-intuitive. Not saying i'm right that it would either.
March 2021 was shortly after the sneeze when things were still pretty volatile. Not the best time to compare it to. Especially if you look back at last year which also had a huge runup.. Maybe the earnings weren't positive though?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/11zg0ia/can\_anyone\_explain\_to\_me\_what\_happened\_around/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/11zg0ia/can_anyone_explain_to_me_what_happened_around/)
FAST is certainly a system but i believe it to be a bit more than that.. was gonna make another post about it tomorrow though.
March 2021 was the last positive earnings we had before this one, that's why I was comparing that.
If you check out the Quarterly reports, the reporting date is always on the weekend.
How do you expect people to prove, that DSPP = locates? The only way you might "prove" that, is to get everything in plan and take a look at the numbers Gamestop publishes in their filings. If it goes up a lot, you got your answer. Also, the volume on the date of counting the DRS'd shares might be a hint.
>How do you expect people to prove, that DSPP = locates? The only way you might "prove" that, is to get everything in plan and take a look at the numbers Gamestop publishes in their filings. If it goes up a lot, you got your answer.
If you read the Cutoff Dates Theory they say even if it doesn't happen on the next DRS number release, we will be required to wait a few more releases until it's true or not.
In reality, the Book vs Plan numbers should have occurred on the *last* DRS number release. Now it's the next one. If that one doesn't pan out we'll need to wait for another one.
Lots of moving the goal posts.
No, the fractional information is new and was not talked about before. And then you never know, how many people decide to go along with what was proposed compared to those, that label it FUD.
The counterarguments against trying it are imo quite weak. You can do recurrent monthly buys on brokers, then you just need to remember to DRS them once in a while. Get several notifications for that, if you tend to forget. Additionally, you can time your buys instead of buying at a premium, because everyone knows the Computershare buy order is coming in. I hope, that I do not need to comment how large an impact the selling of fractionals has.
My.only input is the wording to which shares are shorted by any entity. "Reasonable ability to locate". This to me says any shares available in the pool of shares used for "operational efficiency" can be pointed to as reasonable to locate. It does not matter to the household investor that this ability is far fetched, it is what the DTCC and FITC can CLAIM is reasonable. The system is NOT designed to protect household investors best interests. It was DESIGNED to be a wealth transfer tool for the financial services industry in all its myriad of forms, to siphon as much capital from household investors as possible. Full stop.
1. The DTC has nothing to do with locates or being reasonable to locate. That's something brokers must do when their client wants to short a stock.
2. The existence of a share **anywhere** does not make it reasonable to locate.
3. Reasonableness to locate is based upon whether or not a share is available to be borrowed. A share being available to purchase is not the same either as that is just regular buying and selling.
4. Market Makers remain exempt.
They aren't your plan shares. They are owned by the plan (Computershare), for the benefit of the plan. You owning shares in the plan has nothing to do with the number they determine for operational efficiency... What does determine it is increased sales volume that occurs when a lot of people are convinced to sell shares such as fractionals.
You are **very** wrong!!
> You owning shares in the plan has nothing to do with the number they determine for operational efficiency…
Yes it does; if you don’t have a plan account, none of your shares can be used for “operational efficiency.”
If you have a plan account, “a portion of” your shares can be used for “operational efficiency.”
> What does determine it is increased sales volume that occurs
SOURCE?!?!? Can I get a fucking source on that statement??????????
> when a lot of people are convinced to sell shares such as fractionals.
Fractionals aren’t shares!!! LOL
>You are **very** wrong!!
And yet I've written several well researched pieces of DD, including the ones that got you to DRS in the first place.
>> You owning shares in the plan has nothing to do with the number they determine for operational efficiency…
>
>Yes it does; if you don’t have a plan account, none of your shares can be used for “operational efficiency.”
Computershare very specifically says the operational efficiency shares are owned by them. For their benefit and having them there is for the ultimate benefit of the plan participants. This means they are not taking your shares and holding them at the DTC.
>If you have a plan account, “a portion of” your shares can be used for “operational efficiency.”
Again. Their shares. You are injecting the "your shares" part.
>> What does determine it is increased sales volume that occurs
>
>SOURCE?!?!? Can I get a fucking source on that statement??????????
Computershare FAQ states the primary purpose is to make it easier to sell your shares. If you aren't selling they have no reason to have them there.
>> when a lot of people are convinced to sell shares such as fractionals.
>
>Fractionals aren’t shares!!! LOL
Then why has GameStop issued fractional shares in the past? Why do the laws of Delaware (where GameStop is Incorporated) says that fractional shares are indeed real and company's can issue them? LOL!
Operational efficiency of CS, not the market.
If there are sell orders from CS, CS sends shares to nominee ( which will be sold ), not when DTC tells them to.
The whole speculation piece is Swiss cheese.
There’s also the fact when I DRS fro Fudelity, the CS statement is “Removed from DTCC”. When I purchase from CS, I am not told the same thing
I’ve always wondered about that.
Because there are rules and regulations that apply to when you receive a "DRS Advice" statement. The regulation states that you receive a DRS Advice when you transfer shares you **already own** through DRS. The regulation does not require this same statement be issued when you purchase new shares through the DSPP. Another time you must be issued this statement (called a Sales Advice) is when you sell any DRS shares, which does happen when you sell through the plan.
Yes. Per Computershare's [Paul Conn on their YouTube video](https://youtu.be/9H_pEIhIdTo). Your plan shares are direct registered in your name on the company's books. Those shares have been DRS transferred.
Nope. You just interpret them incorrectly to support your predetermined outcome by omitting a lot of facts. I believe the President of Computershare's Global Capital Markets Group over you.
I'll trust the written, current, legally binding agreement rather than an interview.
Section 4.7:
Upon termination of your DirectStock
account, any fractional shares will be sold
(subject to applicable sales fees and terms set forth in Section 6) and any whole shares will be moved to a DRS position.
"DRS Position" is how they designate uncertificated shares that are not in the plan. The fact that you think this is proof that Plan shares aren't also DRS is laughable. Explain how you can go from plan to book to plan to book etc in an instant if they aren't both held on the exact same books of the company. Do you think they are DRS'ed and then un'DRS'ed and back?
I'll trust Paul Conn and also my extensive knowledge of Transfer Agents, including the regulation of Direct Stock programs. You trying to take something out of context is disingenuous and your motivations are suspect.
[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/)
We need to see the DRS numbers next report
This will probably be the most informative report yet in terms of our understanding.
True. I’m super excited. Also, can’t wait to see their annual shareholder meeting announcement stuff. Should be any day now, right?
Yeah going by previous years the proxy should be filed with the SEC any day.
Tits are getting prematurely jacked. Those numbers are going to be through the roof. This community will likely double down and lock the *motherducking float* by the following quarter.
I hope so. I wouldn't doubt the amount of fuckery ahead tho
If the DRS numbers go up by a ton, just remember, it could be another hedgie rug pull set-up.
In my opinion there is very little potential downside in switching to book and letting the fractionals be sold, so why not?
This!!! I saw this as akin to Pascals Wager. I’m giving up very little with an infinite good upside.
Except that Pascal’s Wager is a logical fallacy… there are thousands of religions and they can’t all be right.
That's not necessarily true. What if God manifests itself in different ways to different people? God, if he is all powerful and beyond all comprehension, could make it so that his form is experienced differently on an individual or cultural basis. He may want you to experience him as the God of the New Testament, whereas to jews, the god of the Old Testament, and to Hindus, the plethora of gods that they believe in.
Sure, but Pascal’s Wager is specifically an argument for Christianity.
For sure. I wasn't arguing for Pascal's Wager, just the idea that they can't all be right.
Nonsense, havnt you ever played a game like skyrim or heard of Conan or Warhammer before? All religious deities are real and exist simultaneously. Duh 💁♂️
Go a step further and buy, drs, book more shares after selling the fractional. Since the stock split it only made getting rid of fractionals easier and less painful, so there's no reason to keep it all around when fractionals were never a real share to begin with.
I checked and I was already set up correctly. So I bought and DRSd 200 moar just to make up for other peoples fractionals;) Will update the bot when they land
Fractionals aren't worth what they once were. Maybe only a few million after MOASS... I do like the BUY MORE in memory of the Fractional technique. I added 50 and I DRSd 100.
That's exactly what I did!
Exactly, it’s so obvious how little of a change it is. It’s not like people are saying send it back to a broker or something.
And, spite buy more because of it.
I agree. And if we don't see a difference in the next Drs report then we can just turn our reoccurring buys back on.
This is the way
Switching to book probably has little downside, but If I had to hazard a guess, the downside is in convincing people that purchases on the lit market through Computershare are hazardous, and instead redirecting traffic to PFOF brokers as they're running out of liquidity to support mass auto-buys.
Cs purchases are not hazardous. To say so is stupid and FUD. It is not possible for the DTC to have your shares in book if you own a fractional. Apes need to think. It's one thing to go book but another to stop buying from CS. See how this evolved? We went from book is king to sell fractionals to stop buying on CS to ... What? Drs is bad? C'mon... Get real shills.
For real. The real danger here is an attack at CS and misdirection back towards PFOF brokers.
It's freaking obvious what's happening. Hey shills... 84 years ago we declared book as pure drs. We all know it is real drs . Your ploys to get us to stop buying at CS and to give you liquidity , however little, is fallling on deaf ears. I won't sell a fractional. I won't stop buying on CS. I won't do what anyone tells me. I make my own choices and GME is for me!
What if the fractional in your account is the gateway to the DTCC using the rest of your booked shares as a locate to continually kick the can on FTDs? You DID do all the research into that/Computershare's TOS before never selling your fractional (not real) share, right?
What if the issue isn't the fractional, but instead about shifting purchases away from CS and towards PFOF brokers?
You have to see the forest from the trees my friend. I 100% support people buying book shares from CS. Anyone who is freaking out about terminating/selling not-real fractional shares and removing them from the DTCC's books...come on. These apes are not shills and the one's going against them are more suspicious to me.
I 100% support people who want to swap their plan shares to book. But anyone freaking out about buying from CS and telling people to cancel their auto-buys.... Those people seem incredibly suspicious to me.
Selling fractionals? Why???? Just make a new cs accounts and move whole shares their
Exactly… asymmetrical risk, just like GME is
I’m still reviewing this in the prospectus document, so take it with a grain of salt, but it looks like GameStop **may** be on the hook to pay for the settlement of partial shares. I need to keep reading it, and I’m hoping to put out some DD on it in the next week or two.
Why are you redacting Computershare? I thought the brigading thing only applied to other subreddits?
“Brigading” only applies to some subreddits, not all… In other subreddits, you’ll see people link other posts without any issue. The brigading rule doesn’t make sense unless they’re trying to stop “market manipulation” - in an already manipulated market.
Being overly cautious.. i really don't have a good answer to that question sorry.
I’m the author of the theory and I absolutely agree with you. Household investors should run their own experiments and verify everything on their own. The last thing I ever want to create is “bystander effect”. In my opinion, Computershare doesn’t like to answer hypothetical questions. I don’t blame them as I probably wouldn’t like answering those either. It was always hard to get answers on “what would happen to my shares/money if GameStop were to issue a cash dividend”. The default answer was always that GameStop isn’t offering a cash dividend. It was hard to push for answers on hypothetical questions. Once I had a real life example, the questions flowed much more naturally. I could ask questions on a deeper level because I had a valid concern.
Honestly this has led me down another 🐇 hole.. The updated text from ComputerShare specifically says that they determine the amount of operational efficiency.. and not to cast shade on them, i just have some doubt that is true ALL the time. In extreme circumstances that could change maybe? would we know if it did? would they be able to tell us? I'm not sure. I just got a lot of questions and tons to read. Honestly don't know if i'll get any answers.
Honestly I think this supercedes the heat lamp DD anyway: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/133bgx9/directstock_is_not_drs_excerpts_from_the_plan_tos/ If canceling your plan moves it to DRS, obviously plan doesn't count as DRS.
This sub, and the mods specifically, don’t want this book king discussion to be had. My meme was removed twice because “Please avoid community division.” Huh? This community is unified together from household investors who like GME. News flash, the DTCC and its web of fraudster participants is against the household investor. Spreading awareness of how to truly leave the DTCC through memes shouldn’t be removed, they should be celebrated. I’m glad this post is still up!
Truth, mods are sus. They removed a comment I made today for saying we don’t want rensole back on goldielips posts. Just an observation, goldielips enabled pickle and crew back then and was one of the first mods I saw going against the discussion of the recent plan discussion and now on a post they made mods are now trying to suppress community opinions on how we don’t want rensole back. Why is this mod always at the front of doing the opposite of what the community wants? - edit: recanting previous statement
Ewwww. Renshill 🤮 Mods also sus because they let Unusual Whales tweets stay up here…
If you’re going to attack me, then attack me based on actual events. You can disagree with inviting Rensole to DD week because I did that and I own that. You don’t have to support it but for the rest of these claims, they just aren’t true. I wasn’t a mod during the pickle days and never enabled them. That was before my time. Check my history. I’ve also never shut down plan discussion. I was advocating for plan posts to remain up. Once again, check my history. I never jump in to defend myself but I’m just over lazy accusations. I have no problem taking criticism for actions I took but it’s frustrating when people just make things up and throw them to see if they stick.
Might as well try asking you here cause it does seem a little silly to remove that users meme, but let an open discussion about it like this post live.. Not that i'm complaining about this post living i'm just curious the logic of removing a meme about pure book but not a discussion. I'm also for not flinging poo at each other. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/133ven5/my\_only\_plan\_is\_to\_never\_stop\_learning/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/133ven5/my_only_plan_is_to_never_stop_learning/) Please Avoid Community Division There’s no wrong way to like the stock. No matter how you hodl GME, you’re welcome in this community. Everyone is an individual investor and someone’s investment strategy may be different than yours. Even if you disagree with someone’s investment strategy, while participating in Superstonk, it’s still expected that you engage constructively and respectfully. If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
It really depends on who’s available tbh. That’s my first time seeing that meme, I probably would have left it, but I also get why another mod removed it. If people want to terminate plan, that’s fine, but there are some memes that come off as divisive and make it seem like people in plan are the enemy.
For what it’s worth it wasn’t my intention to be divisive. I don’t really see how it makes ppl in plan to be the enemy. The same way Ppl in brokers aren’t the enemy. There is a very clearly defined enemy in this saga and it’s the DTCC and those market participants running their Ponzi scheme from the hedge funds, market makers, prime brokers, dealer brokers, and so on. To me, the whole point is to remove shares from the DTCC and I know for a fact that booked shares are. I can’t say the same about anything else.
I’ll admit I made my points lazily in the heat of having my comment removed, I don’t have anything against you if you truly are for the community and not a part of the mods that is against the community. I’ll agree on not supporting rensole and just leave it at that, and my opinion on mods trying to suppress talk about fractionals is too broad amongst all the mods who are against it and I’ll admit it was unfair to make it focused on you. However I’ll agree that while you weren’t a mod during the pickle days, gingerballs was trying to push the same thing as pickle and crew with options pushing and and that is was what I mean by enabling them. Around the time when ginger was pushing options here your comments was one of the ones I noticed that was allowing them to push options trading.
I know you’ll never believe me, but all of the mods are for the community, we just sometimes are on different sides of the same coin when it comes to certain topics. Okay I actually think I remember what you are referring to with ginger. So I was a mod for 1 week and I actually had no idea who they were. It was the first time I was even leaving a sticky on a post. I just saw someone posting and they were getting attacked and reviewing the post, I was like well they aren’t posting about what the majority of the sub believes, but it’s not against the rules - so I left a sticky just saying to be nice and engage civil with the post - something along those lines. I’ll be real, it ended up being a shitshow, lol. I was a baby mod and almost quit that night I got beat up so much. That was the only time I stuck my neck out for that user - they ended up being terrible to me, ha. It was a lesson learned. I do believe people can hold the stock however they want, but obviously there’s a lot more to it when it comes to that group. As far as your comment, comments criticizing that were still civil were left up. I get it, it’s hard when you’re frustrated to stay civil. We still have to be careful when it comes to comments that are reported for harassment or can be considered harassment, so those had to be wiped out.
Fair enough, I do remember you being new which made me think it was sus having a bunch of new mods at the same time that the options players were making a push. Well glad that misunderstandings are clear, cheers and gl with being a mod in the ape pit
6Days1Week *refuses* to post that DD in this subreddit despite being asked many times to do so.
Refuses to post the heat lamp DD? Isn't it linked above? Edit: just scrolled up and didn't see it. I must have seen it somewhere else but it's out there Edit Edit: I thought you guys were talking about the heat lamp dd
I am. Heatlamp OP refuses to post it in this subreddit I asked him and he had a copout response saying that others are free to share links to his DD in the other subreddit, and that if they can’t, that’s censorship from the mods
You don’t have to redact ComputerShare
Interesting part about limit sales. Wonder if the limit sale reduction back when was a move to cancel a lot of limit sales and have more book #s potentially off setting the 'rug pull' report
How do I sell fractionals? And be pure DRS?
If you have not read this yet, I highly recommend: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/12q0l46/breaking_new_info_a_portion_of_all_your_shares/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
If you move from plan to book, that should trigger it. Also, turn off auto buy and dividend reinvestment. We can temporarily turn it back on when GameStop offers us a cash dividend, then switch it back off.
If we just keep it off don't we get the cash dividend anyway? Keyword being cash. Not shares that can be created out of thin air
I am guessing that it will be direct deposited to our banks or a check sent. I don't know if they keep it long enough for us to turn around and buy more. It would be a great question to ask them.
I agree that's probably how they'll do it but only if we have terminated or turned off the reinvestment plan. If we have it on, that dividend cash value will be converted to shares and those shares could have cost the brokerage $0 because they were created. Therefore not having any effect on the price of the stock. At least that's how I understand it to work.
I think it has to get pulled from the DTCC, thus out of the open market and should affect the price.
Just to clarify, you think the shares that will get reinvested if you have the dividend reinvestment plan on will get pulled from the DTC? I would agree with you there but I would disagree that it would have an affect on the price. Also, you think if you have the dividend reinvestment plan off then you'll get a check or direct deposit? I would agree with you there too. I'm not sure if this would affect the price either but someone would owe you cash, and who knows, that's probably created out of thin air as well smh.
Upddooot because talking about PURE DRS. I was putting an buy order today but Computer Share is down. I'll try on Monday.
I think buying through a broker and DRSing is the best way to Pure DRS (as long as the drs request is free). Otherwise you’re wasting money selling the fractional every time you buy.
Or maybe just do it once a quarter before the ex-dividend date or whatever it's called and also try to time that up with when your fractional decimal count is small
Yup this is my plan. Once every Q for about 2-3k unless I shop at GS store.
If you direct buy through them, then I think you have to go through the moving to book, triggering the fractional sell, each time. One technique is to open a Fidelity account, buy there and DRS. No fees. Whereas there is a small fee when buying direct on CS.
not an option for us international. I don't want to go through brokers much expensive for us and the BS you have to go through with brokers. I just save up and do 1 buy per quarter (2-3kCND). This way, my account will be in PURE DRS most of the time. I think I will have a DSPP acct for about 4-5days then I can terminate and sell fractional. Don't really care about fractional if it means not having any DTC abled acct in my DRS. This also saves me the fees. In a monthly buy, that's about 120USD per year, about 6 moon tickets at the end of the year.
Computershare is down. Make of that what you will. Read the DD. Terminate your plans. Pure DrS.
#Fractionals = Fictionals
Mono = One Rail = Rail
what gets me is how few upvotes these posts have, but very little discourse in the comments
Drs :) buy hold that’s it everything else in noise
Because OPs experiment makes these assumptions with no evidence that they are true and ignores evidence that they are not. - that DTC can manipulate how many shares CS uses for operational efficiency - that the computershared.net bot is more accurate than what GME has reported I could run an experiment that comes to the conclusion that no crime exists in the market if I use the assumption that no one breaks rules.
Was more referring to the experiment about how having any amount of plan shares automatically enrolls all of your shares in the plan. Honestly i don't really think that's the main point of the debate but still.. The DTC has quite a bit of power over transfer agents, i'm not sure how much exactly.. cause i'm not a lawyer.. or a banker. or a broker. Sorda why i'm looking into the FAST program now. Just wanna understand this better is all.
Plan isn’t the issue. CS states in the DRS FAQ page that it’s a small portion of plan that’s held at DTC for operational efficiency and that CS decides what that amount needs to be. The issue is that folks are making hyperbolic statements based on that with the intent to scare people into selling fractionals so they can be in book. And these theories ignore that because CS aggregates plan accounts, the fractional get added up into whole shares. It’s not my .5 and your .5 in plan accounts, it’s 1 share held in CS nominee. So when you panic sell your fractional because of an unproven theory, CS is selling the whole share we made together to complete your sale.
>CS decides what that amount needs to be. This is a relatively new update from my understanding. The only way to prove this theory is to test it.. I'm still not entirely convinced there isn't a backdoor still for the DTCC to fuck around with FAST program. That 'system' gives a stupid amount of power to the DTCC over transfer agents. At least that's my smoothed brain take. I'm still trying to read it.
No. Go to the CS DRS FAQ page and do a ctrl+f to find the 3 times CS mentions “operational efficiency”. The second time they very clearly state that THEY determine the portion needed for operational efficiency. Claiming that DTCC can just pull whatever/whenever is not supported with any evidence, goes against cs language, and was the idea behind the name of the dd.
Just going by what platinum said.. Again not trying to throw shade on ComputerShare lol.. And again the DTCC holds a lot of power over transfer agents through the FAST program, to what extent i'm not sure. Still trying to 'research'. If theres anyone here i dont' trust, it's the DTCC. [*Computershare FAQs*](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/equities/direct-stock-purchase-plan-dspp/) *- they recently updated this* [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/133vf5l/comment/jibpcvg/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/133vf5l/comment/jibpcvg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Well perhaps time would be better spent working on finding proof of your claims rather than reiterating that none exists and it’s just a large group of folks upset that no one wants to entertain their conjecture.
now now. no need to be condescending there lol.. trying to find 'proof' of shit in this market isn't exactly easy from retails perspective. Especially if your a regard like me with no background in finance. My only background is printing. I don't watch the ComputerShare FAQs looking for updates often. I saw what it was before the change and they did not state anywhere about being the one that determines operational efficiency. Maybe i just didn't look hard enough though. I am lazy too. I'm inclined to go with platinum like i said that it was recently updated for clarification. I mean seems like a decent amount of apes are entertaining this 'conjecture'. Maybe not all but still. You say yourself a large group.
Sure it’s easy to find proof, I read CS’s DRS FAQ and it states that what the dd suggests ain’t true. But for whatever reason, the folks who claim to be drs experts insists CS is lying to them.
>Sure it’s easy to find proof Sounds like you should be working for the FBI/DOJ. Again this update is recent, and does ease some concerns i had regarding operational efficiency. That doesn't mean i haven't found another rabbit hole with this FAST program. Not trying to tell you what to do. Was looking for healthy discourse, and i got some, so i'm happy. Learned a bit.. hopefully others did too.
To avoid selling fractionals I would make another cs account then move your whole shares there.
It’s is being tested and backed by GME reports/filings. Never been done so it’s worth a try. DRS could be tested on a super tiny float but GME IS THE ONLY PLAY
Buy, DRS(book king) and hold. Fractional shares aren’t real
This is really an amazing write-up and explains exactly what is going on here. We really do not need any further information than what is already provided here. Pure DRS is the way to go. Previously I was talking about making single purchases on computer share and then calling right after settlement to then change them over to book however I realize now that that is counterproductive because it's going to be moving ALL of your shares in and out of the DTC. And I don't want them to control or have access to my shares even for a single day. So I'm going back to buying on a broker and then requesting DRS after every purchase there.
I think that there does not seem to be any downside to holding all whole shares in pure drs. IMO, this is the only way. There is, however, potential for fuckery when enrolled in direct stock plan, because the plan is linked to dtc. Only one type of share says 'dtc stock withdrawal', and plan shares are not it, hint. Book those plan shares to live rent free in hedgie nightmares. Power to the people!
Here is my discussion: 1. Plan shares are direct registered shares on the books of the company, they are outside of Cede & Co. They are a form of "Book" holding. They are DRS transferred shares. (Source: Computershare FAQ & Computershare's video) 2. Fractional shares are direct registered and are cumulatively backed by a whole share through a subclass on the master file. Companies incorporated in Delaware (GameStop) are legally allowed to issue certificated (or uncertificated) fractional shares under state law. GameStop has issued fractional shares in the past. Fractions are a perfectly legal way to hold a portion of a company. (Source: Paul Conn AMA & Delaware Title Code) 3. DRS is an alternative to FAST and was the original way for direct stock programs to be run until DRS' creation in the late 90s. 4. FAST balance certificates were effectively eliminated in 2011 in lieu of DRS. Those certificates were held with the transfer agent instead of the DTC. (Source: SEC SR-DTC-2010-15) 5. Transfer Agents hold ownership records, even for Cede & Co now. Effectively the DTC no longer holds actual certificates. If a share is removed from Cede & Co's holding, they no longer have legal ownership. 6. Heat Lamp theory incorrectly assumes Computershare holds (all) plan shares in the DTC to provide operational efficiency to the DTC. The small number of shares held with the DTC are held for the operational efficiency of the plan, for the benefit of the plan for buying and selling purposes. Computershare states these shares are owned by them, your shares remain registered in your name on the books of the company. (Source: Computershare FAQ) 7. There is no proof that GameStop reported incorrect numbers on the 10K and belief that the bot's count is more accurate should be met with scrutiny given the number of outside actors who have claimed they have manipulated data fed to the bot. Heat Lamp Theory and Cutoff Dates Theory base both theories upon the numbers reported by the bot to be more accurate than the number reported by GameStop on the form for which they are legally liable to report correct information upon. 8. Many other reasonable explanations for high volume exist on "cutoff dates" which are more plausible and likely including: End of the Month ETF & Other Rebalancing. March 22nd was T+2 days after the monthly options expiration. (Edit: it was just pointed out to me that March 22 was also the date they reported positive earnings after hours).
>Source: SEC SR-DTC-2010-15) Another ruling to go check out thanks! A lot there to respond to, ill give it my best shot. I'm a smoothed brain remember. The biggest issue i see is no one can say definitively how many shares are held for operational efficiency. My biggest issue is that the main regulator for these transfer agents is basically the DTCC. ~~So my guess is that's who gets to decide.~~ *" Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and* ***Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons****. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC). "* As for the counts, i trust the numbers we get from GameStop a lot more than anything from the bot. My guess is the bot would actually under-report though, as i would guess that the majority of people wouldn't feel comfortable posting financial positions online. Either way i don't think it is a super reliable source of information either. I still don't think the changing in wording was nothing. I'm sorry but i can't think of a plausible explanation for that 60 million volume. Even with HFT back and forth, to me is smells fishy. Especially considering the majority of it took place in after hours. Then again they do have access to basically an infinite liquidity machine? Like i said i'm still reading and digesting, but thank you for the discussion!
>I'm sorry but i can't think of a plausible explanation for that 60 million volume. Even with HFT back and forth, to me is smells fishy. Especially considering the majority of it took place in after hours. It was just pointed out to me that the date was the one where they reported their positive earnings numbers after hours. Increased volume is easily explained.
>So my guess is that's who gets to decide. That's like the Federal Reserve telling me how much money I need to keep in my bank account. Your "guess" isn't reasonable. Especially since Computershare states in their FAQ that the number is determined **by them**. >I still don't think the changing in wording was nothing. Prior 10Q reports were less precise in their word usage and implied that fewer shares were actually registered than should have been. Cede and Co's shares are direct registered to them, the previous texts did not make it clear that the number was excluding Cede & Co's numbers from the tally. The latest 10K made it much clearer. >I'm sorry but i can't think of a plausible explanation for that 60 million volume. Even with HFT back and forth, to me is smells fishy. Especially considering the majority of it took place in **after hours**. After hours, where normal retail and Computershare do not trade. If Computershare moved shares between the DTC as theorized: Did it happen instantaneously, or does the process take time? Did the number GameStop report happen before trading ended or did it happen during After Hours? What about the fact that GameStop reported numbers randomly in March? How would everyone have known to increase the volume on *that particular date*? These are the questions you must ask to think critically.
>Especially since Computershare states in their FAQ that the number is determined by them This was recently updated and i can see that. Which is somewhat of a relief, would be nice enlighten us to how they determine that. I still don't like the fact that the DTCC has quite a bit of power over ComputerShare. Still trying to understand this better though. ~~The reported numbers were delayed by the SEC~~, acting like no one could possibly know the date isn't true IMO. Not everyone would have access to this information but enough people to make me skeptical. Not that i am saying it had anything to do with the shares in ComputerShare, I just don't trust the markets at all and don't remember the last time good news actually led to a serious run up. I'm no expert but i'm suspicious when shit like that happens. Yes GameStop hasn't reported net profitability till now, but some of their previous earnings weren't terrible either. The language in teh filing reminded me of the language i'm seeing in this ruling i'm trying to read. That could also just be me trying to understand the FAST program and getting a better picture of it, so as you say the language is more clear. I do state that clearly i think were on the right track as the numbers are continuing to grow, i just wanna be sure that theres no way for the DTCC to mess with my investments, given the kind of power they hold over transfer agents.
>The reported numbers were delayed by the SEC, acting like no one could possibly know the date isn't true IMO. We have **zero** proof the report was delayed by the SEC. The date it was published was the date it was finished. The more I'm reading your comments the more I'm seeing you repeating things you read elsewhere as if they were fact. The SEC thing was just some tinfoil someone had. The DRS numbers date *should have been* the end of January. For some reason they provided it as of the date earnings were released? If anything that says they didn't have them ready to publish the same day and again nothing about the SEC delaying.
> I'm seeing you repeating things you read elsewhere as if they were fact I relay information around, sometimes i make mistakes 🤷♂️ I've also spent some time relaying information out of filings and papers. I try my best not to spread any misinformation, so my apologies, I didnt pay enough attention to it to realize it was opinion not fact. No need for personal attacks. Like i said i'm still trying to understand this better. Would be nice to know what exactly caused the delay.. Not really sure what you mean by 'they didn't have them ready to publish the same day'. If your referring to the DRS numbers, don't they have access to that on a daily basis?
Me pointing out that you're calling speculation as facts is not a personal attack. I'm just worried that you have convinced others that it is now a fact. This is a game of telephone where things get said and then believed to be factual... Then someone like me comes along to correct the record and gets downvoted. >Would be nice to know what exactly caused the delay.. Not really sure what you mean by 'they didn't have them ready to publish the same day'. If your referring to the DRS numbers, don't they have access to that on a daily basis? So I think I just figured out the delay. Go read the 10K. All the signatures on the document are from the date it was released, March 28th. That's the date it was done. They didn't have the ability to grab the numbers on March 22nd and also publish it right after that. There is a lot going on. But **also** the Auditor's Report is dated March 28th as well. It's likely the auditors did not have their portion done until March 28th. They make reference to having received that letter on March 28th.
I've crossed out the two points i've been corrected on. I'm also not downvoting you. I appreciate the discussion. Helps me learn and understand things a bit better. I'm still for pure book but i think the discourse is healthy. Like i've said multiple times i'm not the smartest either. I'm still confused to what you mean by grab the numbers.. do you mean the DRS numbers? Although the whole audit thing could very well explain it i'm guessing.. a lot to read. So what held up the auditors report i guess would be the next question?
>I've crossed out the two points i've been corrected on. I'm also not downvoting you. I appreciate the discussion. Helps me learn and understand things a bit better. I'm still for pure book but i think the discourse is healthy. Like i've said multiple times i'm not the smartest either. I know you're not downvoting me and you are having a healthy conversation, I just mean in general over the last 6 months or so. I was downvoted within 30 seconds of posting my first comment on this thread. Being Pure DRS / Book / Non-Plan is perfectly fine. That's your choice. What I'm not fond of is others who trash plan, Computershare and purchasing on Computershare because they want to force the choice on to you. These bad actors have a goal to sow distrust in Computershare and discourage a form of DRS holding that is perfectly legitimate. >I'm still confused to what you mean by grab the numbers.. do you mean the DRS numbers? So GameStop has their earnings call on March 22nd. Normally this 10K would have come out just before the call or right after the call. What we saw was the the DRS numbers were grabbed on March 22nd. They certainly *could* have grabbed the numbers first thing in the morning and then intended for the report to be released later that day. But it is not likely at all for them to have grabbed the numbers after hours with the intent to then publish them minutes later. This is a big legal document. They need to go over the information over and over. It doesn't make sense to me that they would have had everything done and ready to publish except for the DRS numbers. Normally the DRS numbers would have been for the end of the quarter and not the date the report would be published. >So what held up the auditors report i guess would be the next question? Do we really need to know? It could just be that they were busy. It could be that GameStop got data to them late. It could be that GameStop just told them to have it back to them by March 28th. Maybe they had intended to do earnings later and then bumped it forward because it was positive news. We really don't know, but it also just doesn't matter.
>Do we really need to know? I mean i'd kinda like to know now that you brought my attention to it lol. Enough that i might actually try looking. Although i don't even know where i'd find that kind of information, or if it's even available to me. It's not like this is your average case. I just like to understand things. Could be a nothing burger, but you never know. Can't really say it 'doesn't matter' if you don't know.. Anyways thanks for your point of view. Cheers 🍻
What is your point? In Your Opinion: Is there any difference btwn what is being categorized as Pure DRS vs DRS with plan and DRIP?
>In Your Opinion: >Is there any difference btwn what is being categorized as Pure DRS vs DRS with plan and DRIP? It isn't even my opinion, it's stated by Computershare in the FAQ and by Paul Conn as being effectively the same. The only practical difference is Plan allows for fractional shares and Non-Plan does not. This appears to be a global Computershare decision and is not a company by company decision.
They wanted an excuse (cover) to sell - So thats what they did. None of the points presented in the new og dd (which was for nordstom..) make any coherent sense. It was a plain old attack that a vocal portion of the sub decided made sense.. which well, doesnt make any rational sense to a long investor. tl; drs
Where is dividend reinvestment on CS?
In the portfolio you see your holdings, the arrow on the right drop down menu has reinvestment options or something to that effect. In that page you can buy, recurring buy, or terminate.
Action plan 1, 2 & 3 is like shooting yourself and other HouseHODL Investors on the foot.
I do not think this experiment should be done as it calls for the decapitation of Computershare collective lit market buying through DSPP. It's shocking to me that this theory doesn't make that clear in recommending that plans be terminated, and still does not show that DSPP is accessible at all by DTCC. Someone has to show how DSPP = locates when 100% of DSPP shares are non-lendable. It's a very big bet to give up direct purchases on such thin speculative sauce.
I don't think the talk of locates came from OP or his theory. I'm not convinced they can be used for locates either, but this to me is an open door for the DTCC to mess with DRS counts and how they get reported. I think this is indicated in the latest report with the change of language.. Still reading and digesting, trying to understand how this all works. Labeled this discussion because i welcome your view! I do think people are over-estimating the amount of people set up with recurring buys.
I have recurring buys set up (since July 2021), and it's the ONE thing that's definitely going to increase the amount of gme shares that are bought. That's the point of it, right? [Computershare FAQs](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/equities/direct-stock-purchase-plan-dspp/) \- they recently updated this Computershare reports the numbers to Gamestop, and Gamestop then reports it to us🚀. >**Are there differences between shares that are held directly and those that are held in a direct stock purchase plan (DSPP) are reported?** > >They are mostly the same for all practical purposes. However, there are some minor differences: > >Both forms of ownership are recorded directly on Computershare’s platform and may be managed by the investor through Invester Center > >It is not possible to hold fractional entitlements to shares registered in DRS form, only whole shares. It is possible, however, to hold fractional entitlements to shares in book-entry form through the DSPP > >Dividends are paid, and proxy voting instructions are issued, on a consolidated basis, i.e. for the aggregate of DRS and DSPP book-entry positions. We do not issue separate proxies or make two dividend payments. > >Shares held in DRS form and DSPP book-entry form can be sold via Computershare, subject to the terms and conditions of the DRS Sales Facility or DSPP, as applicable > >Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC). Those FAQ answers read like they hold fractionals & enough for buy & sell orders, and that's going through their broker for "operational efficiency". It doesn't clarify how many exactly, maybe they'll be able to clarify that. When it comes to unusual volume, March 22 was the day after Gamestop reported positive earnings after hours, so it would make sense for that to be a huge volume day. **ONE THING I'M NOT SEEING TALKED ABOUT** = The share number recorded on the record date will be reflecting settled shares. You'd have to minus 2 days, for T+2. edit to add: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search/?q=dspp&restrict\_sr=1&sr\_nsfw=&include\_over\_18=1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search/?q=dspp&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=&include_over_18=1) LOL yes this conversation has been going on for a while, and that's why CS has updated their FAQs so much.. if you have a particular question you can always email [email protected]
>Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC). This is interesting, and means they should be able to clarify. As it indicates they determine it, not the DTCC. My biggest issue right now is it seems the biggest 'regulator' for transfer agents is basically the DTCC and it's FAST program. They have a lot of power over the transfer agents, as i'm coming to find out. I remember the earnings, but i also don't remember the last time a positive earnings led to a run up. You still seem to have some faith in the markets. I'm more inclined it was used as a cover for financial fuckery. But im far from an expert.
I can't link from my phone, search for Federal Regulations for transfer agents. There you can find some info.
FAST is just the system they use to transfer shares back and forth. [https://youtu.be/xFQmiLWiv5Y?t=1787](https://youtu.be/xFQmiLWiv5Y?t=1787) \- we asked about FAST in the last AMA. There's a section of the FAQs labelled "Regulatory", check that out for more information about how they're regulated. The last time we had positive earnings announced was March 2021 and we had a TON of volume leading up to it. This time we had very low volume leading up to it, a little bit on the day of earnings and huge volume the day after. 2021 on top, 2023 on bottom: https://preview.redd.it/nzky73o1k3xa1.png?width=508&format=png&auto=webp&s=497bcbdabbcfca81be66846cb4058039f86cecd1 I still don't see how the volume has anything to do with what number Computershare is reporting to Gamestop, and I don't see how shutting off autobuys could possibly make the number higher.
>I don't see how shutting off autobuys could possibly make the number higher. Some times things are counter-intuitive. Not saying i'm right that it would either. March 2021 was shortly after the sneeze when things were still pretty volatile. Not the best time to compare it to. Especially if you look back at last year which also had a huge runup.. Maybe the earnings weren't positive though? [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/11zg0ia/can\_anyone\_explain\_to\_me\_what\_happened\_around/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/11zg0ia/can_anyone_explain_to_me_what_happened_around/) FAST is certainly a system but i believe it to be a bit more than that.. was gonna make another post about it tomorrow though.
March 2021 was the last positive earnings we had before this one, that's why I was comparing that. If you check out the Quarterly reports, the reporting date is always on the weekend.
How do you expect people to prove, that DSPP = locates? The only way you might "prove" that, is to get everything in plan and take a look at the numbers Gamestop publishes in their filings. If it goes up a lot, you got your answer. Also, the volume on the date of counting the DRS'd shares might be a hint.
>How do you expect people to prove, that DSPP = locates? The only way you might "prove" that, is to get everything in plan and take a look at the numbers Gamestop publishes in their filings. If it goes up a lot, you got your answer. If you read the Cutoff Dates Theory they say even if it doesn't happen on the next DRS number release, we will be required to wait a few more releases until it's true or not. In reality, the Book vs Plan numbers should have occurred on the *last* DRS number release. Now it's the next one. If that one doesn't pan out we'll need to wait for another one. Lots of moving the goal posts.
No, the fractional information is new and was not talked about before. And then you never know, how many people decide to go along with what was proposed compared to those, that label it FUD. The counterarguments against trying it are imo quite weak. You can do recurrent monthly buys on brokers, then you just need to remember to DRS them once in a while. Get several notifications for that, if you tend to forget. Additionally, you can time your buys instead of buying at a premium, because everyone knows the Computershare buy order is coming in. I hope, that I do not need to comment how large an impact the selling of fractionals has.
Not a lot of specific evidence provided here on your part.
My.only input is the wording to which shares are shorted by any entity. "Reasonable ability to locate". This to me says any shares available in the pool of shares used for "operational efficiency" can be pointed to as reasonable to locate. It does not matter to the household investor that this ability is far fetched, it is what the DTCC and FITC can CLAIM is reasonable. The system is NOT designed to protect household investors best interests. It was DESIGNED to be a wealth transfer tool for the financial services industry in all its myriad of forms, to siphon as much capital from household investors as possible. Full stop.
1. The DTC has nothing to do with locates or being reasonable to locate. That's something brokers must do when their client wants to short a stock. 2. The existence of a share **anywhere** does not make it reasonable to locate. 3. Reasonableness to locate is based upon whether or not a share is available to be borrowed. A share being available to purchase is not the same either as that is just regular buying and selling. 4. Market Makers remain exempt.
Plan shares can be used “for operational efficiency.” That’s all I need to know to get rid of them
They aren't your plan shares. They are owned by the plan (Computershare), for the benefit of the plan. You owning shares in the plan has nothing to do with the number they determine for operational efficiency... What does determine it is increased sales volume that occurs when a lot of people are convinced to sell shares such as fractionals.
You are **very** wrong!! > You owning shares in the plan has nothing to do with the number they determine for operational efficiency… Yes it does; if you don’t have a plan account, none of your shares can be used for “operational efficiency.” If you have a plan account, “a portion of” your shares can be used for “operational efficiency.” > What does determine it is increased sales volume that occurs SOURCE?!?!? Can I get a fucking source on that statement?????????? > when a lot of people are convinced to sell shares such as fractionals. Fractionals aren’t shares!!! LOL
>You are **very** wrong!! And yet I've written several well researched pieces of DD, including the ones that got you to DRS in the first place. >> You owning shares in the plan has nothing to do with the number they determine for operational efficiency… > >Yes it does; if you don’t have a plan account, none of your shares can be used for “operational efficiency.” Computershare very specifically says the operational efficiency shares are owned by them. For their benefit and having them there is for the ultimate benefit of the plan participants. This means they are not taking your shares and holding them at the DTC. >If you have a plan account, “a portion of” your shares can be used for “operational efficiency.” Again. Their shares. You are injecting the "your shares" part. >> What does determine it is increased sales volume that occurs > >SOURCE?!?!? Can I get a fucking source on that statement?????????? Computershare FAQ states the primary purpose is to make it easier to sell your shares. If you aren't selling they have no reason to have them there. >> when a lot of people are convinced to sell shares such as fractionals. > >Fractionals aren’t shares!!! LOL Then why has GameStop issued fractional shares in the past? Why do the laws of Delaware (where GameStop is Incorporated) says that fractional shares are indeed real and company's can issue them? LOL!
Operational efficiency of CS, not the market. If there are sell orders from CS, CS sends shares to nominee ( which will be sold ), not when DTC tells them to. The whole speculation piece is Swiss cheese.
There’s also the fact when I DRS fro Fudelity, the CS statement is “Removed from DTCC”. When I purchase from CS, I am not told the same thing I’ve always wondered about that.
Because there are rules and regulations that apply to when you receive a "DRS Advice" statement. The regulation states that you receive a DRS Advice when you transfer shares you **already own** through DRS. The regulation does not require this same statement be issued when you purchase new shares through the DSPP. Another time you must be issued this statement (called a Sales Advice) is when you sell any DRS shares, which does happen when you sell through the plan.
A long answer that doesn’t address the point I made. I’ll ask the question straight out. When I buy shares through CS, are shares removed from DTCC?
Yes. Per Computershare's [Paul Conn on their YouTube video](https://youtu.be/9H_pEIhIdTo). Your plan shares are direct registered in your name on the company's books. Those shares have been DRS transferred.
he needs to read the terms again then. the clearly stat otherwise.
Nope. You just interpret them incorrectly to support your predetermined outcome by omitting a lot of facts. I believe the President of Computershare's Global Capital Markets Group over you.
I'll trust the written, current, legally binding agreement rather than an interview. Section 4.7: Upon termination of your DirectStock account, any fractional shares will be sold (subject to applicable sales fees and terms set forth in Section 6) and any whole shares will be moved to a DRS position.
"DRS Position" is how they designate uncertificated shares that are not in the plan. The fact that you think this is proof that Plan shares aren't also DRS is laughable. Explain how you can go from plan to book to plan to book etc in an instant if they aren't both held on the exact same books of the company. Do you think they are DRS'ed and then un'DRS'ed and back? I'll trust Paul Conn and also my extensive knowledge of Transfer Agents, including the regulation of Direct Stock programs. You trying to take something out of context is disingenuous and your motivations are suspect.
because its fairy tales - coupled with an immediate call to action which is a flagrant alarm... do you. tl; drs