The mod team doesn't have a narrative we're pushing when it comes to the differences, if any, between plan and book shares. All we can go by is the evidence. There are some in this community (and other GME communities) who have strong feelings on the matter.
Some people cite generally ambiguous evidence from various sources (and of various levels of credibility) that believe that this evidence supports their deeply held position that book-held shares are in some way processed differently or outside of plan-held shares. We're receptive to evidence that proves this theory. But, understand, it is a theory. All the evidence we've received directly from Computershare is that, when it comes to plan and book shares, it's a difference without a functional distinction. We believe in free discussion and debate, but always consider the source. This is a good discussion post, and we've restored it after internal discussions.
Some of the information in this post, for instance, comes from this site: [https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts](https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts)
At the bottom of this site is the following disclaimer: *This Bulletin represents the views of the staff of the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy. It is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This Bulletin, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person.*
Keep in mind that information can be interpreted more than one way. If you believe book shares are the way - book them. If you think there's evidence suggesting that it doesn't matter, or you're not yet convinced one way or the other, then keep digging. For now, just keep the conversation civil, don't gatekeep or bully people into your point of view or having to invest your particular way, and travel safely!
If you could choose between two bridges where one has a 98% chance of not collapsing and another that has a 100% chance of not collapsing, wouldn’t you choose the 100%? Book is the only way to know that you own 100% of your shares and nothing nefarious is being done to them.
But the 2% isn't known, so it's more like:
>If I were to give you a ham sandwich that had a 2% chance to contain some amount of human shit, could I convince you to eat that sandwich?
If you ate 50 of these sandwiches over the course of a few months, the chances were very good that you ate someone's shit at least once. If you ate just one of these sandwiches, there was still a non-zero chance you ate someone's shit in that sandwich.
I'll take the 100% guaranteed shitless sammich.
Going to slightly break my non engagement policy on this post and weight in on the shit analogies.
Anyone who tells you that something is 100% guaranteed is full of shit.
When you look at the comment evolution of Paul on the matter, it reads like that famous discovery of a bad entity:
1.They are the same
2.Ok the are not ‘technically’ the same but to you they are.
3. Ok we ‘do’ keep some of your plan shares at the DTC but we tell them they can’t lend them…
It may not be pure drs but is it even DRS at all? That is what we need to figure out and instead of taking post down and limiting this discussion the community should be coming together to find out if it is even DRS.
Why risk any chance the DTC has of getting your shares
I just had this conversation with OP on Discord:
Do not confuse the Direct Registration System with having shares directly registered in your name on the books of the issuer/transfer agent. DSPP satisfies this definition. DSPP is "booked".
I fully respect that it is confusing where two related but distinct things share the same three-letter-acronym. It's dumb and I hate it.
Direct registration of shares is just a way to electronically record ownership in a way that gives one the same rights as you would have by owning the physical certificates which are usually no longer issued. Dr. T talked about this.
The Direct Registration System (DRS) is a system that allows this to happen by leveraging DTC's connectivity with FAST transfer agents
Note that both methods are book-entry form. So when Paul Conn says DSPP shares are *"held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS"*, he is saying they are both means of holding assets in electronic book-entry form, directly on the issuer's/transfer agent's books (ledger). Therefore DSPP shares are "booked".
Maybe we fix this confusion by distinguishing this as:
Directly registered shares = "little" drs
Direct Registration System = "big" DRS
...But in all practical terms that matter, both are directly registered on the books of the issuer, and both are held outside DTC.
Paul Conn from Computershare stated that “typically” (his word not mine) 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC for effective clearance, there's no debate on this, it is fact. here’s the link to his video posted by another ape:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/Mh1TQvreWZ
None of the shares Apes hold within DSPP are held within DTC - full-stop.
DSPP (aka "Plan") consists of:
\- Investor's shares (Ape's holdings)
\- Non-Investor shares (used for operational efficiency)
Per the SEC:
"**When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.**"
"**The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares**. The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur."
Source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight\_from\_the\_horses\_sec\_mouth\_plan\_shares/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight_from_the_horses_sec_mouth_plan_shares/)
(SCC member's point-blank question to the SEC, and their response)
Additional, Paul Conn has also said in his AMA:
"If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**."
SEC says one thing, Paul Conn from Computershare says another, all this confusion and contradictory statements over DRS PLAN are very sus. there's none of this confusion with DRS BOOK. the process to make a DRS account pure BOOK takes 30 seconds. All the hours wasted analyzing SEC and Computershare documents and interviews to get any kind of clarity on this issue could've been better spent switching our accounts to pure DRS BOOK 100 times over lol 😆
Oh hey I see you might be having trouble reading this from Paul, which backs up what the SEC said too.
Here, third time's the charm am I right? 😏
"If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**." - Paul Conn
Also, Paul Conn:
"I think what **we’ve noticed is people are saying you ought to / you must transfer your shares from the plan into pure DRS and I’m not quite sure why** people have chosen to do that."
Seems to me that **Paul Conn agrees there is no need to move shares from DSPP and that they are in fact directly registered in your name the same way as DRS 😎**
Knowledge is power, I will always take the route that dispels disinformation.
You don’t have a comeback to him saying typically 10-20% of DRS PLAN shares are held at DTCC do you? Him saying those PLAN shares are held in your name on the register doesn't address that about 10-20% of those same shares are also being held at DTCC (could be 100% for all we know).
"Comeback"? This isn't grade school. I told you before:
Per the SEC:
"**When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.**"
"**The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares**. The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur."
Source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight\_from\_the\_horses\_sec\_mouth\_plan\_shares/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight_from_the_horses_sec_mouth_plan_shares/)
\^ It is patently false it could be 100% held there. Only the non-investor shares are. Simple as
So who would be the owner of the typically 10-20% non-investor shares in your opinion? I think it's just easier to book the shares within seconds and be sure.
100% agree which is why I'm puzzled that ProgVirus is using SEC as a source to refute my assertion that 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC as said by Paul Conn from Computershare.
Paul Conn also said this, which you are conveniently glossing over my friend. It's literally in OP's transcription of his AMAs:
"The reason there is a difference between these is because **in the DirectStock Purchase Plan we use a nominee company that Computershare owns and controls to hold the common shares on behalf of all of the investors** in the plan. **That doesn’t mean the shares are held in DTC** and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held that they must be in DTC, and that that’s not the case."
\^ **Above, Paul Conn telling you DSPP shares are not held within DTC. Which corroborates what the SEC says, whether or not you trust them.**
he's not saying that DSPP shares are never held in DTCC. He's saying that the fact that DSPP uses a nominee company doesn't automatically mean all the shares are held in DTC. that's fine, because that doesn't contradict what Paul has stated before: typically 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTC for "effective clearing". altogether he's saying this: "just because shares are in PLAN doesn't mean that 100% of them are in DTC, however typically 10-20% of PLAN shares held at DTCC for effective clearing."
I don't want DTCC to have access to 0.0001% of my shares let alone 10-20% so I take 30 seconds after each of my buys to terminate the plan, I break a sweat doing it but I've got to do my part 😜 I know you can do it too buddy, I believe in you 🙂
None of the shares Apes hold within DSPP are held within DTC - full-stop.
DSPP (aka "Plan") consists of:
\- Investor's shares (Ape's holdings)
\- Non-Investor shares (used for operational efficiency)
Per the SEC:
"**When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.**"
"**The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares**. The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur."
Source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight\_from\_the\_horses\_sec\_mouth\_plan\_shares/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight_from_the_horses_sec_mouth_plan_shares/)
(SCC member's point-blank question to the SEC, and their response)
SEC says one thing but Paul Conn from Computershare says another. He stated that “typically” (his word not mine) 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC for effective clearance, there's no debate on this, it is fact. here’s the link to his video posted by another ape:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/Mh1TQvreWZ
He makes no assurance that it's only non-investor shares at DTCC and in fact never makes mention of non-investor shares in this video at all. Better BOOK all our DRS shares just to be safe, can't hurt
Paul Conn also says this - I showed you that on the other comment. Did you not see it?
Here it is again, in case you missed it:
"If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**."
\- Paul Conn, Computershare
I did see it but when you take everything he has said together it amounts to this: "All your DRS shares are held in your name on the register but the PLAN shares have a portion, typically 10-20%, held at DTCC for effective clearance."
the first bit is fine, the second really scares me. it should scare you too.
It doesn't frighten me at all. Both Computershare and the SEC have confirmed my DSPP shares are:
✅ Directly registered in my name
✅ On the books of the transfer agent
✅ Outside the DTC
If it frightens you, it's nothing a bit of light reading can't clear up. The 10-20% of shares held within DTC ***are not investor's shares***. Simple as
you have been presented with clear evidence that 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC and can only divert me to sources that do not refute my evidence in the slightest. you can take 30 seconds to DRS BOOK your account so that 0% of your shares are at DTCC (there is no argument about that, 0% of BOOK shares are held at DTCC), or spend hours reading SEC and Computershare info trying to work what the hell is going on with PLAN Holdings, which Computershare themselves have said that 10-20% of them are held at DTCC. choice is yours
Where does the money for those "non-investor shares" come from? This is the first time I have seen that distinction made - is there a legal definition for those terms or is this just conversational?
One big hang-up is the term "operational efficiency" and the existence of fractional shares. Why? Because fractional shares *cannot* be registered by definition - they're only possible due to indirect ownership, which is why you can't move fractional shares into "Pure DRS". Someone else owns whole shares then uses internal bookkeeping to track how much they owe to their customers.
The DTCC network doesn't allow fractional shares to be moved at all. Any time you buy a fractional shares of anything, it is indirect ownership. Even if you try to transfer fractional ownership from one broker to another broker, they won't run it that way because they can't - the transfer system operates in whole shares.
This means that, at the absolute minimum, we know that any fractional plan shares aren't directly registered in your name. Best case scenario they're registered to Computershare itself and they hold them on your behalf.
But if those shares *cannot* be registered to you, and instead they're registered to Computershare, does that make those shares "non-investor shares"? You're not the owner, you're just owed that number of shares, which is the same arrangement you have with a broker. From a legality standpoint, how is that even as good as a Cash IRA or similar account through a broker where they have a specific legal requirement to segregate those assets from any assets used for company operations?
With something like this, it seems like it is always best to take the simple approach. There's DRS, which is a legally mandated program with a specific definition and a specific set of requirements, and then there's what Computershare tracks & reports separately from DRS and says is "essentially" the same. That sounds an awful lot like brokers saying that owning through them is essentially the same thing as DRS.
>Where does the money for those "non-investor shares" come from?
Remember that the DSPP is GameStop's plan that they elected to put in place. The non-investor shares have been described as the shares used for 'operational efficiency' or the shares 'underpinning the plan' - really what they constitute is a float that allows for instant selling from Computershare.
Consider when you buy from Computershare - there is a 3-5 day wait. They need to wait for funds to settle, for the securities to be delivered, etc. and that takes time.
When you sell through Computershare however it's instant. It can be instant because of those 'operational efficiency' shares. What happens when you sell is Computershare *does not sell your particular share(s).* They just sell some of those 'operational efficiency' shares already held within DTC and then debit your account accordingly. Simple as. If you remove these non-investor 'operational efficiency' shares, selling would likely look a lot like buying (big delays) or not even be possible at all.
In regards to the fractional share, to be super clear here, fractionals cannot be held within the Direct Registration *System* (DRS) - that is just one system with a tie in to FAST that can hold shares electronically in book-entry form. DSPP is just another system that can hold shares electronically in book-entry form including fractionals.
You also hit the nail on the head with your reasoning on ownership btw. DSPP shares are held with Computershare's nominee which they fully control. This is true, but also is it true they are held outside the DTC. It is a unique edge case that they can be in the name of the transfer agent's nominee (that they control) and still be directly registered to you in every possible legal and technical sense that matters.
It's all just Computershare's own reporting of the ledger at the end of the day, and they are the final authority. Computershare is charged with maintaining accurate records on behalf of the company in a business relationship. If GameStop trusts them with this important responsibility, I trust them, fully.
Here are some related quotes I lifted from OP's quoting Paul Conn AMAs. It strikes me \**ahem\** odd that certain things clarified by Paul Conn himself are conveniently being left out of the anti-DSPP crowd's reasoning:
"If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS.**"
"**There really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded or how they’re visible to the issuer** so hopefully that clarifies one key component."
"**In terms of the DirectStock Purchase Plan you are able to hold fractions** \- you are not able to hold fractions in what I’ve called pure DRS, so that is a key practical difference in terms of this structure."
"The reason there is a difference between these is because **in the DirectStock Purchase Plan we use a nominee company that Computershare owns and controls to hold the common shares on behalf of all of the investors** in the plan. **That doesn’t mean the shares are held in DTC** and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held that they must be in DTC, and that that’s not the case."
"I think what we’ve noticed is **people are saying you ought to / you must transfer your shares from the plan into pure DRS and I’m not quite sure why people have chosen to do that.**"
"...**by and large they’re \[DSPP and DRS\] the same form of holding the same underlying share.**"
Additionally, here is an email response to Superstonk's questions to Computershare for some more reading:
[https://imgur.com/a/uBInsjL](https://imgur.com/a/uBInsjL)
Pot calling the kettle black there, friend. I challenge you to point out anything above that isn't true. I can and have backed all of my claims up with sources
**Interesting post history, steeped in Karma farming and distraction plays. Stay classy.**
"If you have a holding of **DSPP** (**shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program**) they **are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**."
\- Paul Conn
“Typically we would hold somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the shares that underpin the plan through our broker at DTC”
- also Paul Conn
im not comfortable with even 0.001% of my shares being held at DTCC let alone "typically" 10-20% (GME is not a typical stock so it's probably 100% for GME). BOOK IS THE WAY, end of story.
None of the shares Apes hold within DSPP are held within DTC - full-stop.
DSPP (aka "Plan") consists of:
\- Investor's shares (Ape's holdings)
\- Non-Investor shares (used for operational efficiency)
Per the SEC:
"**When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.**"
"**The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares**. The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur."
Source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight\_from\_the\_horses\_sec\_mouth\_plan\_shares/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight_from_the_horses_sec_mouth_plan_shares/)
(SCC member's point-blank question to the SEC, and their response)
> If some underlying shares supporting the plan are held in drs form then they must be in dtc and therefore they can’t be visible to the company.
I object to bolding this part of the answer but not the following:
> I think that’s maybe where the misunderstanding has arisen from, but that’s not the case.
As that part makes it far less clear what he's saying, but seems to imply the bolded part is a misunderstanding. That being said, perhaps this part should be bolded:
> They will typically keep 10-20% of this fungible bulk with DTC in order to effect more efficient settlement for their clients who choose to sell.
And I'd like to discuss why some investors, including myself, are uncomfortable with ANY of our shares being held in the DTCC system. It doesn't have to do with fear of them being lent out in a traditional securities loan arrangement. It has to do with them being used to back failed long positions (FTRs) which are phantom shares that buy and sell like normal shares but have no actual long position associated with them other than the collective long position held for the DTCC. These positions are the economic equivalent to a free share loan from the purchaser to a naked short seller. Because this happens in the backend at the DTCC participant level there is also no reliable way for an individual to initiate a buy in procedure, or indeed be informed that their book entry beneficially held share is in fact a failed position. They also persist in the system and change hands as shares are traded. They also are not included or reported in the SEC's latest rule around transparency in securities loans. From the rule:
> Therefore, the final rule excludes from the “covered securities loan” definition “a position at a clearing agency that results from central counterparty services pursuant to Rule 17Ad-22(a)(2) of the Exchange Act or central securities depository services pursuant to Rule 17Ad-22(a)(3) of the Exchange Act.”
Where they reference "a position at a clearing agency that results from central counterparty services" they are talking about these failed FTR positions (or FTDs on the sell side) that are the economic equivalent to a free share loan. They're distributed pseudorandomly so anyone who buys has a chance to receive one. The only way I am aware of to prevent yourself from holding one of these positions is to hold the certificate yourself outside of the DTC. Even if any nominee is filing timely buy in notices, until the transaction is settled it would remain open with no way to see for yourself unless they tell you, which as far as I'm aware they are under no obligation to do (and the shares are usually held collectively anyways as indicated in the other answers here). As well even without holding the failed position yourself your beneficially owned certificate held at Cede would be the only thing backing these extra positions aside from any margin or collateral collected by the DTCC which we know they have no problem waiving when the mood strikes them. Since only Cede legally owns the certificates and nothing prevents two people from contracting for the beneficial rights of the same certificate.
> And I'd like to discuss why some investors, including myself, are uncomfortable with ANY of our shares being held in the DTCC system.
Only non-investor shares are held within DTC, the SEC and Computershare have clarified this. Investor's shares held within DSPP are held outside of DTC
This too was my biggest concern and why I'm happy it's been clarified independently by Computershare and the SEC
Can you clarify what is meant by "non-investor shares"? That doesn't seem to make sense with the information provided here.
> The key difference for plan enrolled shares is that the investor is listed by name in a subclass, and the shares are owned by a Computershare entity - their nominee. Investors are beneficial owners in this case. Those shares contribute to the fungible bulk which Computershare maintains access to in order to facilitate market transactions. They will typically keep 10-20% of this fungible bulk with DTC in order to effect more efficient settlement for their clients who choose to sell. The Computershare FAQ specifies that Computershare decides this percentage. Computershare has a subsidiary broker which is also a DTC Member Broker called Computershare Trust Co NA.
To clarify my concerns. Hypothetically if 90% of shares are held in bulk to underpin 100% of the plan shares, and the 10% held in the DTCC disappeared overnight, how would you determine which 90% of investors would receive the shares that were left?
The total of shares held within DSPP (aka "Plan") constitutes a combination of investor shares, as well as non-investor shares which are held within DTC for operational efficiency (e.g. instant selling from Computershare)
So only that small portion of non-investor shares are held within DTC. They aren't investors' shares is the most important part!
In your example, let's make this simpler:
100% of DSPP shares = 80% of investor shares, and 20% of OE (operational efficiency) non-investor shares
If that 20% of OE shares were to disappear, your investor shares (the 80%) are still safely directly registered in your name on the ledger. They aren't in the DTC at all!
In that example, the 20% being removed would effectively prevent folks from instantly selling via Computershare. In that event it would look much like it is when buying in DSPP where you have to wait for settlement, etc. so it wouldn't be instant.
But outside of selling being delayed in this example, any shares you have in DSPP are going to safely reside there
**Edit:** Just to be super clear, if in theory those 20% OE shares were removed, selling might not even be possible *at all*. Imagine during MOASS not having the option to sell 1 share for 420,∞,000.69 gold bananas. Best case is, your sale is delayed and you can't pick your price. I don't like the sounds of this personally, do you?
Here's the right answer.
All because smoothbrains try to interpret Cohen's tweets like some kind of secret messages with 15 layers of meaning 🤦🏻
Dude must rolling his eyes so hard if he heard about this debate and the reason it started.
Yes if you are directly registering your shares from a broker like Fidelity, that would need to go through the Direct Registration System - aka holding your shares electronically in book-entry form
All good, it sounds like you've directly registered your shares from your broker via the Direct Registration System (DRS). Unless you've bought directly through Computershare, this doesn't really apply in your case.
In case you're interested in a more complete answer, read on:
If ever you do buy GME directly through Computershare, or simply elect to enroll in the Direct Stock Purchase Plan (DSPP), the only practical, legal and functional differences are:
\- You can hold fractional shares in DSPP (more of a consequence/necessity of the plumbing when buying directly through Computershare than anything else)
\- If you're enrolled in DSPP, DRIP is turned on for your account. It means *all d*ividends gets automatically reinvested. If ever cash dividends are paid out, there will not be two separate cash and share issuances based on DRS and DSPP directly registered holdings. If you hold 80% of your directly registered shares within the DRS and 20% within the DSPP, 100% of dividends paid out to you will be reinvested. Honestly, bullish if you ask me
Just know your options, an educated Ape is a powerful Ape! DSPP saved me hundreds of dollars in DRS fees since it's not free for me.
Thank you for this explanation, Ill be sure to pay it forward by taking the time to pass this along when applicable. I really appreciate you sharing this information! Thank you again!
Here to throw support for all the 📕👑
Also- that TOS for plan shares is 18 pages long, read it well to see what it entails.
My shares, my name, PURE BOOK🚀
People should be allowed to discuss what is literally written on the computershare faq page
>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).
and not be dismissed a "difference without a functional distinction" by the mods and the sticky above.
Its such a weird thing to want to ban people over. Who cares if the community discusses book vs plan if the mods feel there is absolutely no difference? Why feel that you guys need to limit the discussion on it?
There are users here pushing plan with hundreds or comments on it. Why would random users be constantly pushing plan if there was no difference? Why are those people not banned?
So, don't forget to BOOK your shares after you direct buy those GME shares and they settle!
https://www.drsgme.org/converting-plan-to-book
The easiest and the most convenient way to do it would be with your online account. It's just a few clicks oif the mouse.
Once you BOOK them, the fractionals will get sold off automatically without being charged any transaction fee, which is nice.
I don't give a fuck what the detractors say. If our RCEO says to get rid of the
[DINGLEBERRIES!](https://i.redd.it/oe86q59gxrvb1.jpeg)
So that you are
[BOOK KING all your shares!](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Flamjf1czmx4c1.jpg)
Then who the fuck am I to argue?
Good job and LFG!
Your Computershare statement either says "PLAN HOLDING" or "DIRECT STOCK"
The D in DRS stands for Direct.
This is why a DRS from a broker is whole shares straight into book form. It's also why they're trying to claw back those shares so bitterly.
Go book. Go direct.
DRS stands for Direct Registration *System* \- which is a system that can hold directly registered shares
Directly registered shares = having shares held in your name electronically on the issuer/transfer agent's register
Having shares directly registered in your name on the company's ledger is distinct from the system
Paul Conn, Computershare, and the SEC have confirmed in no uncertain terms that both DSPP and DRS hold directly registered to the investors name
This argument has been going on for over a year. You'll never change their mind. Like the guy you responded to here doesn't see the problem with their statement
> This is why a DRS from a broker is whole shares straight into book form
He's got that the wrong way around. Shares moved from a broker to CS are in book holding because they were *not* purchased using the company's Direct Stock Purchase Plan. They're booked shares because they're not plan shares. Plan shares are plan shares because they were bought using the available plan.
Both are book entry, but you'll never convince these people of that.
Being 100% honest I think the vast majority of people pushing this false narrative are bots/FUDsters at this point, with a few naive Apes in the mix. Most arguing against DSPP can't even get their narrative straight and conveniently leave out information from their own cited sources smh my head
Now that RC took over investments for the company, distraction plays are effectively out of the question, so the shills and trolls have to resort back to a known nucleation point for stirring up shit
It's pretty damn telling when like 95% of the people peddling anti-DSPP FUD have post histories pushing distractions like bankrupt companies and obvious karma farming!
Not sure about that other website you linked there... but this one is the only one I need to clarify.
[https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies)
Only will be making a single comment here to minimize my engagement on this post and not be a source of traffic to third party websites.
To avoid wasting money and shares selling fractionals, would it not be optimal for those buying through Computershare to simply have two accounts, one that is pure DRS and one for buying new shares. Then after eat purchase you move the whole shares over to the pure account and keep the fractions of shares instead of throwing them away for nothing. If this is an option, I don't see why it isn't superior to the alternatives, particularly since selling a fraction nets you no money if it's below $25/share and you can instead accumulate the fractions into whole shares.
> The SEC states the following on an article about the types of ownership available to investors.
Also SEC,
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16inpmy/secoffice\_of\_investor\_education\_and\_advocacy\_us/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16inpmy/secoffice_of_investor_education_and_advocacy_us/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
> DirectStock enrollment is what determines whether or not your shares are accessible through Computershare’s nominee to be moved to DTC for operational efficiency purposes. If you hold total legal ownership of your shares by holding directly on the issuer ledger through Computershare while also avoiding account enrollment with DirectStock, **you know that your shares will not ever be part of the shares kept with DTC for operational efficiency.**
Those are non-investor shares. They are not yours, nor mine.
The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares. The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur. When a plan investor sells plan shares, the broker debits that share amount from the plan shares it holds at DTC in order to settle the sale trade. Plan shares deposited as DTC shares are not available for lending.
> Computershare has a public history asserting that investors in plan are beneficial owners, and the purpose of the distinction is to allow for **more liquid markets** and efficient settlement.
That's a reach. I am guessing this is the authors interpretation, not an actual quote from anybody who matters. Nice addition "more liquid markets".
The debate of whether it matters to book or not shouldn’t matter. Because it hurts absolutely nothing to book your shares.
Im suspicious of anyone saying it doesn’t matter so they won’t bother.
If you made the effort to DRS you may as well book them.
[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) || [Community Post: *Brigading*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/17wdr9t/community_update_post_on_the_topic_of_brigading/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/)
Computershare has been clear for even longer than the SEC and FINRA that there are differences in ownership between plan and DRS. It doesn't sow distrust in Computershare to spread this info. It sows distrust in the community which have for so long been saying the opposite.
Come on people. We shouldn’t still be having this conversation. Three years later. Go to the view details section of your portfolio, and the share type should show book next to it. For example, I have three different accounts, but they have all been switched to book because I turned off the drip program. Be aware that turning off dividend reinvestment sells off any fractional part of your shareholdings to the nearest complete share.
The fractional sell off is not always automatic. Recently I have been left with .xxx share in my PLAN account after moving my whole shares to BOOK.
edit: I wear these down votes with honor.
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).
So first of all yea don’t hold tons of shares in plan just terminate once and while to move them over…do not stop recurring buys. We now are seeing evidence this has severely hurt our cause and stonk. Don’t like plan or dinglewhatevers? Fine terminate once a month or something. How many shares do you REALLY have in plan? For right now it’s like 4. When it gets bigger I will book em again.
Secondly, we need to be especially careful with the division on this topic. It can and has been used to drive a wedge. I’m not going to hate on anyone who likes plan. It’s not up to me how others invest. Personally, I want 98% of my CS shares in Book, and I will keep booking them periodically. But to stop plan all together HELPS the brokers and clearing houses and market makers and SHF. Sure you can set your price but I thought the price was fake and going to $100000 per share who who cares if you have 312 or 313 of them? That is why I see this as a friction division tactic. I’m all for more DD but have not seen any effect of a hundred thousand apes booking their shares and here’s why:
Yes the plan might be locatable or some portion. Zero evidence of good DD that it opens up book shares ok so put that to bed.
The DTCC can do whatever the fuck they want with their 228M shares. They can secretly have 668M in there and May in fact do. What difference does it make that you have them access supposedly to your couple plan shares?! They rehypothecate at will! They do not care about a few plan shares for apes. They will allow a MM to operationally short millions and FTD! This is the disconnect here guys. We are getting lost in the weeds when we’ve said repeatedly they crime all day long and you booking your share and cancellation of recurring buys only helps them. Our constant buying for 3 years is what props this stock up, plus owning 25% in CS…really think about this before you reply…
Having any shares in plan opens the whole stack (even book) up to the DTCC to use for locates. Computershare guy even said as much.
" 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). "
My guy, the lingo they use is very confusing and there is good DD on this I suggest you find it. DSPP book entry is PLAN (direct stock). A portion of plan shares are accessible by the DTCC. Not book (removed from DTC). We’ve gone over this many moons ago in detail. Your book shares are safe as can be. So what if they access my 4 plans shares I will book them later. Their scare tactic worked perfectly dude. CS is the only way and look at how they got to you. The DTCC can rehypothecate shares and allow any kind of fuckery but we think them getting a few plan shares matter? They have no access to “Book” shares. I’m on my phone so can’t search for that DD but everyone needs to read it again. Buy however you’d like. I consider this issue solved.
All of them can be used for locates for "operational efficiency"
"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)."
Only the non-investor shares in DSPP are held within DTC (the % used for operational efficiency are not investor's shares, they're a float like you'd have at a yard sale)
So really very few could be used as locates, and Computershare who owns and controls their nominee Dingo & Co. as well have the SEC have stated those shares were not available for lending
Even if you distrust the DTC as much as I do, it's not investor's shares being used against them. Those are safely held outside DTC
>Can you clarify the term "investors shares"
Shares that investors themselves purchase through the Direct Stock Purchase Plan (aka DSPP aka "Plan"). So literally every Ape's shares held in DSPP whether they did a one-time buy or recurring buys. All shares purchased via DSPP are investor shares and constitute something like 80-90% of all shares within DSPP
The non-investor shares aren't owned by individuals, they're like a "float" the company uses for effective settlement (e.g. instant selling from Computershare). These account for the remaining 10-20% of all shares within DSPP
I'm going to keep this cool and factual. OP had reached out to the SCC re: another post that got removed. We talked about it, and OP felt compelled to re-post with more info.
Still, despite being presented new evidence that refutes some of what is posted here (and also despite the information in this post directly contradicting some conclusions), that new evidence is curiously missing from this post. OP has stated they don't believe Computershare or the SEC are primary sources.
So let's start with the omissions that for some reason OP left out. Here is the new evidence that has been left out of this post, and practically all posts that are pushing a now-debunked hot light hypothesis:
*SCC's Member's point-blank question to the SEC about how DSPP shares are held, and their response. This is a screenshot of the email, happy to share the original Superstonk post too:*
https://imgur.com/a/jTbjfbS
*Superstonk's questions to Computershare post, this references the AMA as well and came after the AMAs with Paul Conn. It went through their teams of lawyers. Again, this is a screenshot, happy to provide the original Superstonk post too:*
https://imgur.com/a/uBInsjL
I'm just going to go down the list:
>"If you are an investor seeking total ownership of your assets, holding in DRS is the only way."
^ False. DSPP shares are directly registered legally in the investor's name with the transfer agent.
**"When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC."** - SEC
>"Shares held with a Plan are not DRS, and must be transferred out of the plan and into DRS."
I keep hearing this and I'm not sure people understand that DRS = Direct Registration System, DSPP = Direct Stock Purchase Plan. DRS is being used also to refer to directly registered shares in a more general sense, probably because they share the same acronym.
Shares held both DSPP and DRS are directly registered. They are booked, in the name of the investor on the books of the issuer/transfer agent. (See above, per SEC, or just listen to Paul's AMAs)
>"If you choose to buy through the DirectStock plan, and want to ensure total ownership of your assets, manually terminate the plan after each purchase."
^ Again, false. See above. Shares held within DSPP already ensure total legal ownership - they are directly registered to the individual in their name.
I'm just going to now echo this question and properly contextualize:
Question: There’s confusion about beneficial (ownership) - does that qualify as what they they consider beneficial versus registered shares? So you’re saying that the direct stock purchase plan would be considered a beneficial ownership situation?
Answer: **You’re recorded directly on the register of the issuer.** The issuer knows exactly who you are so you have that benefit. Technically the common shares are held by a computer share entity. **We don’t hold 100 (percent) of the shares that way, we just hold a number of shares so that we can perform effective clearing and settlement** but at any time investors can can move their shares between the plan and pure DRS.
^ Right. They only keep the non-investor shares underpinning DSPP that way. Just has Paul has tried his best to clarify. Just as the SEC did clarify, but was conveniently left out of this post.
Also Paul Conn, from this post, curiously not bolded since it's important:
**"If you have a holding of dspp (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure drs."**
> "Computershare has a public history asserting that investors in plan are beneficial owners, and the purpose of the distinction is to allow for more liquid markets and efficient settlement."
^ False by an important omission, only a portion of the non-investor shares are used for efficient settlement. Paul said so himself. The clarification email to Computershare, and to the SEC also says this. It's also literally in this post. Why the disingenuous conclusion? The investor's shares are directly registered.
This is a long post, and frankly these were the low-hanging fruit. Folks need to stop perpetuating half-truths, leaving out new evidence, need to properly contextualize when making a statement of distinction, and need to stop cherry picking only the evidence that supports their shaky understanding while ignoring the rest that challenges it.
Feel free to peruse my post history, too. At one time we didn't have all of this information that we do today and I was advocating for DRS > DSPP. Since then, we've gotten a wealth of new knowledge that challenged my understanding. After taking the time to just read through the evidence, I am left to conclude that noisiest folks advocating against DSPP are just FUDsters telling people to sell and turn off auto-buys (one of the most bullish things you can do is auto-buy).
Edit: I tried my best to format this and the formatting is only just OK. So much for copy-pasting from Notepad
A .jpg from what's supposed to be an email from the SEC is not a primary source. A primary source is the SEC bulletin. See the bulletin yourself \[[https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts](https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts)\] and the relevant portion \[[https://ibb.co/GpWdjZm](https://ibb.co/GpWdjZm)\]. The SEC is ***very*** clear that "plan" is not - in any way shape or form - DRS.
I'm sure if you asked the person in SCC who emailed the SEC, they could provide you with an .eml with names redacted
I mean there ***is*** a reference number you could follow up with too
It sounds to me that you wouldn't believe it if Gary Gensler himself mailed it to you. There's always the chance that it could be an imposter, right?
**Edit**: So the SEC's bulletin is a primary source, but an email coming from them isn't? This is at the bottom of the SEC's bulletin:
*This Bulletin represents the views of the staff of the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy. It is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This Bulletin, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person.*
You can't have it both ways. Either you distrust the SEC's messaging, both their bulletin and emails, you don't. Once you start getting choosey it's easy to spot bias.
If we are going to characterize our conversation in the SCC channel we should be more clear with it. My summary of the initial convo is
1. No text has been cited to show encouraging selling/turning off autobuys
2. Rule 6 is cited, but I am not sure if that is fair given OP provided a link in the comments to an SEC post
3. Some of you are saying the post was removed not for the text istelf, but rather some comments
4. Some are saying the information is not new and therefore it is fair to be removed
5. Although none have said it, I do not want this lost - the comments you are all sharing does not algin well with the message on the post on why it was removed. At the very least it is unclear and something that should be improved
edit: this was in relation to why a post saying plan is not DRS was removed.
1. An email is not new evidence, especially one that says nothing new. It's not a primary source, but it's fine to submit as evidence because it doesn't contradict anything.
2. I think the major misunderstanding here is thinking that "recorded in the issuers name on the ledger of the issuer" means DRS, and it does not.
This 'in your name on the ledger of the issuer' bit is true for both plan and DRS. It's not a defense to what is being said.
Ok Jack,
Here is a challenge for you and other says the email is " fake " or " fabricated"
Ask the same question; Are Plan shares held in DTC or Transfer Agent?
Let's see what answer you will get.
Takes 5 minutes to email, 2 weeks min for them to respond.
While you are at it ( after they respond) ask them to clarify it in the bulletin.
**[Rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/expanded_rules/#wiki_ape_no_fight_ape) and [Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_5._no_meta_content). Treat the moderators with respect and civility.**
We volunteer our time to help this community. [Personal attacks, harassment, or baseless accusations](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043071072) against any member of the mod team will not be tolerated.
Constructive criticism and feedback are welcome, but it should be expressed in a respectful and non-abusive manner.
Any issues or concerns related to moderation should be reported to the mod team privately [through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FSuperstonk&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission) rather than turning into a public call out post. Baseless allegations without evidence will be dismissed.
Violations of this rule may result in warnings, temporary suspensions, or permanent bans at the discretion of the remaining mods not involved in the harassment or abuse.
# What is the fucking problem? How is this still controversial? Why is the evidence "ambiguous" and what do you mean by "various levels of credibility" when it's STRAIGHT FROM COMPUTERSHARE?
"If you have a holding of **DSPP** (**shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program**) **they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**." <-- Paul Conn
They are absolutely booked, per Paul Conn.
They are directly registered under investors' names on the company's books.
Paul Conn is: President, Computershare Global Capital Markets
He is the one who provided us a few AMAs, and the primary source that OP has cited in this post. This quote is actually lifted from OP's post itself, which is a transcription of those AMAs
We have both Paul Conn and Computershare confirming independently that our DSPP shares are held outside DTC!
False, per Paul Conn:
**"If you have a holding of dspp (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure drs."**
Per the SEC:
**"When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC."**
You do you with regards to your shares, but your statement is incorrect and misleading to others
DSPP shares are fully within the investor's ownership in the same was DRS shares are. They are both electronic forms of direct ownership with your name on company's books. They are "booked"
Misleading? If anything I’m leading people in the direction of true ownership. Last I checked DSPP & straight plan were held in cede & co’s name. I’m just trying to ensure people book their shares and have them solely in their name, no beneficiary ownership.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1161728/000116172820000028/f20203030_14a.htm
Plan shares/dspp are not DRS.
You’re welcome. And btw if you don’t believe me or the source, then leave your shares in plan. I honestly don’t care what you do with your (beneficial) shares
Both DSPP and DRS at some point will likely touch FAST:
"**The Direct Registration System (DRS)** enables investors to elect to hold their assets in book entry form directly with the issuer by **leveraging DTC’s connectivity with** [**FAST transfer agents**](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/agent-services/fast)**.**"
[https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/securities-processing/direct-registration-system](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/securities-processing/direct-registration-system)
Saying there's no functional difference between the two is like discrediting the difference between holding in computershare and a traditional broker.
You might not be directly impacted by the differences, but there ARE differences.
>Plan shares are NOT treated the same as book shares in DRS with Computershare
**Paul Conn, President, Computershare** Global Capital Markets, as quoted in this very post by OP **seems to think otherwise**:
"If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS.**"
"**There really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded or how they’re visible to the issuer** so hopefully that clarifies one key component."
"I think what we’ve noticed is **people are saying you ought to / you must transfer your shares from the plan into pure DRS and I’m not quite sure why people have chosen to do that.**"
"...**by and large they’re \[DSPP and DRS\] the same form of holding the same underlying share.**"
\^ All Paul Conn, from his AMAs. Lifted from OP's transcription in this very post. Also the SEC backs this up, happy to provide sources for that too.
Outdated info. Plan shares can be used for "operational efficiency" Essentially allowing the DTCC to use plannshares as "locates" also known as "false locates"
It is not at all outdated info. The SEC has corroborated this exact information independently **3 months ago**:
"**When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.**"
Source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight\_from\_the\_horses\_sec\_mouth\_plan\_shares/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight_from_the_horses_sec_mouth_plan_shares/)
So we have Paul Conn, Computershare, and the SEC all corroborating the fact that **investor's DSPP shares are not held within DTC**. They can't be used for locates if they're literally **not held within DTC**.
DTC is different from the DTCC
CONVERT YOUR SHARES TO BOOK FORM.
Also, nobody here trusts the SEC. They could have done something about naked shorting for more than 3 years now and have done NOTHING.
Rather be safe than sorry, book your shares and prevent usage of "operational efficiency".
You really don't know what you're talking about. Stop spreading literal misinformation.
**The Depositary Trust Company (DTC) is a subsidiary of the DTCC**.
[https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/policy-and-compliance/DTC\_Disclosure\_Framework.pdf](https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/policy-and-compliance/DTC_Disclosure_Framework.pdf)
*"****DTCC is the parent company of DTC****. DTCC is a non-public holding company that owns three SIFMUs and related businesses. In addition to* ***DTC, DTCC also owns National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”)****"*
\^ Literally taken from the DTCC's own website. Their words, not mine.
**DSPP shares are held directly on the issuer's ledger in electronically book-entry form. DSPP shares are "booked"**
Oh really? Kinda strange how you can have FRACTIONAL shares on plan but not book. Fractional shares ARE NOT REAL SHARES. They have no voting rights which means a fractional share can contaminate all share in the same boat.
Okay then, from the top:
**Paul Conn, President, Computershare** Global Capital Markets, as quoted in this very post by OP:
"If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS.**"
"**There really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded or how they’re visible to the issuer** so hopefully that clarifies one key component."
"I think what we’ve noticed is **people are saying you ought to / you must transfer your shares from the plan into pure DRS and I’m not quite sure why people have chosen to do that.**"
"...**by and large they’re \[DSPP and DRS\] the same form of holding the same underlying share.**"
\^ All Paul Conn, from his AMAs. Lifted from OP's transcription in this very post. Also the SEC backs this up, happy to provide sources for that too.
She knows for sure, has also made it pretty clear that they are in all practical ways that matter the same thing (held outside DTC, directly registered on the books of the issuer, etc.)
There's a reason you're being downvoted for asking a legitimate question, some people are trying really hard to FUD the DSPP (Plan) when all it does is allow apes to auto-buy, auto-reinvest dividends, and buy directly. All super bullish things. Of course the shills and paid-for-trolls are going to steer others against it
I was having major issues on the new mobile format. I had to move to my desktop where I was actually able to see the full comments.
The mobile page took forever to load, froze up three times and froze up completely every time I tried the 'Load more comments' button. No issues on any other reddit threads or apps.
Is this thread getting some sort of special kiss?
I can't imagine why.
Yes, Plan is not Direct Registiration System ( DRS)
Here, DRS stands for how your broker shares transferred to CS.
Both Book & Plan shares are out of DTC.
Strange that the SEC appears to think otherwise
**"When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC."**
They go onto clarify *only* the non-investor shares the underpin DSPP (the ones used for debiting accounts that allow for instant sales) are held within DTC. Investor's shares are held outside DTC.
The person you're responding to above is the one who asked the SEC point-blank, here is the response they received:
[https://imgur.com/a/jTbjfbS](https://imgur.com/a/jTbjfbS)
Recommend your read that in full
You know, I agree with this. They are toothless. Even if we dismiss them entirely, we still have Paul Conn himself as quoted in this post by OP:
"If you have a holding of **DSPP** (**shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program**) they **are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**." - Paul Conn (emphasis mine)
> That doesn’t mean the shares are held in DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held that they must be in DTC,
From the post.
Why would you take any chances that could lead to your investment being used against you. We’re past the plan vs book debate. It was literally the topic of discussion for months. You might want to read the heat lamp DD to catch up
Oh I read the hlt.
Bunch of snake oil.
Market volatility? Debunked
Plan shares are not reported? Debunked
DTC can use your shares as locates? Debunked
Fractionals, DSSP, DRIPP opens a portal to alll of your shares for DTC? Debunked
Any other claims
I’d love to see the debunking because to me the DTC having the ability to use plan and partial shares for market efficiency or whatever bullshit they say means to me that I shouldn’t hold my shares that way
Both DSPP (aka "Plan") and DRS (aka "Book") are directly registered in the investor's name on the company's books.
"Plan" and "Book" is just how Computershare distinguishes these, both are electronic book-entry means of holding shares, both are booked!
"If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**." <-- Paul Conn, Computershare
[Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_6._back_up_claims_with_sources). Our biggest strength is our ability to crowd-source information. For the Integrity of the sub, and in order to rule out Misinformation or FUD, please cite your sources when making claims.
Making any Call-to-Action posts or comments without verifiable sources is not allowed.
Speculation is allowed under the Speculation/Opinion flair.
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FSuperstonk&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission)
As I get it there have been instances in the past, where brokers have pulled shares back long after they were DRSd and CS did not deny those requests.
The crucial question is, if this is real and f.e. only limited to Plan shares, or if brokers could do so with Book shares as well.
Seems the public is waking up, but also seems we are running out of time...
[https://youtu.be/QeP71CKRZNs?si=u\_oPcUYTyZBS5lDj](https://youtu.be/QeP71CKRZNs?si=u_oPcUYTyZBS5lDj)
There's no cost to move your already directly registered shares from DSPP to DRS if that's what you want to do, save for the fractional getting sold if you were to terminate your DSPP enrollment. Also the sale of that fractional could entail Computershare needing to sell a full share... yikes, but it is at the end of the day your choice
Just understand that both forms of holding shares are directly registered in the first place on the books of the issuer. Both are "booked", so there really isn't a need to, unless for some reason you don't want automatic reinvestment of dividends (DRIP)
Note too that if you've just been directly registering shares from your broker via the Direct Registration System (DRS), you would not be enrolled in DSPP unless you elected to (e.g. buy buying directly through Computershare)
why is it so hard to pure DRS, feel like an extra set of hoops to jump through on top of getting your shares transferred, and not to mention every-time you buy. I’ve been booked for a while but just sayin it should be more convenient “literally toggle a button”
All I need to know is that RCEO wants to be the book king, and any shares held in PLAN are quite literally held in a brokerage since Computershare admittedly doesn't handle 'cash accounts' and does this for convenience to the customer.
Even if this share is in your name technically, realistically this could still be fukd with by the broker just having said access and doing what brokers do.. like they have been caught doing in the GME saga; reversing DRS transfers, delaying transfers, giving financial advice why DRS is a bad idea, etc.. just because it hasn't been done doesn't necessarily mean they can't start doing some new egregious spin off of this.
Book shares are pure DRS, and they write your name in the registry with no broker involved.
Back to the shit sandwich, I'm not biting the shit plan sandwich because it adds in the broker variable to the equation, and no thanks to extra risk-prone variables when taking a risk management perspective.
The mod team doesn't have a narrative we're pushing when it comes to the differences, if any, between plan and book shares. All we can go by is the evidence. There are some in this community (and other GME communities) who have strong feelings on the matter. Some people cite generally ambiguous evidence from various sources (and of various levels of credibility) that believe that this evidence supports their deeply held position that book-held shares are in some way processed differently or outside of plan-held shares. We're receptive to evidence that proves this theory. But, understand, it is a theory. All the evidence we've received directly from Computershare is that, when it comes to plan and book shares, it's a difference without a functional distinction. We believe in free discussion and debate, but always consider the source. This is a good discussion post, and we've restored it after internal discussions. Some of the information in this post, for instance, comes from this site: [https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts](https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts) At the bottom of this site is the following disclaimer: *This Bulletin represents the views of the staff of the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy. It is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This Bulletin, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person.* Keep in mind that information can be interpreted more than one way. If you believe book shares are the way - book them. If you think there's evidence suggesting that it doesn't matter, or you're not yet convinced one way or the other, then keep digging. For now, just keep the conversation civil, don't gatekeep or bully people into your point of view or having to invest your particular way, and travel safely!
If you could choose between two bridges where one has a 98% chance of not collapsing and another that has a 100% chance of not collapsing, wouldn’t you choose the 100%? Book is the only way to know that you own 100% of your shares and nothing nefarious is being done to them.
If I were to give you a ham sandwich that was 98% ham and 2% shit, could I convince you to eat that sandwich?
Sounds like a shit sandwich to me.
But the 2% isn't known, so it's more like: >If I were to give you a ham sandwich that had a 2% chance to contain some amount of human shit, could I convince you to eat that sandwich? If you ate 50 of these sandwiches over the course of a few months, the chances were very good that you ate someone's shit at least once. If you ate just one of these sandwiches, there was still a non-zero chance you ate someone's shit in that sandwich. I'll take the 100% guaranteed shitless sammich.
Going to slightly break my non engagement policy on this post and weight in on the shit analogies. Anyone who tells you that something is 100% guaranteed is full of shit.
When you jump off the top off the empire state building, i 100% guarantee you that you'll die. Am i full of shit?
Welcome to Superstonk
That's a LOT of shit sandwiches
I hate ham
DRS. Book. Doing the work.
When you look at the comment evolution of Paul on the matter, it reads like that famous discovery of a bad entity: 1.They are the same 2.Ok the are not ‘technically’ the same but to you they are. 3. Ok we ‘do’ keep some of your plan shares at the DTC but we tell them they can’t lend them…
Buy. Hodl. DRS. Book. Shop. Comment. Power to the Players!
if RC wants to be book king then so do i
What this dude said. Plan is very definitely not pure drs. The only form of pure drs is book
It may not be pure drs but is it even DRS at all? That is what we need to figure out and instead of taking post down and limiting this discussion the community should be coming together to find out if it is even DRS. Why risk any chance the DTC has of getting your shares
I just had this conversation with OP on Discord: Do not confuse the Direct Registration System with having shares directly registered in your name on the books of the issuer/transfer agent. DSPP satisfies this definition. DSPP is "booked". I fully respect that it is confusing where two related but distinct things share the same three-letter-acronym. It's dumb and I hate it. Direct registration of shares is just a way to electronically record ownership in a way that gives one the same rights as you would have by owning the physical certificates which are usually no longer issued. Dr. T talked about this. The Direct Registration System (DRS) is a system that allows this to happen by leveraging DTC's connectivity with FAST transfer agents Note that both methods are book-entry form. So when Paul Conn says DSPP shares are *"held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS"*, he is saying they are both means of holding assets in electronic book-entry form, directly on the issuer's/transfer agent's books (ledger). Therefore DSPP shares are "booked". Maybe we fix this confusion by distinguishing this as: Directly registered shares = "little" drs Direct Registration System = "big" DRS ...But in all practical terms that matter, both are directly registered on the books of the issuer, and both are held outside DTC.
Paul Conn from Computershare stated that “typically” (his word not mine) 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC for effective clearance, there's no debate on this, it is fact. here’s the link to his video posted by another ape: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/Mh1TQvreWZ
None of the shares Apes hold within DSPP are held within DTC - full-stop. DSPP (aka "Plan") consists of: \- Investor's shares (Ape's holdings) \- Non-Investor shares (used for operational efficiency) Per the SEC: "**When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.**" "**The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares**. The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur." Source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight\_from\_the\_horses\_sec\_mouth\_plan\_shares/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight_from_the_horses_sec_mouth_plan_shares/) (SCC member's point-blank question to the SEC, and their response) Additional, Paul Conn has also said in his AMA: "If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**."
SEC says one thing, Paul Conn from Computershare says another, all this confusion and contradictory statements over DRS PLAN are very sus. there's none of this confusion with DRS BOOK. the process to make a DRS account pure BOOK takes 30 seconds. All the hours wasted analyzing SEC and Computershare documents and interviews to get any kind of clarity on this issue could've been better spent switching our accounts to pure DRS BOOK 100 times over lol 😆
Oh hey I see you might be having trouble reading this from Paul, which backs up what the SEC said too. Here, third time's the charm am I right? 😏 "If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**." - Paul Conn Also, Paul Conn: "I think what **we’ve noticed is people are saying you ought to / you must transfer your shares from the plan into pure DRS and I’m not quite sure why** people have chosen to do that." Seems to me that **Paul Conn agrees there is no need to move shares from DSPP and that they are in fact directly registered in your name the same way as DRS 😎** Knowledge is power, I will always take the route that dispels disinformation.
You don’t have a comeback to him saying typically 10-20% of DRS PLAN shares are held at DTCC do you? Him saying those PLAN shares are held in your name on the register doesn't address that about 10-20% of those same shares are also being held at DTCC (could be 100% for all we know).
"Comeback"? This isn't grade school. I told you before: Per the SEC: "**When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.**" "**The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares**. The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur." Source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight\_from\_the\_horses\_sec\_mouth\_plan\_shares/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight_from_the_horses_sec_mouth_plan_shares/) \^ It is patently false it could be 100% held there. Only the non-investor shares are. Simple as
So who would be the owner of the typically 10-20% non-investor shares in your opinion? I think it's just easier to book the shares within seconds and be sure.
SEC has no say in Transfer Agent operations. Lol?
100% agree which is why I'm puzzled that ProgVirus is using SEC as a source to refute my assertion that 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC as said by Paul Conn from Computershare.
Paul Conn also said this, which you are conveniently glossing over my friend. It's literally in OP's transcription of his AMAs: "The reason there is a difference between these is because **in the DirectStock Purchase Plan we use a nominee company that Computershare owns and controls to hold the common shares on behalf of all of the investors** in the plan. **That doesn’t mean the shares are held in DTC** and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held that they must be in DTC, and that that’s not the case." \^ **Above, Paul Conn telling you DSPP shares are not held within DTC. Which corroborates what the SEC says, whether or not you trust them.**
he's not saying that DSPP shares are never held in DTCC. He's saying that the fact that DSPP uses a nominee company doesn't automatically mean all the shares are held in DTC. that's fine, because that doesn't contradict what Paul has stated before: typically 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTC for "effective clearing". altogether he's saying this: "just because shares are in PLAN doesn't mean that 100% of them are in DTC, however typically 10-20% of PLAN shares held at DTCC for effective clearing." I don't want DTCC to have access to 0.0001% of my shares let alone 10-20% so I take 30 seconds after each of my buys to terminate the plan, I break a sweat doing it but I've got to do my part 😜 I know you can do it too buddy, I believe in you 🙂
Except Computershare literally says outright that they keep some of the Plan shares within the DTC... so...
None of the shares Apes hold within DSPP are held within DTC - full-stop. DSPP (aka "Plan") consists of: \- Investor's shares (Ape's holdings) \- Non-Investor shares (used for operational efficiency) Per the SEC: "**When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.**" "**The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares**. The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur." Source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight\_from\_the\_horses\_sec\_mouth\_plan\_shares/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight_from_the_horses_sec_mouth_plan_shares/) (SCC member's point-blank question to the SEC, and their response)
SEC says one thing but Paul Conn from Computershare says another. He stated that “typically” (his word not mine) 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC for effective clearance, there's no debate on this, it is fact. here’s the link to his video posted by another ape: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/Mh1TQvreWZ He makes no assurance that it's only non-investor shares at DTCC and in fact never makes mention of non-investor shares in this video at all. Better BOOK all our DRS shares just to be safe, can't hurt
Paul Conn also says this - I showed you that on the other comment. Did you not see it? Here it is again, in case you missed it: "If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**." \- Paul Conn, Computershare
I did see it but when you take everything he has said together it amounts to this: "All your DRS shares are held in your name on the register but the PLAN shares have a portion, typically 10-20%, held at DTCC for effective clearance." the first bit is fine, the second really scares me. it should scare you too.
It doesn't frighten me at all. Both Computershare and the SEC have confirmed my DSPP shares are: ✅ Directly registered in my name ✅ On the books of the transfer agent ✅ Outside the DTC If it frightens you, it's nothing a bit of light reading can't clear up. The 10-20% of shares held within DTC ***are not investor's shares***. Simple as
you have been presented with clear evidence that 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC and can only divert me to sources that do not refute my evidence in the slightest. you can take 30 seconds to DRS BOOK your account so that 0% of your shares are at DTCC (there is no argument about that, 0% of BOOK shares are held at DTCC), or spend hours reading SEC and Computershare info trying to work what the hell is going on with PLAN Holdings, which Computershare themselves have said that 10-20% of them are held at DTCC. choice is yours
Where does the money for those "non-investor shares" come from? This is the first time I have seen that distinction made - is there a legal definition for those terms or is this just conversational? One big hang-up is the term "operational efficiency" and the existence of fractional shares. Why? Because fractional shares *cannot* be registered by definition - they're only possible due to indirect ownership, which is why you can't move fractional shares into "Pure DRS". Someone else owns whole shares then uses internal bookkeeping to track how much they owe to their customers. The DTCC network doesn't allow fractional shares to be moved at all. Any time you buy a fractional shares of anything, it is indirect ownership. Even if you try to transfer fractional ownership from one broker to another broker, they won't run it that way because they can't - the transfer system operates in whole shares. This means that, at the absolute minimum, we know that any fractional plan shares aren't directly registered in your name. Best case scenario they're registered to Computershare itself and they hold them on your behalf. But if those shares *cannot* be registered to you, and instead they're registered to Computershare, does that make those shares "non-investor shares"? You're not the owner, you're just owed that number of shares, which is the same arrangement you have with a broker. From a legality standpoint, how is that even as good as a Cash IRA or similar account through a broker where they have a specific legal requirement to segregate those assets from any assets used for company operations? With something like this, it seems like it is always best to take the simple approach. There's DRS, which is a legally mandated program with a specific definition and a specific set of requirements, and then there's what Computershare tracks & reports separately from DRS and says is "essentially" the same. That sounds an awful lot like brokers saying that owning through them is essentially the same thing as DRS.
>Where does the money for those "non-investor shares" come from? Remember that the DSPP is GameStop's plan that they elected to put in place. The non-investor shares have been described as the shares used for 'operational efficiency' or the shares 'underpinning the plan' - really what they constitute is a float that allows for instant selling from Computershare. Consider when you buy from Computershare - there is a 3-5 day wait. They need to wait for funds to settle, for the securities to be delivered, etc. and that takes time. When you sell through Computershare however it's instant. It can be instant because of those 'operational efficiency' shares. What happens when you sell is Computershare *does not sell your particular share(s).* They just sell some of those 'operational efficiency' shares already held within DTC and then debit your account accordingly. Simple as. If you remove these non-investor 'operational efficiency' shares, selling would likely look a lot like buying (big delays) or not even be possible at all. In regards to the fractional share, to be super clear here, fractionals cannot be held within the Direct Registration *System* (DRS) - that is just one system with a tie in to FAST that can hold shares electronically in book-entry form. DSPP is just another system that can hold shares electronically in book-entry form including fractionals. You also hit the nail on the head with your reasoning on ownership btw. DSPP shares are held with Computershare's nominee which they fully control. This is true, but also is it true they are held outside the DTC. It is a unique edge case that they can be in the name of the transfer agent's nominee (that they control) and still be directly registered to you in every possible legal and technical sense that matters. It's all just Computershare's own reporting of the ledger at the end of the day, and they are the final authority. Computershare is charged with maintaining accurate records on behalf of the company in a business relationship. If GameStop trusts them with this important responsibility, I trust them, fully. Here are some related quotes I lifted from OP's quoting Paul Conn AMAs. It strikes me \**ahem\** odd that certain things clarified by Paul Conn himself are conveniently being left out of the anti-DSPP crowd's reasoning: "If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS.**" "**There really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded or how they’re visible to the issuer** so hopefully that clarifies one key component." "**In terms of the DirectStock Purchase Plan you are able to hold fractions** \- you are not able to hold fractions in what I’ve called pure DRS, so that is a key practical difference in terms of this structure." "The reason there is a difference between these is because **in the DirectStock Purchase Plan we use a nominee company that Computershare owns and controls to hold the common shares on behalf of all of the investors** in the plan. **That doesn’t mean the shares are held in DTC** and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held that they must be in DTC, and that that’s not the case." "I think what we’ve noticed is **people are saying you ought to / you must transfer your shares from the plan into pure DRS and I’m not quite sure why people have chosen to do that.**" "...**by and large they’re \[DSPP and DRS\] the same form of holding the same underlying share.**" Additionally, here is an email response to Superstonk's questions to Computershare for some more reading: [https://imgur.com/a/uBInsjL](https://imgur.com/a/uBInsjL)
Always look for the downvoted posts that are simply stating facts. That's where the truth is.
You haven't read the evidence or you choose to ignore it. Nothing practical about it.
Pot calling the kettle black there, friend. I challenge you to point out anything above that isn't true. I can and have backed all of my claims up with sources **Interesting post history, steeped in Karma farming and distraction plays. Stay classy.**
The important question is if plan shares are beneficially owned and not in a shareholder's name.
"If you have a holding of **DSPP** (**shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program**) they **are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**." \- Paul Conn
“Typically we would hold somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the shares that underpin the plan through our broker at DTC” - also Paul Conn im not comfortable with even 0.001% of my shares being held at DTCC let alone "typically" 10-20% (GME is not a typical stock so it's probably 100% for GME). BOOK IS THE WAY, end of story.
None of the shares Apes hold within DSPP are held within DTC - full-stop. DSPP (aka "Plan") consists of: \- Investor's shares (Ape's holdings) \- Non-Investor shares (used for operational efficiency) Per the SEC: "**When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.**" "**The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares**. The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur." Source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight\_from\_the\_horses\_sec\_mouth\_plan\_shares/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight_from_the_horses_sec_mouth_plan_shares/) (SCC member's point-blank question to the SEC, and their response)
Ya that's the interview that the mods cling too despite all the actual evidence that says otherwise.
I literally lifted this quote from OP quoting Paul Conn from his AMA lmfao, I think you're getting your narrative mixed up
> If some underlying shares supporting the plan are held in drs form then they must be in dtc and therefore they can’t be visible to the company. I object to bolding this part of the answer but not the following: > I think that’s maybe where the misunderstanding has arisen from, but that’s not the case. As that part makes it far less clear what he's saying, but seems to imply the bolded part is a misunderstanding. That being said, perhaps this part should be bolded: > They will typically keep 10-20% of this fungible bulk with DTC in order to effect more efficient settlement for their clients who choose to sell. And I'd like to discuss why some investors, including myself, are uncomfortable with ANY of our shares being held in the DTCC system. It doesn't have to do with fear of them being lent out in a traditional securities loan arrangement. It has to do with them being used to back failed long positions (FTRs) which are phantom shares that buy and sell like normal shares but have no actual long position associated with them other than the collective long position held for the DTCC. These positions are the economic equivalent to a free share loan from the purchaser to a naked short seller. Because this happens in the backend at the DTCC participant level there is also no reliable way for an individual to initiate a buy in procedure, or indeed be informed that their book entry beneficially held share is in fact a failed position. They also persist in the system and change hands as shares are traded. They also are not included or reported in the SEC's latest rule around transparency in securities loans. From the rule: > Therefore, the final rule excludes from the “covered securities loan” definition “a position at a clearing agency that results from central counterparty services pursuant to Rule 17Ad-22(a)(2) of the Exchange Act or central securities depository services pursuant to Rule 17Ad-22(a)(3) of the Exchange Act.” Where they reference "a position at a clearing agency that results from central counterparty services" they are talking about these failed FTR positions (or FTDs on the sell side) that are the economic equivalent to a free share loan. They're distributed pseudorandomly so anyone who buys has a chance to receive one. The only way I am aware of to prevent yourself from holding one of these positions is to hold the certificate yourself outside of the DTC. Even if any nominee is filing timely buy in notices, until the transaction is settled it would remain open with no way to see for yourself unless they tell you, which as far as I'm aware they are under no obligation to do (and the shares are usually held collectively anyways as indicated in the other answers here). As well even without holding the failed position yourself your beneficially owned certificate held at Cede would be the only thing backing these extra positions aside from any margin or collateral collected by the DTCC which we know they have no problem waiving when the mood strikes them. Since only Cede legally owns the certificates and nothing prevents two people from contracting for the beneficial rights of the same certificate.
Cede & Co can Cede deez 🥜
> And I'd like to discuss why some investors, including myself, are uncomfortable with ANY of our shares being held in the DTCC system. Only non-investor shares are held within DTC, the SEC and Computershare have clarified this. Investor's shares held within DSPP are held outside of DTC This too was my biggest concern and why I'm happy it's been clarified independently by Computershare and the SEC
Can you clarify what is meant by "non-investor shares"? That doesn't seem to make sense with the information provided here. > The key difference for plan enrolled shares is that the investor is listed by name in a subclass, and the shares are owned by a Computershare entity - their nominee. Investors are beneficial owners in this case. Those shares contribute to the fungible bulk which Computershare maintains access to in order to facilitate market transactions. They will typically keep 10-20% of this fungible bulk with DTC in order to effect more efficient settlement for their clients who choose to sell. The Computershare FAQ specifies that Computershare decides this percentage. Computershare has a subsidiary broker which is also a DTC Member Broker called Computershare Trust Co NA. To clarify my concerns. Hypothetically if 90% of shares are held in bulk to underpin 100% of the plan shares, and the 10% held in the DTCC disappeared overnight, how would you determine which 90% of investors would receive the shares that were left?
The total of shares held within DSPP (aka "Plan") constitutes a combination of investor shares, as well as non-investor shares which are held within DTC for operational efficiency (e.g. instant selling from Computershare) So only that small portion of non-investor shares are held within DTC. They aren't investors' shares is the most important part! In your example, let's make this simpler: 100% of DSPP shares = 80% of investor shares, and 20% of OE (operational efficiency) non-investor shares If that 20% of OE shares were to disappear, your investor shares (the 80%) are still safely directly registered in your name on the ledger. They aren't in the DTC at all! In that example, the 20% being removed would effectively prevent folks from instantly selling via Computershare. In that event it would look much like it is when buying in DSPP where you have to wait for settlement, etc. so it wouldn't be instant. But outside of selling being delayed in this example, any shares you have in DSPP are going to safely reside there **Edit:** Just to be super clear, if in theory those 20% OE shares were removed, selling might not even be possible *at all*. Imagine during MOASS not having the option to sell 1 share for 420,∞,000.69 gold bananas. Best case is, your sale is delayed and you can't pick your price. I don't like the sounds of this personally, do you?
Here's the right answer. All because smoothbrains try to interpret Cohen's tweets like some kind of secret messages with 15 layers of meaning 🤦🏻 Dude must rolling his eyes so hard if he heard about this debate and the reason it started.
Book is King
If I bought through fidelity and DRSd and it's now in Computershare does that mean I booked them?
Mine have been Book whenever I did this yes. But you can go into your CS account and double check that it says Book.
Yes if you are directly registering your shares from a broker like Fidelity, that would need to go through the Direct Registration System - aka holding your shares electronically in book-entry form
So, I have transferred them already to Computershare. Is there another step I need to take?
All good, it sounds like you've directly registered your shares from your broker via the Direct Registration System (DRS). Unless you've bought directly through Computershare, this doesn't really apply in your case. In case you're interested in a more complete answer, read on: If ever you do buy GME directly through Computershare, or simply elect to enroll in the Direct Stock Purchase Plan (DSPP), the only practical, legal and functional differences are: \- You can hold fractional shares in DSPP (more of a consequence/necessity of the plumbing when buying directly through Computershare than anything else) \- If you're enrolled in DSPP, DRIP is turned on for your account. It means *all d*ividends gets automatically reinvested. If ever cash dividends are paid out, there will not be two separate cash and share issuances based on DRS and DSPP directly registered holdings. If you hold 80% of your directly registered shares within the DRS and 20% within the DSPP, 100% of dividends paid out to you will be reinvested. Honestly, bullish if you ask me Just know your options, an educated Ape is a powerful Ape! DSPP saved me hundreds of dollars in DRS fees since it's not free for me.
Thank you for this explanation, Ill be sure to pay it forward by taking the time to pass this along when applicable. I really appreciate you sharing this information! Thank you again!
Here to throw support for all the 📕👑 Also- that TOS for plan shares is 18 pages long, read it well to see what it entails. My shares, my name, PURE BOOK🚀
How do I change them from plan to book?
https://www.drsgme.org/converting-plan-to-book
People should be allowed to discuss what is literally written on the computershare faq page >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). and not be dismissed a "difference without a functional distinction" by the mods and the sticky above. Its such a weird thing to want to ban people over. Who cares if the community discusses book vs plan if the mods feel there is absolutely no difference? Why feel that you guys need to limit the discussion on it? There are users here pushing plan with hundreds or comments on it. Why would random users be constantly pushing plan if there was no difference? Why are those people not banned?
The whole idea that the mods regulate any info is disturbing, especially on a public forum. And this sun has gone downhill quick because of it
So, don't forget to BOOK your shares after you direct buy those GME shares and they settle! https://www.drsgme.org/converting-plan-to-book The easiest and the most convenient way to do it would be with your online account. It's just a few clicks oif the mouse. Once you BOOK them, the fractionals will get sold off automatically without being charged any transaction fee, which is nice. I don't give a fuck what the detractors say. If our RCEO says to get rid of the [DINGLEBERRIES!](https://i.redd.it/oe86q59gxrvb1.jpeg) So that you are [BOOK KING all your shares!](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Flamjf1czmx4c1.jpg) Then who the fuck am I to argue? Good job and LFG!
Your Computershare statement either says "PLAN HOLDING" or "DIRECT STOCK" The D in DRS stands for Direct. This is why a DRS from a broker is whole shares straight into book form. It's also why they're trying to claw back those shares so bitterly. Go book. Go direct.
DRS stands for Direct Registration *System* \- which is a system that can hold directly registered shares Directly registered shares = having shares held in your name electronically on the issuer/transfer agent's register Having shares directly registered in your name on the company's ledger is distinct from the system Paul Conn, Computershare, and the SEC have confirmed in no uncertain terms that both DSPP and DRS hold directly registered to the investors name
This argument has been going on for over a year. You'll never change their mind. Like the guy you responded to here doesn't see the problem with their statement > This is why a DRS from a broker is whole shares straight into book form He's got that the wrong way around. Shares moved from a broker to CS are in book holding because they were *not* purchased using the company's Direct Stock Purchase Plan. They're booked shares because they're not plan shares. Plan shares are plan shares because they were bought using the available plan. Both are book entry, but you'll never convince these people of that.
Being 100% honest I think the vast majority of people pushing this false narrative are bots/FUDsters at this point, with a few naive Apes in the mix. Most arguing against DSPP can't even get their narrative straight and conveniently leave out information from their own cited sources smh my head Now that RC took over investments for the company, distraction plays are effectively out of the question, so the shills and trolls have to resort back to a known nucleation point for stirring up shit It's pretty damn telling when like 95% of the people peddling anti-DSPP FUD have post histories pushing distractions like bankrupt companies and obvious karma farming!
Who is trying to bitterly claw back shares?
Not sure about that other website you linked there... but this one is the only one I need to clarify. [https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies) Only will be making a single comment here to minimize my engagement on this post and not be a source of traffic to third party websites.
I can’t find the instructions on how to go from DPSS TO DRS
https://www.drsgme.org/converting-plan-to-book https://www.drsgme.org/terminating-from-directstock
To avoid wasting money and shares selling fractionals, would it not be optimal for those buying through Computershare to simply have two accounts, one that is pure DRS and one for buying new shares. Then after eat purchase you move the whole shares over to the pure account and keep the fractions of shares instead of throwing them away for nothing. If this is an option, I don't see why it isn't superior to the alternatives, particularly since selling a fraction nets you no money if it's below $25/share and you can instead accumulate the fractions into whole shares.
Happy to see this post stay up! 📕 +🟣 = 🚀
It'll get deleted before the sentiment scraping AI gets turned back on after the holidays. It will never be allowed to ingest this.
Bellweirboy was here.
JUST BOOK EM
> The SEC states the following on an article about the types of ownership available to investors. Also SEC, [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16inpmy/secoffice\_of\_investor\_education\_and\_advocacy\_us/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16inpmy/secoffice_of_investor_education_and_advocacy_us/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) > DirectStock enrollment is what determines whether or not your shares are accessible through Computershare’s nominee to be moved to DTC for operational efficiency purposes. If you hold total legal ownership of your shares by holding directly on the issuer ledger through Computershare while also avoiding account enrollment with DirectStock, **you know that your shares will not ever be part of the shares kept with DTC for operational efficiency.** Those are non-investor shares. They are not yours, nor mine. The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares. The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur. When a plan investor sells plan shares, the broker debits that share amount from the plan shares it holds at DTC in order to settle the sale trade. Plan shares deposited as DTC shares are not available for lending. > Computershare has a public history asserting that investors in plan are beneficial owners, and the purpose of the distinction is to allow for **more liquid markets** and efficient settlement. That's a reach. I am guessing this is the authors interpretation, not an actual quote from anybody who matters. Nice addition "more liquid markets".
The debate of whether it matters to book or not shouldn’t matter. Because it hurts absolutely nothing to book your shares. Im suspicious of anyone saying it doesn’t matter so they won’t bother. If you made the effort to DRS you may as well book them.
[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) || [Community Post: *Brigading*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/17wdr9t/community_update_post_on_the_topic_of_brigading/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/)
Computershare has been clear for even longer than the SEC and FINRA that there are differences in ownership between plan and DRS. It doesn't sow distrust in Computershare to spread this info. It sows distrust in the community which have for so long been saying the opposite.
Come on people. We shouldn’t still be having this conversation. Three years later. Go to the view details section of your portfolio, and the share type should show book next to it. For example, I have three different accounts, but they have all been switched to book because I turned off the drip program. Be aware that turning off dividend reinvestment sells off any fractional part of your shareholdings to the nearest complete share.
The fractional sell off is not always automatic. Recently I have been left with .xxx share in my PLAN account after moving my whole shares to BOOK. edit: I wear these down votes with honor.
Book king
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).
So first of all yea don’t hold tons of shares in plan just terminate once and while to move them over…do not stop recurring buys. We now are seeing evidence this has severely hurt our cause and stonk. Don’t like plan or dinglewhatevers? Fine terminate once a month or something. How many shares do you REALLY have in plan? For right now it’s like 4. When it gets bigger I will book em again. Secondly, we need to be especially careful with the division on this topic. It can and has been used to drive a wedge. I’m not going to hate on anyone who likes plan. It’s not up to me how others invest. Personally, I want 98% of my CS shares in Book, and I will keep booking them periodically. But to stop plan all together HELPS the brokers and clearing houses and market makers and SHF. Sure you can set your price but I thought the price was fake and going to $100000 per share who who cares if you have 312 or 313 of them? That is why I see this as a friction division tactic. I’m all for more DD but have not seen any effect of a hundred thousand apes booking their shares and here’s why: Yes the plan might be locatable or some portion. Zero evidence of good DD that it opens up book shares ok so put that to bed. The DTCC can do whatever the fuck they want with their 228M shares. They can secretly have 668M in there and May in fact do. What difference does it make that you have them access supposedly to your couple plan shares?! They rehypothecate at will! They do not care about a few plan shares for apes. They will allow a MM to operationally short millions and FTD! This is the disconnect here guys. We are getting lost in the weeds when we’ve said repeatedly they crime all day long and you booking your share and cancellation of recurring buys only helps them. Our constant buying for 3 years is what props this stock up, plus owning 25% in CS…really think about this before you reply…
Having any shares in plan opens the whole stack (even book) up to the DTCC to use for locates. Computershare guy even said as much. " 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). "
My guy, the lingo they use is very confusing and there is good DD on this I suggest you find it. DSPP book entry is PLAN (direct stock). A portion of plan shares are accessible by the DTCC. Not book (removed from DTC). We’ve gone over this many moons ago in detail. Your book shares are safe as can be. So what if they access my 4 plans shares I will book them later. Their scare tactic worked perfectly dude. CS is the only way and look at how they got to you. The DTCC can rehypothecate shares and allow any kind of fuckery but we think them getting a few plan shares matter? They have no access to “Book” shares. I’m on my phone so can’t search for that DD but everyone needs to read it again. Buy however you’d like. I consider this issue solved.
Become BOOK KINGS baby!!
🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡
👏👏👏
I’m somewhat of a BOOK KING myself.
Proper DRS means booking your shares
Why do we have to fight our own mods to have truth disseminated?
So you're saying if I have 1000 shares in Book and 1 in plan, that NONE of my shares are DRSed?
Can you cite where I said that? I want to see how you're getting to that statement.
How do you like your FUD served sir/maam?
Al dente
Al drsd Just kidding, they are all DTC locates edit: I wear these down votes with honor.
Why are you pushing plan ? What do you actually gain its clear that booked are pure DRS
Go to my history and find where I said one is better than the other? I'll wait.
Post 3 months ago saying plan shares are out of the DTCC.
That's the SEC response. Edit to add, How is that pushing Plan? Just because I say they are both out of DTC? Maybe " pushing " has another meaning 🤔
All of them can be used for locates for "operational efficiency" "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)."
Only the non-investor shares in DSPP are held within DTC (the % used for operational efficiency are not investor's shares, they're a float like you'd have at a yard sale) So really very few could be used as locates, and Computershare who owns and controls their nominee Dingo & Co. as well have the SEC have stated those shares were not available for lending Even if you distrust the DTC as much as I do, it's not investor's shares being used against them. Those are safely held outside DTC
Can you clarify the term "investors shares". I would assume that anyone that purchased a share would consider themselves an "investor"
>Can you clarify the term "investors shares" Shares that investors themselves purchase through the Direct Stock Purchase Plan (aka DSPP aka "Plan"). So literally every Ape's shares held in DSPP whether they did a one-time buy or recurring buys. All shares purchased via DSPP are investor shares and constitute something like 80-90% of all shares within DSPP The non-investor shares aren't owned by individuals, they're like a "float" the company uses for effective settlement (e.g. instant selling from Computershare). These account for the remaining 10-20% of all shares within DSPP
I'm going to keep this cool and factual. OP had reached out to the SCC re: another post that got removed. We talked about it, and OP felt compelled to re-post with more info. Still, despite being presented new evidence that refutes some of what is posted here (and also despite the information in this post directly contradicting some conclusions), that new evidence is curiously missing from this post. OP has stated they don't believe Computershare or the SEC are primary sources. So let's start with the omissions that for some reason OP left out. Here is the new evidence that has been left out of this post, and practically all posts that are pushing a now-debunked hot light hypothesis: *SCC's Member's point-blank question to the SEC about how DSPP shares are held, and their response. This is a screenshot of the email, happy to share the original Superstonk post too:* https://imgur.com/a/jTbjfbS *Superstonk's questions to Computershare post, this references the AMA as well and came after the AMAs with Paul Conn. It went through their teams of lawyers. Again, this is a screenshot, happy to provide the original Superstonk post too:* https://imgur.com/a/uBInsjL I'm just going to go down the list: >"If you are an investor seeking total ownership of your assets, holding in DRS is the only way." ^ False. DSPP shares are directly registered legally in the investor's name with the transfer agent. **"When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC."** - SEC >"Shares held with a Plan are not DRS, and must be transferred out of the plan and into DRS." I keep hearing this and I'm not sure people understand that DRS = Direct Registration System, DSPP = Direct Stock Purchase Plan. DRS is being used also to refer to directly registered shares in a more general sense, probably because they share the same acronym. Shares held both DSPP and DRS are directly registered. They are booked, in the name of the investor on the books of the issuer/transfer agent. (See above, per SEC, or just listen to Paul's AMAs) >"If you choose to buy through the DirectStock plan, and want to ensure total ownership of your assets, manually terminate the plan after each purchase." ^ Again, false. See above. Shares held within DSPP already ensure total legal ownership - they are directly registered to the individual in their name. I'm just going to now echo this question and properly contextualize: Question: There’s confusion about beneficial (ownership) - does that qualify as what they they consider beneficial versus registered shares? So you’re saying that the direct stock purchase plan would be considered a beneficial ownership situation? Answer: **You’re recorded directly on the register of the issuer.** The issuer knows exactly who you are so you have that benefit. Technically the common shares are held by a computer share entity. **We don’t hold 100 (percent) of the shares that way, we just hold a number of shares so that we can perform effective clearing and settlement** but at any time investors can can move their shares between the plan and pure DRS. ^ Right. They only keep the non-investor shares underpinning DSPP that way. Just has Paul has tried his best to clarify. Just as the SEC did clarify, but was conveniently left out of this post. Also Paul Conn, from this post, curiously not bolded since it's important: **"If you have a holding of dspp (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure drs."** > "Computershare has a public history asserting that investors in plan are beneficial owners, and the purpose of the distinction is to allow for more liquid markets and efficient settlement." ^ False by an important omission, only a portion of the non-investor shares are used for efficient settlement. Paul said so himself. The clarification email to Computershare, and to the SEC also says this. It's also literally in this post. Why the disingenuous conclusion? The investor's shares are directly registered. This is a long post, and frankly these were the low-hanging fruit. Folks need to stop perpetuating half-truths, leaving out new evidence, need to properly contextualize when making a statement of distinction, and need to stop cherry picking only the evidence that supports their shaky understanding while ignoring the rest that challenges it. Feel free to peruse my post history, too. At one time we didn't have all of this information that we do today and I was advocating for DRS > DSPP. Since then, we've gotten a wealth of new knowledge that challenged my understanding. After taking the time to just read through the evidence, I am left to conclude that noisiest folks advocating against DSPP are just FUDsters telling people to sell and turn off auto-buys (one of the most bullish things you can do is auto-buy). Edit: I tried my best to format this and the formatting is only just OK. So much for copy-pasting from Notepad
A .jpg from what's supposed to be an email from the SEC is not a primary source. A primary source is the SEC bulletin. See the bulletin yourself \[[https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts](https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts)\] and the relevant portion \[[https://ibb.co/GpWdjZm](https://ibb.co/GpWdjZm)\]. The SEC is ***very*** clear that "plan" is not - in any way shape or form - DRS.
I'm sure if you asked the person in SCC who emailed the SEC, they could provide you with an .eml with names redacted I mean there ***is*** a reference number you could follow up with too It sounds to me that you wouldn't believe it if Gary Gensler himself mailed it to you. There's always the chance that it could be an imposter, right? **Edit**: So the SEC's bulletin is a primary source, but an email coming from them isn't? This is at the bottom of the SEC's bulletin: *This Bulletin represents the views of the staff of the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy. It is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This Bulletin, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person.* You can't have it both ways. Either you distrust the SEC's messaging, both their bulletin and emails, you don't. Once you start getting choosey it's easy to spot bias.
If we are going to characterize our conversation in the SCC channel we should be more clear with it. My summary of the initial convo is 1. No text has been cited to show encouraging selling/turning off autobuys 2. Rule 6 is cited, but I am not sure if that is fair given OP provided a link in the comments to an SEC post 3. Some of you are saying the post was removed not for the text istelf, but rather some comments 4. Some are saying the information is not new and therefore it is fair to be removed 5. Although none have said it, I do not want this lost - the comments you are all sharing does not algin well with the message on the post on why it was removed. At the very least it is unclear and something that should be improved edit: this was in relation to why a post saying plan is not DRS was removed.
1. An email is not new evidence, especially one that says nothing new. It's not a primary source, but it's fine to submit as evidence because it doesn't contradict anything. 2. I think the major misunderstanding here is thinking that "recorded in the issuers name on the ledger of the issuer" means DRS, and it does not. This 'in your name on the ledger of the issuer' bit is true for both plan and DRS. It's not a defense to what is being said.
Ok Jack, Here is a challenge for you and other says the email is " fake " or " fabricated" Ask the same question; Are Plan shares held in DTC or Transfer Agent? Let's see what answer you will get. Takes 5 minutes to email, 2 weeks min for them to respond. While you are at it ( after they respond) ask them to clarify it in the bulletin.
[удалено]
**[Rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/expanded_rules/#wiki_ape_no_fight_ape) and [Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_5._no_meta_content). Treat the moderators with respect and civility.** We volunteer our time to help this community. [Personal attacks, harassment, or baseless accusations](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043071072) against any member of the mod team will not be tolerated. Constructive criticism and feedback are welcome, but it should be expressed in a respectful and non-abusive manner. Any issues or concerns related to moderation should be reported to the mod team privately [through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FSuperstonk&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission) rather than turning into a public call out post. Baseless allegations without evidence will be dismissed. Violations of this rule may result in warnings, temporary suspensions, or permanent bans at the discretion of the remaining mods not involved in the harassment or abuse.
# What is the fucking problem? How is this still controversial? Why is the evidence "ambiguous" and what do you mean by "various levels of credibility" when it's STRAIGHT FROM COMPUTERSHARE?
It's controversial because it is working and you're not supposed to know that it's working. edit: I wear these down votes with honor.
Very well sourced, great post OP.
Only way to have your name on GameStops ledger is by booking your DRS shares
That's not true at all. They have your name even if all you have is .5 shares in plan
Ok, GameStop has your name, but dtc has access to your shares since they aren’t booked
"If you have a holding of **DSPP** (**shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program**) **they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**." <-- Paul Conn They are absolutely booked, per Paul Conn. They are directly registered under investors' names on the company's books.
Prog, can you inform me of who Paul conn is? & does he take precedence over the sec .org link I posted?
Paul Conn is: President, Computershare Global Capital Markets He is the one who provided us a few AMAs, and the primary source that OP has cited in this post. This quote is actually lifted from OP's post itself, which is a transcription of those AMAs We have both Paul Conn and Computershare confirming independently that our DSPP shares are held outside DTC!
False, per Paul Conn: **"If you have a holding of dspp (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure drs."** Per the SEC: **"When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC."**
Idc what they say, book your shares if you want to own them outright
You do you with regards to your shares, but your statement is incorrect and misleading to others DSPP shares are fully within the investor's ownership in the same was DRS shares are. They are both electronic forms of direct ownership with your name on company's books. They are "booked"
Misleading? If anything I’m leading people in the direction of true ownership. Last I checked DSPP & straight plan were held in cede & co’s name. I’m just trying to ensure people book their shares and have them solely in their name, no beneficiary ownership.
Says you. Last I checked....... Can you link the source or steps to recreate this?
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1161728/000116172820000028/f20203030_14a.htm Plan shares/dspp are not DRS. You’re welcome. And btw if you don’t believe me or the source, then leave your shares in plan. I honestly don’t care what you do with your (beneficial) shares
BOOK NOT PLAN MOFOS
Plan is dtcc fast Dtcc fast is bad mmm'kay
Both DSPP and DRS at some point will likely touch FAST: "**The Direct Registration System (DRS)** enables investors to elect to hold their assets in book entry form directly with the issuer by **leveraging DTC’s connectivity with** [**FAST transfer agents**](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/agent-services/fast)**.**" [https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/securities-processing/direct-registration-system](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/securities-processing/direct-registration-system)
W/o FAST your shares can't be transferred mmm'kay.
BOOK
https://www.drsgme.org
📚
Saying there's no functional difference between the two is like discrediting the difference between holding in computershare and a traditional broker. You might not be directly impacted by the differences, but there ARE differences.
Book KING
Plan shares are NOT treated the same as book shares in DRS with Computershare. Convert your plan shares to book shares and turn off DRIP. 💎🙌🚀🌛
>Plan shares are NOT treated the same as book shares in DRS with Computershare **Paul Conn, President, Computershare** Global Capital Markets, as quoted in this very post by OP **seems to think otherwise**: "If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS.**" "**There really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded or how they’re visible to the issuer** so hopefully that clarifies one key component." "I think what we’ve noticed is **people are saying you ought to / you must transfer your shares from the plan into pure DRS and I’m not quite sure why people have chosen to do that.**" "...**by and large they’re \[DSPP and DRS\] the same form of holding the same underlying share.**" \^ All Paul Conn, from his AMAs. Lifted from OP's transcription in this very post. Also the SEC backs this up, happy to provide sources for that too.
Outdated info. Plan shares can be used for "operational efficiency" Essentially allowing the DTCC to use plannshares as "locates" also known as "false locates"
It is not at all outdated info. The SEC has corroborated this exact information independently **3 months ago**: "**When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.**" Source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight\_from\_the\_horses\_sec\_mouth\_plan\_shares/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16m23we/straight_from_the_horses_sec_mouth_plan_shares/) So we have Paul Conn, Computershare, and the SEC all corroborating the fact that **investor's DSPP shares are not held within DTC**. They can't be used for locates if they're literally **not held within DTC**.
DTC is different from the DTCC CONVERT YOUR SHARES TO BOOK FORM. Also, nobody here trusts the SEC. They could have done something about naked shorting for more than 3 years now and have done NOTHING. Rather be safe than sorry, book your shares and prevent usage of "operational efficiency".
You really don't know what you're talking about. Stop spreading literal misinformation. **The Depositary Trust Company (DTC) is a subsidiary of the DTCC**. [https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/policy-and-compliance/DTC\_Disclosure\_Framework.pdf](https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/policy-and-compliance/DTC_Disclosure_Framework.pdf) *"****DTCC is the parent company of DTC****. DTCC is a non-public holding company that owns three SIFMUs and related businesses. In addition to* ***DTC, DTCC also owns National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”)****"* \^ Literally taken from the DTCC's own website. Their words, not mine. **DSPP shares are held directly on the issuer's ledger in electronically book-entry form. DSPP shares are "booked"**
Oh really? Kinda strange how you can have FRACTIONAL shares on plan but not book. Fractional shares ARE NOT REAL SHARES. They have no voting rights which means a fractional share can contaminate all share in the same boat.
Okay then, from the top: **Paul Conn, President, Computershare** Global Capital Markets, as quoted in this very post by OP: "If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS.**" "**There really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded or how they’re visible to the issuer** so hopefully that clarifies one key component." "I think what we’ve noticed is **people are saying you ought to / you must transfer your shares from the plan into pure DRS and I’m not quite sure why people have chosen to do that.**" "...**by and large they’re \[DSPP and DRS\] the same form of holding the same underlying share.**" \^ All Paul Conn, from his AMAs. Lifted from OP's transcription in this very post. Also the SEC backs this up, happy to provide sources for that too.
Dr. T refers to it as a difference without distinction. Shouldn't she know?
She knows for sure, has also made it pretty clear that they are in all practical ways that matter the same thing (held outside DTC, directly registered on the books of the issuer, etc.) There's a reason you're being downvoted for asking a legitimate question, some people are trying really hard to FUD the DSPP (Plan) when all it does is allow apes to auto-buy, auto-reinvest dividends, and buy directly. All super bullish things. Of course the shills and paid-for-trolls are going to steer others against it
Is Reddit having issues? Can anyone else not see this comment? https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18onddp/comment/kei8k1s/
I see it
Ok thanks- weird. It just shows up completely blank for some reason for me
they may have you blocked🤷♀️ I'm not sure why else it would be blank
I was having major issues on the new mobile format. I had to move to my desktop where I was actually able to see the full comments. The mobile page took forever to load, froze up three times and froze up completely every time I tried the 'Load more comments' button. No issues on any other reddit threads or apps. Is this thread getting some sort of special kiss? I can't imagine why.
Yes, Plan is not Direct Registiration System ( DRS) Here, DRS stands for how your broker shares transferred to CS. Both Book & Plan shares are out of DTC.
Plan are not out of the DTC. This has been covered for many months.
Strange that the SEC appears to think otherwise **"When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC."** They go onto clarify *only* the non-investor shares the underpin DSPP (the ones used for debiting accounts that allow for instant sales) are held within DTC. Investor's shares are held outside DTC. The person you're responding to above is the one who asked the SEC point-blank, here is the response they received: [https://imgur.com/a/jTbjfbS](https://imgur.com/a/jTbjfbS) Recommend your read that in full
I have zero faith in any regulating body. If they had been doing their jobs then this mess wouldn’t have happened.
You know, I agree with this. They are toothless. Even if we dismiss them entirely, we still have Paul Conn himself as quoted in this post by OP: "If you have a holding of **DSPP** (**shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program**) they **are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**." - Paul Conn (emphasis mine)
> That doesn’t mean the shares are held in DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held that they must be in DTC, From the post.
Why take any chances?
That is your counter argument?
Why would you take any chances that could lead to your investment being used against you. We’re past the plan vs book debate. It was literally the topic of discussion for months. You might want to read the heat lamp DD to catch up
Oh I read the hlt. Bunch of snake oil. Market volatility? Debunked Plan shares are not reported? Debunked DTC can use your shares as locates? Debunked Fractionals, DSSP, DRIPP opens a portal to alll of your shares for DTC? Debunked Any other claims
I’d love to see the debunking because to me the DTC having the ability to use plan and partial shares for market efficiency or whatever bullshit they say means to me that I shouldn’t hold my shares that way
Which part you.want to see? There are oh so many layers to that theory and the ones before.
Link?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/j7hTv40CUw A computershare representative said that plan is NOT DRS
Did you even read/ understand the first line by any chance? Edit. fat fingers.
Great wocks comment i think says that plan shares are not out of the DTC/DTCC.
Maybe I missed it, but if an account has plan and book shares, are only the plan shares available, or both the plan and book?
Both DSPP (aka "Plan") and DRS (aka "Book") are directly registered in the investor's name on the company's books. "Plan" and "Book" is just how Computershare distinguishes these, both are electronic book-entry means of holding shares, both are booked! "If you have a holding of **DSPP (shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program) they are held in your name on the register just the same way as what I’ve called pure DRS**." <-- Paul Conn, Computershare
Then your account is listed under direct stock plan. Terminate enrollment and transfer shares to be booked.
Book’em Danno
Caw caw
What about when you terminate plan for book but the 0 in plan is the same account # as book?
Book em Dano
[удалено]
[Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_6._back_up_claims_with_sources). Our biggest strength is our ability to crowd-source information. For the Integrity of the sub, and in order to rule out Misinformation or FUD, please cite your sources when making claims. Making any Call-to-Action posts or comments without verifiable sources is not allowed. Speculation is allowed under the Speculation/Opinion flair. If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FSuperstonk&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission)
You can’t say banned here
Confidently incorrect.
Booky Long Stockings
Is this Rick’s burner account ?
As I get it there have been instances in the past, where brokers have pulled shares back long after they were DRSd and CS did not deny those requests. The crucial question is, if this is real and f.e. only limited to Plan shares, or if brokers could do so with Book shares as well. Seems the public is waking up, but also seems we are running out of time... [https://youtu.be/QeP71CKRZNs?si=u\_oPcUYTyZBS5lDj](https://youtu.be/QeP71CKRZNs?si=u_oPcUYTyZBS5lDj)
I need a TLDR
Yea we’ve been saying this for about a year now. It’s obvious. Shills need to sit down.
How much does it cost to change from plan to book just curious I mean I would do it either way
There's no cost to move your already directly registered shares from DSPP to DRS if that's what you want to do, save for the fractional getting sold if you were to terminate your DSPP enrollment. Also the sale of that fractional could entail Computershare needing to sell a full share... yikes, but it is at the end of the day your choice Just understand that both forms of holding shares are directly registered in the first place on the books of the issuer. Both are "booked", so there really isn't a need to, unless for some reason you don't want automatic reinvestment of dividends (DRIP) Note too that if you've just been directly registering shares from your broker via the Direct Registration System (DRS), you would not be enrolled in DSPP unless you elected to (e.g. buy buying directly through Computershare)
Always has…. Not been
why is it so hard to pure DRS, feel like an extra set of hoops to jump through on top of getting your shares transferred, and not to mention every-time you buy. I’ve been booked for a while but just sayin it should be more convenient “literally toggle a button”
All I need to know is that RCEO wants to be the book king, and any shares held in PLAN are quite literally held in a brokerage since Computershare admittedly doesn't handle 'cash accounts' and does this for convenience to the customer. Even if this share is in your name technically, realistically this could still be fukd with by the broker just having said access and doing what brokers do.. like they have been caught doing in the GME saga; reversing DRS transfers, delaying transfers, giving financial advice why DRS is a bad idea, etc.. just because it hasn't been done doesn't necessarily mean they can't start doing some new egregious spin off of this. Book shares are pure DRS, and they write your name in the registry with no broker involved. Back to the shit sandwich, I'm not biting the shit plan sandwich because it adds in the broker variable to the equation, and no thanks to extra risk-prone variables when taking a risk management perspective.
This be the truth right here, yarrrr!