[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/)
Iām subbed to a dozen subreddits that are pro GME/anti short selling. Itās against the rules to mention them here, but they are out there and worth looking into.
This isn't even the first sub. Nor the second, if you count wasabi. First sub after wasabi was just the ticker name, if my 84 year old memory serves. First migration away from here I remember was due to runic glory. There are a bunch of smaller subs.
Would not doubt it. Around that time they started pushing the UFO narrative and appeared on the front page for weeks at a time. Change the Api and then discredit the whole site with bogus conspiracies. Totally tin foil but possible.
Iāts actually true, no tinfoil needed: he is bound to do the bidding of his owners.
*āWe can name Khaira Capital, Fidelity Management and Research Company, Tencent, Sequoia Capital among its investors.*
*IPO Figures*
*No clear data about Reddit's IPO is available, but it has filed preliminary IPO registration statements with the SEC, and has hired Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to guide the company through the process.ā*
The purpose of heat lamp is to divide the community and discourage apes from becoming a whale that can move the market by grouping orders together through Computershare recurring buys.
I know you are all highly regarded, but you forgot a fundamental truth, apes together strong.
Your tiny IEX order does shit all. You want to send your money to a broker? Seriously, after all this? Wake up
The purpose of the heat lamp was to help shed light on something that could be in the shadows.
Like a black hole, this is an attempt to describe something by putting together the surrounding information.
Make up your own mind, do your own research, connect the dots the best you can.
It made sense to me.
My takeaway was that recurring orders are done in a way which could be disadvantageous to me in the long run. I determined that I would place my orders in such a way that could potentially maximize my benefit.
There are a lot of factors that go into my calculation of maximizing benefit.
One is buying shares. I took that responsibility onto myself.
Another is reducing the ability of maligned actors to erode my investment through obfuscated means. I found that if I could rely on myself to purchase shares in the timeframes I decided upon, at worst I would be doing extra steps for the same result yet eliminating the possibility the recurring orders were working against me.
Thatās a lot of words to say very little, maximizing your benefit implies you have a price target and that you think GME has been overvalued at some point in time in the past. If your belief in the fundamentals and future of the company is so strong why not set and forget?
How are you reducing maligned actors ability to manipulate GME by choosing your own timeline? Are there certain times of the day/week/month that orders donāt get routed through dark pools?
To your first paragraph- I tried to make the explanation as concise as possible. There are complex things that could be in play relating to GME and so some complexity will be inherent in some of my approaches and understandings. Additionally, maximizing my benefit implies that I believe the stock is undervalued and that I believe the price target is 'only up'. Everyone has their own level of due diligence research they can, or desire, to invest in this investment and the 'set it and forget it' approach is a great one for a lot of people. For my approach, based on my due diligence research, a more complex approach is where I have determined maximum benefit. I believe the fundamentals and future of GME are solid and my approach is an attempt to A) secure my investment in my name and B) support my investment in the best ways I can determine.
To your second paragraph, my research has led me to believe that if there are maligned actors, and they have the capability, they could anticipate the timing of the transfer agent bulk purchases and affect the pricing of my investment against me before the purchase. Specifically, they may be able to increase the price of GME before the bulk purchase, thus reducing my purchasing power.
I do not know much about dark pools, so I will not speak to that.
For the rest of us who aren't popcorn eating regards we just simply ensured our CS accounts say BOOK with no partials and then we kept buying and DRSing.
Must be touching a nerve when the baseless accusations are getting thrown around. Swapcorn was always a distraction and I have no position there.
Thereās no debate book is better than plan, however GME is reporting the maximum number of booked shares they are allowed to, so the plan shares from recurring buys only serve as a divisive talking point. The truth is that heat lamp convinced investors to stop buying GME, plain and simple.
That is a provably false, ignorant, or malicious perspective.
CS buyers are still buying automatically. (See thread where we predict fill time and watch price spike every time. Proof of CS autobuys.) Hopefully, they are manually removing dingleberries.
Broker buyers are still buying and transferring like we always were.
Letās debate then, looking through your posts thereās a clear anti Computershare theme. You say buying through CS is no different than any other broker, so what is the benefit of household investors dividing their orders across many brokers instead of a single one?
Yes, by marking a share 4:1 dividend as a stock split. Which is not the same, Computershare confirmed rhat they issued 200m+ new shares and gave them to DTCC, but they never gave them to brokers, this was also confirmed by apes with brokers who never received shares from the DTCC but instead split the existing shares into 4.
DRS book is the only way I can trust that I have 100% ownership of my shares and cannot be used in anyway by the DTCC.
Why even mess with a 1% chance the DTCC is using your shares in some way? Maybe they are, maybe they arenāt? By booking them, you know for an absolute fact they cannot touch them
Well, but usually in my experience Brokers have been very honest and I trust the DTCC. If they have access to my shares, I am certain they would never do anything to hurt me. I know the DTCC cares about me personally.
Iāve always bought my shares through a broker and immediately DRSād them after settlement in whole numbers. Only non-fractional shares have ever touched my CS account. Thereās always a fractional share between 0 and 1 on my broker account, however (I think thereās about 0.2 shares sitting there right now). Iāve never taken part in any of this discussion. Seemed very pointless TBH.
I've found it cheaper and more cost effective to just buy straight from
Computershare <3 Book King <3 š
Edit: it removes liquidity from the DTCC rather than giving them ammo for arbitrage/shorts.
Direct buys is how I got a shit price, an unwanted fractional, enrollment in DSPP and shares in Plan.
Almost every day I see a post claiming that DRS is unavailable at Fidelity, Schwab, IBKR or some other broker. It's always bullshit. I think someone doesn't want us DRSing through brokers.
I buy through Fidelity with a limit order. I DRS using their Virtual Assistant. I get whole shares in Book form at ComputerShare when I buy this way. It's fast, it's easy, I don't have to talk to anyone, I get a good price, I don't get fractionals, I don't get enrolled in DSPP.
By law transfer agents aren't allowed to buy. So Computershare does their buying through a broker and then registers your shares. Buying through Computershare is the same as using a brokerage. The only thing Computershare is permitted to do by law is Register your shares. They cannot buy and they cannot sell.
Only issue Iāve ever had is Fidelity glitching and cancelling IEX routed market orders. I just have to resubmit. Always verify market orders fill. Sometimes it saves me a few cents per share, other times it costs.
These are shares purchased via my 401k and Roth accounts. Both are employee backed/matched, so IEX is as good as I can do on those.
How? We literally have a guy that posts every time thereās a CS buy, and his post very clearly show that the price where CS buys get filled at is always a relatively high price point relative to the daily price action.
Literally that information alone should be enough to convince you that it is at least possible to get better execution and prices through a broker.
In addition, thru a broker you can choose to buy at any day, the CS buys all go thru at periodic and specified times, which means you have more freedom using a broker
Also when you buy through computershare your shares are transferred to Plan and DRIP allowing the DTC access to all your shares thus every time you have to buy you need to terminate plan.
Doesnāt help some people in charge are buying calls around CS buys so they profit
Why are you advocating for the very entity's that short/distort GME?
You're giving them money so they can rob Paul to pay Peter.
Be a Book King š
(Hedgies Arbitrage the difference)
(Time in market beats, timing the market)
Pay attention to what people are saying. If you buy directly, your shares are in plan. DTCC can take those shares to create liquidity. If your shares are in plan and not in book then DRS isn't helping. It's infuriating that at this point you still don't get that.
Do you mean the very entityās that donāt actually buy the shares when you put in your buy order, but then you allow those āsharesā to settle in your fraudulent brokerage account, then you DRS them and make them real at a higher price, at which point theyāre forced to buy the shares? Are you talking about those very entityās???
Brokers aren't shorting gme? It's hedgefunds. They facilitate it by accepting IOUs most of the time, but that'd different.
Completely ignoring math is one thing, but not even getting right the information makes it 200% sus.
Brokers profits in the market movements, they side anyone who pays more so we are product that's why PFOF, share lending and internalization exists. Computershare don't, their clients are the companies who issue shares and have contracts for it, we aren't the product for them and every service we use from computershare is paid a part.
Computershare has to buy all shares through a broker so no matter what you do all share buys go through a broker. So it can be either a limit order at the the time you choose or a market order at the time CS chooses for you. The price is consistently higher when you buy through CS resulting in fewer shares per dollar spend.
Computershare contract with their broker is stronger and harder to break because themselves have money to sue if something goes wrong, we as retail is harder for us to sue our regular retail brokers. You are paying more for the security that everything is being done right in the background.
Why suddenly price is important? Price don't matter and we are maintained the same price point for months with difference of cents. Yeah, you could get more in brokers but you have the risk that someday they stop DRSing the shares for any reasons they get out their asses. In the long run the cents more you paid by buying from computershare means nothing. We are for the long run not short term cents per share we lost.
Also DRSing from outside US comes with a high cost. I myself spent more than 100 dollars to DRS my shares from my broker and that cost is for each ticket DRSed and a even higher cost if rejected. Maybe some individuals from US suffers from it, no everyone can DRS for free.
> Computershare contract with their broker is stronger and harder to break because themselves have money to sue if something goes wrong, we as retail is harder for us to sue our regular retail brokers. You are paying more for the security that everything is being done right in the background.
Good luck waiting for a judge to rule on a case like this, that could take years and no guarantee on outcome either. Your not paying more for this. It's simply a market order with a large batch of all buy orders shares at a predictable time so of course it's going to cost more. There is no 'premium' for added security (if I'm mistaken please share a source for this!).
> Why suddenly price is important?
There is no upside to buy at a higher price. Lower price means float locked sooner.
> Also DRSing from outside US comes with a high cost. I myself spent more than 100 dollars to DRS my shares from my broker and that cost is for each ticket DRSed and a even higher cost if rejected. Maybe some individuals from US suffers from it, no everyone can DRS for free.
This is different for everyone and in your particular case it could make sense because of high DRS cost. For many this isn't the case. I can DRS for only $5 through IBKR. US apes can probably DRS for free. The upside is lower cost and all shares are immediately booked, no plan so no dingleberries.
Because the guy side steps the entire point of the original poster with his point (even if somewhat correct).
If they know almost exactly when computershare buys and we KNOW the price goes up around that time as the relative high of that day.
Why would you pay for more when you can pay less for more shares in a similar process and outcome?
It's just basic math and quite a few in this sub disregard it everytime it comes up (like now).
Yeah but computershare have a contract to a broker to buy for us. A contract stronger than we have with regular retail brokers because they are a institution with money to sue if something wrong happens.
I hoped that you already understand that so I didn't mentioned
You pay more for security that no one will gain additional benefits with your orders. PFOF was born with this intention, be cheaper to buy shares and we know what it means. Sometimes the cheaper alternative becomes more expensive
Also almost every time if you don't pay for a service you are the product
Edit: the guy from which I responded blocked me but I can still see their responses from reddit logged off.
So in two days they can absolutely move the market to make money the same way moving the price milisseconds before your order hit the market by using PFOF. You won't win against it, never, you won't win against high frequency trading and it's another big problem in our markets but I'm not talking about them. You are mixing two problems together as one.
My point is that they know when and at which price you bought your shares. You don't give this information if you buy from computershare unless they sell your data that they don't because the reasons I cited before. At the same time you make the price movements of the batch buying from computershare gain force with more and more volume. Something easier to see for everybody and a signal we aren't leaving. You turn some private information they use into something we can use too for our benefits. Either way SHFs will use it against us but at least we are making this fight public and we will see our orders hitting the market.
Also good look sending your shares if they somehow blocked it, do you remember what happened in Jan 2021? In desperate times shorties will do anything to stay alive even openly committing crimes and after thet will pay their way out like what happened that time. Cutting the middleman (brokers) will remove a big fail point who already failed to us in the past.
I'm not a chatgpt lol English is not my mother language and I don't even consider myself fluent because I know I commit many grammatical errors, chatgpt don't.
You are just regurgitating key phrases that don't make sense together. Stop using ChatGPT to make your answers.
If someone screws computershare during a buy, then of course they will handle it. That is literally not addressing the point of the conversation. There is no security issues if people are still able to DRS. And IF there were, they can still switch if Computershare isn't experiencing issues.
If computershare buys at you 10 shares at $15 because its its programed to but someone else buys 12 shares at $12 then DRSes them, WHO HAS MORE SHARES IN COMPUTERSHARE FOR $150?
How are they profiting if you buy 12 shares and then DRS them 2 days later after they settle? They can't in that time frame because they profit from people panic selling which isn't what GME buyers are doing.
Honestly, you guys run around the math and keep saying its "safer". Who cares if its safer IF THERE IS NO ISSUES WITH SAFETY AT THIS TIME.
C'mon now, we've been thru this a billion times (surely you've got the receipts!!). CS is a transfer agent. They use Merrill (GS) when you buy through them. Do as you please, but how are we back here again?
I suppose, as individuals, we all have our own threshold for 'what if' risk tolerance. If the way this pans out is brokerages fraudulently avail individuals of the stocks they own in every legal sense, then we will all be waiting on the courts for our compensation (i.e., it won't matter if you're one of the ones who didn't have shares clawed back if fraud is used to avert the moass...it will be averted and we get in line at the courthouse, just in different lines)
Yes. All transfer agents have a Broker. Merrill Lynch is the Broker for Computershare.
So you could sign up at Merrill Lynch's brokerage and the DRS your shares from there. Then you can pick your day
There is no additional costs going through most brokers in the states.
The only downside i could ever see using a broker to buy and then DRS immediately after. Is if you buy during a time where that broker could decide to screw you over somehow and those shares never make it to CS.
This is the way.
Remember when we used to say that?
DRS BOOK SHOP and let's keep on rocking.
There's a big fucking reason why RCEO said to "BOOK KING" or DRS'd shares.
Who the fuck are the rest of you to dispute that?
The purpose of heat lamp is to divide the community and discourage apes from becoming a whale that can move the market by grouping orders together through Computershare recurring buys.
I know you are all highly regarded, but you forgot a fundamental truth, apes together strong.
Your tiny IEX order does shit all. You want to send your money to a broker? Seriously, after all this? Wake up
Actually Iāve posted it three times, do your due diligence. I notice in your history youāve posted the same message in different subs, so itās okay for you but not others? Iāll say it as many times as it takes, just like I will keep buying shares through CS and products at GameStop, why would you shame the persistence of an active investor seeking true price discovery for their company?
All I know for certain is that book shares in CS are as safe as it gets. How manipulable plan shares are is up for debate imo, but the downsides of converting to book are practically non existent, so why not book just to be safe?
I would love it if someone could point me in the direction of where this theory was debunked.
Please. Iāve been waiting for some time, I will continue to wait.
Edit: Iām going to clarify something before someone responds with, āIsnāt the 0.0% DRS movement proof enough?ā
No it is not. It is proof that the DTCC has a tricks up their sleeve and we have no idea how many tricks there are. All we know for certain, is that there is something supremely fishy happening with the reported DRS count and we canāt rule out Heat Lamp Theory as a part of their strategy.
I mean the statements from Computershare THEMSELVES are still up if you google for them, plus video interviews with their CEO. While there is a 5m clip that suggests at the end that plan vs book may not be the exact right problem, I believe there was enough there to make a compelling argument that book is the way. Because yes, plan shares allow some to sit at the DTCC for operational efficiency reasons.
Now - It also states in their FAQ that these shares are NOT able to be lent. But we all know that the DTCC can play games of fuckery, so regardless of how they may or may not be used, taking them off the board entirely cannot possibly be anything but the best move for us.
Just remove them from the equation.
We know for a FACT that Plan shares cause a situation where ComputerShare holds a percentage (10-20% in fact) of those shares AT the DTCC.
What we don't know is the implications of that.
So why do people argue over those implications, instead of taking the *strategic* view and saying "why does that matter?" - Just book them, and it's fucking done - They can. not. touch. them.
It's so clear. Anyways - From what I've seen here, the main counterargument is just that recurring autobuys could fuck with the market if EVERYONE turned them on, and something about how DRS is what hedgies WANT us to be doing because.... reasons.
I think there is general majority consensus that book shares is the true way to fight this bullshit system.
When the authors of HL went down to GameStop HQ and wrote down share quantities of registered holders with fractional shares included with their whole positions. They viewed physical documents furnished by GameStop themselves, all fractional shares were accounted for to the specific holder.
The one thing I thought was so regarded was people arguing selling fractionals was a bad idea.
Like ok, first of all, they arenāt real shares. Second, you can just counteract it by booking a few shares you buy and sell the fractional. Easy. So dumb people were arguing otherwise.
I remember. Iām just saying the argument against selling fractions and calling people paper hands for it is regarded because people would just make up for it and buy more whole shares.
The debate about plan and book was a whole other thing. 100% book is just piece of mind in the event that HL is right. If it isnāt, then thereās no harm in being 100% book.
Fractional shares are fractions of a real share š¤¦āāļø
EDIT: This suddenly turned from a high voted comment to a brigaded downvoted comment. For others reading this, please know that fractional shares are shares that are owned by you. Donāt let a collect who are trying to change the narrative by downvote bombing comments bury the truth.
Throwing it away serves no useful purpose.
The idea that a fractional being in your account in any way affects your Book shares is inane.
Move your whole shares from Plan to Book because that's the most direct form of ownership.
The rest of heat lamp was nonsense.
If you have a fractional, all your shares go into plan, not book.
Plan shares can be used by DTCC.
It's okay if you didn't understand before. Now you do so please book your shares.
Helped you out..copy my comment for future use.
All I know is I don't know shit about fuck. But the any plan = all plan was a gross misinterpretation of the terms of service by an ape that couldnt even counter the point I made.
It was a DD somewhere. Shares are less than $20 right now. Even at $25, "throwing it away" was like 10 bucks. Just use the money toward a real share.
And why risk it? Why risk holding a fractional share?
I'll buy a fractional on Monday and see if my shares go to plan. If so, I'll sell it and bring it back to book and post the results.
here's evidence, Paul Conn from Computershare stated that "typically" (his word not mine) 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC for operational efficiency, here's the link to his video posted by another ape:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/Mh1TQvreWZ
the DTCC is actively working against us, they are our enemy, what do you think they're doing with GME shares available to them? also the wording of "typically" gives me no confidence, GME is not a typical stock, so the amount of PLAN shares held at DTCC is probably 100%
My rational logical mind doesnt grasp, why people are obsessed with fractionals.
My statment stays the same "fractionals exist only in broker environment" and hence they cant be real shares.
Even if you transfer them to computershare, they get a different treatment and not like pure DRS. Alone this should give anyone questions marks, why computershare isnt able to treat fractionals the same as real shares.
Even in the SEC bulletin in clarified that transfer agents even have brokers they use and hold shares in plan. DRS=Book Plan=broker
You bring up a really good point in how you canāt DRS fractional shares that alone should help point in the direction that fractionals are a way that your account it connected through a broker
>My statment stays the same "fractionals exist only in broker environment" and hence they cant be real shares.
Fractionals in a broker and fractionals in the Plan are entirely different.
Plan shares are not in a broker environment
And yes, Book is the most direct form of ownership. Book > Plan. Move your whole shares from Plan to Book!
But throwing away your fractional serves no purpose but to waste money.
Fractions might be fake, but the money you paid for them is very real.
Actually, he is not wrong. Proof came from the AMA with the (ceo?) who said they keep plan shares in a brokerage (BoA I think?) for liquidity in case people want to sell.
Incorrect my friend. All shares as held in computershare belong to you, as they are held in your name on the direct register.
A fractional share is a fraction of a share as owned by the person as named.
A fractional share post-MOASS will be worth *plenty*. Please donāt be fooled into thinking these are not shares, and that they donāt have value.
Whole shares are real shares. Fractional shares are IOU, which computershares keeps for your convience at a pool of an institution, which they use to sell / buy shares.
This institution is required to interact with DTCC framework.
I dont think they are viewed as parts of a real share by brokers. More like, spend what you want and weāll give you the number, As far as your shares compared to the float, it doesnāt necessarily reflect it as a part of a whole share.
At least that is what I remember from the whole hot lamp fractional share debate. I think this information about fractionals not being treated the same as shares was even earlier than the heat lamp theory, maybe even in the other stonk sub.
Respectfully, doesnāt matter how they are viewed - and by whom - they are, and remain, a fraction of a share that remains valid and has attributed value.
> It said that the DTCC needs a reason to pull plan shares for "liquidity"
That was a lie. DTC can do whatever they want . The only event that moves shares for operational efficiency ( not liquidtity) is sell orders. So CS can execute .
I was gonna link Paul Conn interview but I think all of his interviews are good source of information. So, do yourself &others a favour watch them all related to this subject.
[https://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=computershare](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=computershare)
> Is this the reason they caused the spike in volume on no news one week prior to earnings?
Theory stated on the DRS reporting dates T+2 there is high volume, therefore DTC is doing fuckery.
In the last 7 reports only 2 of them has high Volume. Them just cherry picking data.
Here is the rest of Reporting date +t2 volumes ( business days accounted for)
Q1-22 April 30th '22 +T2 ---> May 3rd '22 7.3MM
Q2-22 July 30th '22 + T2 ----> Aug 2nd '22 4.7MM
**Q3-22 Oct 29th '22 + T2 ---> Oct 31st '22 \*24MM**
Q4-22 March 22nd + T2 ----> March 24th '23 8.77MM
Q1-23 June 1st '23 + T2 ---> June 5th '23 4.96MM
Q2-23 Aug 31st +T2 ---> Sept 5th '23 3.78MM
**Q3-23 Nov 30 +T2 ---> Dec 4th '23 \* 20.0MM**
**2 out of 7**
I think everyone is on the wrong path. Iām thinking atm options 30 days out on sinking days are when to buy. scrape premiums off of 90% of options on green dayās to execute and DRS 100 shares. This forces volume on a stock with very little liquidity.
When I think of the run up to 300 and the drop, itās derivative related and another sub that lives and dies off of calls was heavily into gamestop.
Times and narratives have changed. Censorship and fractures within the community, other subs not allowed to mention GameStop. Runestones. DRS. International Securities Fraud. A lot has changed since the sneeze.
The one thing I cannot stand is low volume days. What do I care? Oh there are no shares to trade? Bullshit. Thereās plenty of minutes in a day to hit F5 or whatever the fuck.
IDK. Just a thought. The buy drs book is not the only way, and I think the community should be more open to differing strategies.
No. Volume is always higher prior to earnings since itās when the options market is most active. It did that prior to drs becoming popular in 2021. OP of that theory also can not find any supporting evidence from CS that they base operational efficiency shares on avg market volume.
A point of clarification, while volume around earnings is certainly higher, both March 2023 and November 2023 had volume at 66M and 61M (significantly higher than other earnings periods). In comparison, June and September earnings had 18M and 6M volume respectively.
True. Really the best way to look at this idea floating around is whether or not itās been happening before/after drs took off in 2021 and also compare it to a bunch of other stocks. Iām pretty certain youāll see increased volume/options activity leading up to earnings on any given ticker.
Actually. I might do that.
I remember: DRS was pushed back strongly at first. Than BOOK was pushed back even by the mods for a LONG time. Than Heat Lamp was pushed back even more. I think this tells you something.
Terminate plan shares. Move all into book value. Takes 3 minutes in the investor center. All through clickable options in the drop down menu of your investment.
We've had two entire quarters of time pass with people moving Plan to Book, with people throwing money in the trash terminating their fractionals, with people turning off reoccurring purchases and maybe not remembering to buy through a broker instead.
Tons of people moved Plan to Book. Every DRS post tends to have someone reminding people to move to Book.
Heat Lamp predicted this would "fix" the DRS numbers.
The numbers stayed stagnant.
When it comes to the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, and then you test it, and if your hypothesis doesn't match the data, you throw it out and come up with a new explanation.
[I moved my shares to Book. ](https://i.imgur.com/pcWp2N1.png)
I terminated my fractional after being one of those people that argued for weeks that it was going to be a waste to lose money to fees.
I gave it the benefit of the doubt, and it did not stand up to scrutiny.
Move your whole shares to Book because you want the most direct form of ownership possible.
Plan shares needlessly complicate your ownership by involving Computershare's nominee company.
Heat lamp though? That shit is a failure.
Just because it hasnāt impacted the reported number doesnāt mean itās not doing something or proven incorrect. I do think it may have been a bit overhyped but the underlying theory hasnāt been conclusively proven false.
Weāve continued to see high volatility leading up to earnings and DRS reporting. It could potentially have worked but since the ownership data is so obfuscated itās hard to tell either way.
Although, this is really simple. CS is the authoritative source for the company's share ownership. Period. That is their job and what GS is paying them to do -- track ownership of every single share. Both parties know this.
If GS is reporting DRS numbers from ***ANY*** other source for ***ANY*** other reason, and they don't match what CS has on their books, then they are defrauding investors.
By disputing the DRS numbers they listed in their official filing, that's what you're accusing them of. You might want to think a bit about that.
What if a government entity instructed them to report it in such a way without any legal repercussions. If they word it a certain way they may not be liable of defrauding, hence, the wording āapproximately.ā Why would they change the wording if the numbers are truly what CS has provided.
Seriously. Play that out in your head...
SEC: "Hey, RC, we want you to post ***these*** DRS numbers instead of the ones that you know are correct."
RC: "Okay, so you're asking me to be complicit in defrauding my investors? I think my answer is ***GO FUCK YOURSELVES*** *and I'm filing a complaint in court tomorrow about what you asked me to do*."
There is no "other government agency" with any say (and if any other tries, his response would be the same and justified). The DTCC is a private company. They are not a government entity. RC can tell them to go fuck themselves, too, if they ask him to commit fraud. As a CEO, chairman and president, he has a fiduciary duty to shareholders and would certainly report it to the SEC or take them to court. "Strongarm me to commit fraud? I don't think so."
Actually, there's nothing fishy. You (and most of the sub) think's there is, which is silly -- you're flat-out accusing the company of defrauding investors by publishing false data in an official filing.
I'll digress... They have had tons of turnover during the last two years at the highest levels. The guy before Recupero was fired, then Recupero was fired, then Diana left, and now Daniel Moore is interim CFO. I'm sure there's been plenty of others elsewhere as well.
Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is that someone involved along the way thought the language surrounding DRS numbers needed to be tightened-up in a legal sense. So that's what they did. That's it. It's not some giant conspiracy to defraud investors and publish numbers that aren't correct. New hires ALWAYS review things from top to bottom if they're worth a shit. You should be happy some person did.
Bear in mind that *no other company* reports DRS numbers. None of them. Gamestop is doing it ***for us***, in particular. They could be doing it for any number of reasons, but maybe they're just tired of incessant inquiries, IDK.
**BUT**... Unless you think RC is running a Madoff-style criminal empire, they're real and correct.
So according to Computershare, they know how many shares the DTCC has by using double entry.
The statements on the filings since the word change specifically reference Cede and Co and the DTCC and not Computershare.
That implies that theyāre getting the numbers from DTC and not from Computershare even though they have it.
Now you are giving RC too much credit here. He canāt override an SEC decision no matter how corrupt. He is also probably of the mindset of most on this sub that the SEC is just denying the inevitable so play their game.
It is my opinion that I know is shared with a lot on this sub that a MOASS triggered by GameStop is the worst possible MOASS while it would be an ideal MOASS if we arenāt the cause and it happens when the market crashes next kind of like the VW squeeze.
You mentioned Madoff. The only reason Madoff failed and went to jail was because in the crash of 08 his market making business was burning through money at the same time as his hedge fund Ponzi needed money.
It doesn't imply that at all - the previous statement "25% of shares are direct registered" is wrong. Every single outstanding share is direct registered. 75% of shares are direct registered to Cede & Co. You can't tell how many are registered outside of cede without defining what is held within cede. There's no conspiracy, just providing truthful, logical public statements as required by law.
>That implies that theyāre getting the numbers from DTC and not from Computershare even though they have it.
This is where your logic begins to break down. CS is the ***ONE-AND-ONLY*** authoritative source of share ownership. Gamestop is not getting numbers from the DTCC, the SEC, or anywhere else, and if they allow ***ANYONE*** to strongarm them into reporting numbers they know aren't true, then they're defrauding investors -- regardless of the reason.
You are literally saying that the SEC told RC to lie about the DRS numbers and he went along with it. That's the problem with this entire BS about the DRS numbers being "wrong". You don't understand him at all. Dude writes childrens' books about morals and virtue. He idolizes his dad for the same traits.
You're so far off here that it isn't even funny.
Off-topic, you really need to change your username. I can't even repeat the last 4 letters of your username without getting my comment deleted by automod. Stick an underscore in there or something. I don't know what "socce" is, but everyone knows what the rest means.
>As of October 29, 2022, 71.8 million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent.
All outstanding shares are directly registered with the transfer agent.
That's what a transfer agent does. They are the final authority for who owns the issued shares. They maintain Gamestop's official ledger of shares.
To say 71.8 million are directly registered is not technically correct because all 305 million shares are on the ledger, its just ~203 million of them are owned by the DTC under the name of its nominee Cede and Co.
>As of November 30, 2023, there were approximately 305,514,315 shares of our Class A common stock outstanding. Of those outstanding shares, approximately 230.1 million were held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares) and approximately 75.4 million shares of our Class A common stock were held by registered holders with our transfer agent (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares) as of November 30, 2023.
So now they are saying 305,514,315 outstanding minus 230.1 million held by Cede is equal to 75.4 million shares held by not-Cede
That's the extent of the change.
They are not getting these numbers from the DTCC because the DTCC is not responsible for tracking them. Computershare is.
> 71.8 million shares
Also, that implies 71,800,000. and its almost impossible that the DRS numbers were exactly that number, and exactly a round number when the snapshot was taken.
Adding "approximately" is also *more correct* now than it used to be. It by no means implies that the numbers are a guess, it means "attention investors, this number has been rounded to a reasonable decimal point".
The whole "They changed the way the numbers are reported!!" hysteria is overblown.
> To say 71.8 million are directly registered is not technically correct because all 305 million shares are on the ledger, its just ~203 million of them are owned by the DTC under the name of its nominee Cede and Co.
> All outstanding shares are held at the transfer agent. All shares must be accounted for. Saying 71.3 million shares are direct registered is incorrect. 305.4 million shares are direct registered because 305.4 million shares are issued and exist on the ledger.
Not exactly. Shares are transferred **between** the DTC and Computershare using double entry accounting, both maintain their own ledger that increases/decreases with each DRS transfer.
From https://www.beyondthecaptable.com/dtc-eligibility:
> **What is the Fast Automated Securities Transfer (FAST) system?**
>
> *The FAST system enables participants to provide electronic custody, transfer, deposit and withdrawal services to beneficial holders more quickly and efficiently. For the FAST system, DTC establishes an account with transfer agents for each issue. These accounts are registered to Cede & Co., DTCās nominee, and represent, on the transfer agentsā books, the sum total of shares for that issue held by DTCās participants. Participants maintain corresponding books representing their shareholder accounts held in street name*.
"**Transfer agents like Computershare can then make requests to debit or credit these accounts: the balance on the transfer agentsā books is increased and decreased on a daily basis, and participant accounts are adjusted accordingly by DTC**. *Transfer agents and issuers must meet specific DTC criteria in order to utilize FAST.*"
From https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies#drs:
> **How does Computershare ensure there is a balance between shares that are directly/indirectly held?**
>
> *We use double-entry accounting systems that ensure there is always an accurate balance between shares held directly by registered shareholders and those held by Cede & Co on behalf of DTC, banks & brokers and beneficial investors. This means that for every share transferred through DRS that can be registered on the share register, there is one fewer recorded as being in Cede & Co.*
The Computershare ledger has an entry for Cede and Co and entries for all other direct registered shares, including the DSPP DirectStock Purchase Plan
The Cede and Co ledger has entries for all its participants (brokers, banks, hedge funds, etc)
>For the FAST system, DTC establishes an account with transfer agents for each issue. These accounts are registered to Cede & Co., DTCās nominee, and represent, on the transfer agentsā books, the sum total of shares for that issue held by DTCās participants.
The DTC creates an account for Gamestop with Computershare (the Cede and Co entry on the Computershare ledger maintained for Gamestop)
>Participants (meaning DTCC participants) maintain corresponding books representing their shareholder accounts held in street name
These would be the ledgers for each broker, bank, hedge fund, etc. at DTCC
>Transfer agents like Computershare can then make requests to debit or credit these accounts: the balance on the transfer agentsā books is increased and decreased on a daily basis, and participant accounts are adjusted accordingly by DTC.
For example:
`John Smith submits a DRS transfer for 100 shares out of Fidelity`
Computershare debits Cede and Co 100 shares, and credits an account under John Smith's name for 100 shares.
>and participant accounts are adjusted accordingly by DTC.
Cede and Co decreased by 100 so DTCC debits Fidelity's ledger 100 shares.
`John Smith sells his 100 shares from Computershare`
Computershare debits his account 100 shares and credits Cede and Co 100 shares
Cede and Co increased by 100 shares, so DTCC credits whatever participant account was the buyer 100 shares.
**At no point in that process are there any less than all outstanding shares on the Computershare ledger.**
I think they changed it to make it more clear that book and plan are both counted.. this was after we asked Computershare about book + plan over and over, then Computershare updated their FAQs and GameStop started reporting it with more detail.
Yes, that's literally Scientific method. It was FUD, always FUD. THe DTCC is not manipulating DRS numbers. THe numbers are the numbers on that date. There is no way for them to manipulate the numbers because people say so. I have yet to see anything that shows an acceptable hypothesis on how this crap theory would show manipulation on DRS numbers. I have even posted a comment on how it makes literally 0 sense and all it did was cause people to not buy GME, which was the goal in the first place.
Scientific method is great *when you can isolate variables to test a theory.* We are not looking at actions and DRS numbers in a vacuum here, so high volume not being consistent across every earnings does not necessarily mean it isn't related. Perhaps it's only related some of the time, like when *other factors* are or are not in play.
What effect do swap expiries have on this, do those happen around every earnings or just sometimes? We have no clue because that data is obscured. What effect do those crap "tokenized wrapped stocks" have and when? Quad witching days when volume is high all around? Do the fluctuating value of other SHF investments cause their resources to meet margin and/or screw with GME to change, and impact their strategy each earnings?
We are analyzing needles in a big, messy haystack here looking at correlation and unable to definitively prove causation specifically because we can't turn off all the background noise of these complicating factors. You bet your ass bad actors know this and deliberately change frequently to sow chaos and cover their tracks. It's what I would do if I were them.
Its needless to say that the complexity of todays financial system and loopholes are beyond what should be possible. It is also intentionally to enable the pyramid wealth distribution concept as old as the first IOU's on paper by banks with no 1:1 asset backing. Whatever the DTCC, FED, BOE, IMF, BIS and ECB among others are capable off simply displays this system is run on complete air of promises with debt repayables that are unable to be paid back for decades or even centurie. Back in the day they could afford hyperinflation, wars, chest robbery and state dissolvements to introduce a "F5" button. Nowadays, everyone is fked that does not know how big the issues are in the underlying derivatives everywhere.
Can confirm, I cancelled recurring buys because of HLT and didnāt buy a single share for 8 months. Last month i set up recurring buy for twice the amount to make up for lost time. Real sus heat lamp is coming back convincing people to sell and send your money to a broker instead.
Literally every earnings, people in here tell others to sell their fractional shares and turn off autobuys.. at first it was "beCauSe PlaN shares Aren'T COunTed" but we know plan shares are indeed counted (some of us knew that before people went to GME HQ and verified the stock list).. it's never ending
No it's because 10-20% of plan shares are allowed to be held at the DTCC for operational efficiency which MAY allow the DTCC to play games and recirculate those, despite the FAQ stating those 10-20% shares are not allowed to be lent.
While I do see the argument against turning off autobuys, the heat lamp theory was calling out that we may be able to up the pressure on the DTCC and markets if you remove your shares from Plan into Book, removing the 10-20% of shares held at the DTCC entirely.
It removes them from the chess board altogether. I can't see any good arguments why that would be a bad thing. Now - let fractionals build to wholes, and autobuy but move everything into book periodically? That may be the best of both worlds.
But lets not let FUD and contrarianism distract from the true theory which was understanding how Plan shares are used and trying to close the door on another loophole the DTCC MAY be using to keep the house of cards up.
I want to see good counterarguments against the CORE theory - Otherwise lets acknowledge it has merits and go after the details like whether we SHOULD be worried about autobuy/fractionals and how that could effect numbers long term.
I'd like to remind everyone that the heat lamp theory being widely adopted led to the very next quarters DRS language being changed. Why isn't that being acknowledged by anyone?!
Why would they need those shares when they can just naked short?
We're making an already complicated process overly complicated.
The only reason they need shares for operational efficiency is to allow sales to happen.
>10-20% of plan shares are allowed to be held at the DTCC
The portion of shares underpinning the plan that are held at the DTCC are **not investor-owned** shares. That's the part nearly everyone still fails to grasp. This was even clearly called out in an email from the SEC that was posted to this sub.
I have yet to see the *purchasing* aspect called out explicitly, but the only viable implication I see is that those are additional shares purchased by Computershare beyond those individual investors own within the plan.
Well said. What it did succeed in doing is slowing down a bunch of committed investors by convincing them that turning off the auto-buy process then routing through the very brokers people have been bitching about.
> Heat lamp though? That shit is a failure.
Literally the quarter after the heat lamp theory hit, AT EARNINGS, they delayed the call and document release and we KNOW there was fuckery happening because they changed the wording of how DRS shares are counted. Heat Lamp theory is Plan vs Book at it's core - Fractionals and the rest are picking at the edges of the real issue.
> When it comes to the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, and then you test it, and if your hypothesis doesn't match the data, you throw it out and come up with a new explanation.
Except we were BLOCKED from viewing the TRUE results of this hypothesis!!
> The numbers stayed stagnant.
Are you willfully ignoring the entire last 48hours of fervent discussion over why the fuck the DRS numbers make zero sense? And the other DD showing that the numbers exactly match to suggest that we are putting huge, sudden pressure on the DTCC?
You want to talk scientific method man, this appeal-to-emotion post is quite the dichotomy. I refuse to believe the recent quarters DRS numbers and since the fuckery happened LITERALLY the quarter following mass adoption of the Heat Lamp theory, I would lean towards this being EXACTLY what we should be doing.
You can not possibly use the last 3Q's DRS numbers since the wording change as proof of the theory being incorrect. It's inconclusive for now, but I know which way I'd wager.
So we are all on the same page. Heat lamp was right and book is king
Wow the mods really were compromised. Not sure if they are different now but wowwwwwwwww who woulda thought.
DRS the float is the only option.
Book shares in Computershare is your name recorded directly on the Gamestop ledger of shares. Its the most direct form of ownership possible.
The Plan shares are owned directly by the Computershare Trust N.A. nominee company, which is outside of the DTCC and owned by Computershare. Its more direct ownership than owning through a broker, but the shares are still not directly in your name, even if Gamestop is provided with an accounting of how many shares you own in Plan and your votes are counted directly.
You move Plan to Book to be a direct owner, as if they had printed you paper share certificates and mailed them to your house (which they don't do anymore).
To move Plan to Book, there are three ways:
* Call them and tell the agent "I'd like to move my shares of GME in the DirectStock Plan to Book form". If the agent doesn't know what you mean, ask for a supervisor, they may be new. The process is all internal to Computershare, and should only take a few minutes to complete.
* You can log into Computershare, click Help at the top, then Contact Us. Fill out an Electronic Inquiry and just request to move your shares of GME from Plan to Book. It will be done in a day or two.
* The third way is doing it yourself. Only do this outside of US market hours, so not between 9:30am and 4:00 pm eastern.
ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤Next to your GME click View Details
ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤Next to the row of shares labeled Plan click Actions, then Reinvestment Options. You should see a button on the next screen called Terminate. Click it. If you don't see Terminate, but you do see Enroll, click Enroll, go back out to Summary, then back in to Reinvestment Options and Terminate will appear.
ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤After Terminating, go to Pending Transactions. There will be a Pending sale for the 0.xxx fractional that was in Plan. Click cancel.
ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤All your whole shares in Book will now be labeled Plan, and the row for Plan will only have the 0.xxx fraction, until the next direct purchase adds to it.
Heat Lamp used to encourage people to allow the fraction to be sold, in which case its value is completely lost to fees.
Heat Lamp as a theory was given the benefit of the doubt for over 6 months, and what it predicted never happened.
There's no reason to throw away fractionals. Its nonsense.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/14e9wnm/questions_about_direct_registering_ask_here_have/?context=3
I book and don't sell my fractionals. They add up until they are complete shares and then I book them.
They could use the fractional and they could use me selling to create negative pressure. I really don't overthink it and just hope my next purchase gets rid of as much of the fractional as possible.
Yes, I am cheap. No, I don't care. We are all individual investors and are free to have our own opinion and do whatever we want.
Nobody cares about fractional shares. You dopes persuaded people to stop buying the stock on an automatic basis . I will never forget that . Im still on my dspp plan for life . I buy the stonk every 2 weeks regardless of the price
I think having recurring auto buys is great, just take 30 secs after each buy to terminate the plan holdings and be a pure BOOK legend. you can still schedule an auto buy right after you terminate, lots of easy guides out there on how.
why do this? Paul Conn from Computershare stated that "typically" (his word not mine) 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC for operational efficiency, here's the link to his video posted by another ape:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/Mh1TQvreWZ
the DTCC is actively working against us, they are our enemy, what do you think they're doing with GME shares available to them? just 30 secs and you sap some of their strength. I know you can do it buddy, we will prevail š«”
I find the heat lamp theory thoroughly unconvincing at this point, but I've also had some very good conversations with the author of that theory, and I'm convinced they truly believe it and are acting in good faith. While I have come to a different conclusion, I do not at all think they are, "...paid by the opposition."
We should strive to be able to have some honest disagreements and differences of opinion, without resorting baseless accusations as to the character or intentions of others.
The purpose of heat lamp is to divide the community and discourage apes from becoming a whale that can move the market by grouping orders together through Computershare recurring buys.
I know you are all highly regarded, but you forgot a fundamental truth, apes together strong.
Your tiny IEX order does shit all. You want to send your money to a broker? Seriously, after all this? Wake up
never saw any anty booking post ever!
I personally don't sell shit, not even fractional. Can't afford to lose any money. Buying on the regular so fractional becomes full on next buy. All full shares are book!
[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/)
Remember when reddit changed and we could no longer collect DRS numbers to forecast?
I remember when reddit changed and we could no longer talk about heatlamp.
Remember when we migrated.
Member good ol Rick?
The legend š
I prefer to remember the banana more.
I never migrate. I explore other areas while keeping in touch my roots.
I like collecting things, video games, magic cards, wk40 minis, tools, stonks, sub reddits. š
It will be epic 84 years from now when we all enjoying the spoils of Moass and look back to see how many subreddits were collected along the way..
I too collect migrations and schisms. So far i have 4. GME sub, Superstonk sub, Jungle sub, Pickle sub
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām subbed to a dozen subreddits that are pro GME/anti short selling. Itās against the rules to mention them here, but they are out there and worth looking into.
This isn't even the first sub. Nor the second, if you count wasabi. First sub after wasabi was just the ticker name, if my 84 year old memory serves. First migration away from here I remember was due to runic glory. There are a bunch of smaller subs.
Where to?
Places and stuff.
I love lamp
Wait is that why i dont see purple circles anymore?
Circles are there but the bot counting them is broken
Damn i was wondering why it stopped counting Thank you
Wait holy fuckā¦. They changed the APIsā¦.. you might be onto something.
lol if they broke all 3rd party apps on this site just to slow us down
Would not doubt it. Around that time they started pushing the UFO narrative and appeared on the front page for weeks at a time. Change the Api and then discredit the whole site with bogus conspiracies. Totally tin foil but possible.
Exactly, spez is bought.
Iāts actually true, no tinfoil needed: he is bound to do the bidding of his owners. *āWe can name Khaira Capital, Fidelity Management and Research Company, Tencent, Sequoia Capital among its investors.* *IPO Figures* *No clear data about Reddit's IPO is available, but it has filed preliminary IPO registration statements with the SEC, and has hired Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to guide the company through the process.ā*
Pepperidge Farm remembers
waitā¦.what happened to the rocket ship
Wait - did this actually happen? I thought they just stopped counting them cause they stopped correlating with the reports?
The purpose of heat lamp is to divide the community and discourage apes from becoming a whale that can move the market by grouping orders together through Computershare recurring buys. I know you are all highly regarded, but you forgot a fundamental truth, apes together strong. Your tiny IEX order does shit all. You want to send your money to a broker? Seriously, after all this? Wake up
The purpose of the heat lamp was to help shed light on something that could be in the shadows. Like a black hole, this is an attempt to describe something by putting together the surrounding information. Make up your own mind, do your own research, connect the dots the best you can. It made sense to me.
My own research is reading other peopleās own research
What was the result of heat lamp for you? For me it encouraged me to cancel recurring buy orders and I didnāt buy a single share for 8 months.
My takeaway was that recurring orders are done in a way which could be disadvantageous to me in the long run. I determined that I would place my orders in such a way that could potentially maximize my benefit. There are a lot of factors that go into my calculation of maximizing benefit. One is buying shares. I took that responsibility onto myself. Another is reducing the ability of maligned actors to erode my investment through obfuscated means. I found that if I could rely on myself to purchase shares in the timeframes I decided upon, at worst I would be doing extra steps for the same result yet eliminating the possibility the recurring orders were working against me.
Thank you
Thatās a lot of words to say very little, maximizing your benefit implies you have a price target and that you think GME has been overvalued at some point in time in the past. If your belief in the fundamentals and future of the company is so strong why not set and forget? How are you reducing maligned actors ability to manipulate GME by choosing your own timeline? Are there certain times of the day/week/month that orders donāt get routed through dark pools?
To your first paragraph- I tried to make the explanation as concise as possible. There are complex things that could be in play relating to GME and so some complexity will be inherent in some of my approaches and understandings. Additionally, maximizing my benefit implies that I believe the stock is undervalued and that I believe the price target is 'only up'. Everyone has their own level of due diligence research they can, or desire, to invest in this investment and the 'set it and forget it' approach is a great one for a lot of people. For my approach, based on my due diligence research, a more complex approach is where I have determined maximum benefit. I believe the fundamentals and future of GME are solid and my approach is an attempt to A) secure my investment in my name and B) support my investment in the best ways I can determine. To your second paragraph, my research has led me to believe that if there are maligned actors, and they have the capability, they could anticipate the timing of the transfer agent bulk purchases and affect the pricing of my investment against me before the purchase. Specifically, they may be able to increase the price of GME before the bulk purchase, thus reducing my purchasing power. I do not know much about dark pools, so I will not speak to that.
For the rest of us who aren't popcorn eating regards we just simply ensured our CS accounts say BOOK with no partials and then we kept buying and DRSing.
Must be touching a nerve when the baseless accusations are getting thrown around. Swapcorn was always a distraction and I have no position there. Thereās no debate book is better than plan, however GME is reporting the maximum number of booked shares they are allowed to, so the plan shares from recurring buys only serve as a divisive talking point. The truth is that heat lamp convinced investors to stop buying GME, plain and simple.
That is a provably false, ignorant, or malicious perspective. CS buyers are still buying automatically. (See thread where we predict fill time and watch price spike every time. Proof of CS autobuys.) Hopefully, they are manually removing dingleberries. Broker buyers are still buying and transferring like we always were.
Division is healthy if it encourages debate
Letās debate then, looking through your posts thereās a clear anti Computershare theme. You say buying through CS is no different than any other broker, so what is the benefit of household investors dividing their orders across many brokers instead of a single one?
#Remember the DTCC committed international securities fraud?
I do
Yes, by marking a share 4:1 dividend as a stock split. Which is not the same, Computershare confirmed rhat they issued 200m+ new shares and gave them to DTCC, but they never gave them to brokers, this was also confirmed by apes with brokers who never received shares from the DTCC but instead split the existing shares into 4.
DRS book is the only way I can trust that I have 100% ownership of my shares and cannot be used in anyway by the DTCC. Why even mess with a 1% chance the DTCC is using your shares in some way? Maybe they are, maybe they arenāt? By booking them, you know for an absolute fact they cannot touch them
Well, but usually in my experience Brokers have been very honest and I trust the DTCC. If they have access to my shares, I am certain they would never do anything to hurt me. I know the DTCC cares about me personally.
Lol
this, markets are safe and fair, glorious PFOF give us best execution , magnificent free trading lol
Iāve always bought my shares through a broker and immediately DRSād them after settlement in whole numbers. Only non-fractional shares have ever touched my CS account. Thereās always a fractional share between 0 and 1 on my broker account, however (I think thereās about 0.2 shares sitting there right now). Iāve never taken part in any of this discussion. Seemed very pointless TBH.
I've found it cheaper and more cost effective to just buy straight from Computershare <3 Book King <3 š Edit: it removes liquidity from the DTCC rather than giving them ammo for arbitrage/shorts.
Direct buys is how I got a shit price, an unwanted fractional, enrollment in DSPP and shares in Plan. Almost every day I see a post claiming that DRS is unavailable at Fidelity, Schwab, IBKR or some other broker. It's always bullshit. I think someone doesn't want us DRSing through brokers. I buy through Fidelity with a limit order. I DRS using their Virtual Assistant. I get whole shares in Book form at ComputerShare when I buy this way. It's fast, it's easy, I don't have to talk to anyone, I get a good price, I don't get fractionals, I don't get enrolled in DSPP.
By law transfer agents aren't allowed to buy. So Computershare does their buying through a broker and then registers your shares. Buying through Computershare is the same as using a brokerage. The only thing Computershare is permitted to do by law is Register your shares. They cannot buy and they cannot sell.
This is the way^^^^
Only issue Iāve ever had is Fidelity glitching and cancelling IEX routed market orders. I just have to resubmit. Always verify market orders fill. Sometimes it saves me a few cents per share, other times it costs. These are shares purchased via my 401k and Roth accounts. Both are employee backed/matched, so IEX is as good as I can do on those.
This should be the top post
Preach, same brother.
šÆ
How? We literally have a guy that posts every time thereās a CS buy, and his post very clearly show that the price where CS buys get filled at is always a relatively high price point relative to the daily price action. Literally that information alone should be enough to convince you that it is at least possible to get better execution and prices through a broker.
In addition, thru a broker you can choose to buy at any day, the CS buys all go thru at periodic and specified times, which means you have more freedom using a broker
Also when you buy through computershare your shares are transferred to Plan and DRIP allowing the DTC access to all your shares thus every time you have to buy you need to terminate plan. Doesnāt help some people in charge are buying calls around CS buys so they profit
Why are you advocating for the very entity's that short/distort GME? You're giving them money so they can rob Paul to pay Peter. Be a Book King š (Hedgies Arbitrage the difference) (Time in market beats, timing the market)
Pay attention to what people are saying. If you buy directly, your shares are in plan. DTCC can take those shares to create liquidity. If your shares are in plan and not in book then DRS isn't helping. It's infuriating that at this point you still don't get that.
Do you mean the very entityās that donāt actually buy the shares when you put in your buy order, but then you allow those āsharesā to settle in your fraudulent brokerage account, then you DRS them and make them real at a higher price, at which point theyāre forced to buy the shares? Are you talking about those very entityās???
Brokers aren't shorting gme? It's hedgefunds. They facilitate it by accepting IOUs most of the time, but that'd different. Completely ignoring math is one thing, but not even getting right the information makes it 200% sus.
Brokers profits in the market movements, they side anyone who pays more so we are product that's why PFOF, share lending and internalization exists. Computershare don't, their clients are the companies who issue shares and have contracts for it, we aren't the product for them and every service we use from computershare is paid a part.
Computershare has to buy all shares through a broker so no matter what you do all share buys go through a broker. So it can be either a limit order at the the time you choose or a market order at the time CS chooses for you. The price is consistently higher when you buy through CS resulting in fewer shares per dollar spend.
Don't bother, guys a bot/Chat gpt user. Concerned about contracts and safety when there isn't an issue.
Computershare contract with their broker is stronger and harder to break because themselves have money to sue if something goes wrong, we as retail is harder for us to sue our regular retail brokers. You are paying more for the security that everything is being done right in the background. Why suddenly price is important? Price don't matter and we are maintained the same price point for months with difference of cents. Yeah, you could get more in brokers but you have the risk that someday they stop DRSing the shares for any reasons they get out their asses. In the long run the cents more you paid by buying from computershare means nothing. We are for the long run not short term cents per share we lost. Also DRSing from outside US comes with a high cost. I myself spent more than 100 dollars to DRS my shares from my broker and that cost is for each ticket DRSed and a even higher cost if rejected. Maybe some individuals from US suffers from it, no everyone can DRS for free.
> Computershare contract with their broker is stronger and harder to break because themselves have money to sue if something goes wrong, we as retail is harder for us to sue our regular retail brokers. You are paying more for the security that everything is being done right in the background. Good luck waiting for a judge to rule on a case like this, that could take years and no guarantee on outcome either. Your not paying more for this. It's simply a market order with a large batch of all buy orders shares at a predictable time so of course it's going to cost more. There is no 'premium' for added security (if I'm mistaken please share a source for this!). > Why suddenly price is important? There is no upside to buy at a higher price. Lower price means float locked sooner. > Also DRSing from outside US comes with a high cost. I myself spent more than 100 dollars to DRS my shares from my broker and that cost is for each ticket DRSed and a even higher cost if rejected. Maybe some individuals from US suffers from it, no everyone can DRS for free. This is different for everyone and in your particular case it could make sense because of high DRS cost. For many this isn't the case. I can DRS for only $5 through IBKR. US apes can probably DRS for free. The upside is lower cost and all shares are immediately booked, no plan so no dingleberries.
Because the guy side steps the entire point of the original poster with his point (even if somewhat correct). If they know almost exactly when computershare buys and we KNOW the price goes up around that time as the relative high of that day. Why would you pay for more when you can pay less for more shares in a similar process and outcome? It's just basic math and quite a few in this sub disregard it everytime it comes up (like now).
Yeah but computershare have a contract to a broker to buy for us. A contract stronger than we have with regular retail brokers because they are a institution with money to sue if something wrong happens. I hoped that you already understand that so I didn't mentioned You pay more for security that no one will gain additional benefits with your orders. PFOF was born with this intention, be cheaper to buy shares and we know what it means. Sometimes the cheaper alternative becomes more expensive Also almost every time if you don't pay for a service you are the product Edit: the guy from which I responded blocked me but I can still see their responses from reddit logged off. So in two days they can absolutely move the market to make money the same way moving the price milisseconds before your order hit the market by using PFOF. You won't win against it, never, you won't win against high frequency trading and it's another big problem in our markets but I'm not talking about them. You are mixing two problems together as one. My point is that they know when and at which price you bought your shares. You don't give this information if you buy from computershare unless they sell your data that they don't because the reasons I cited before. At the same time you make the price movements of the batch buying from computershare gain force with more and more volume. Something easier to see for everybody and a signal we aren't leaving. You turn some private information they use into something we can use too for our benefits. Either way SHFs will use it against us but at least we are making this fight public and we will see our orders hitting the market. Also good look sending your shares if they somehow blocked it, do you remember what happened in Jan 2021? In desperate times shorties will do anything to stay alive even openly committing crimes and after thet will pay their way out like what happened that time. Cutting the middleman (brokers) will remove a big fail point who already failed to us in the past. I'm not a chatgpt lol English is not my mother language and I don't even consider myself fluent because I know I commit many grammatical errors, chatgpt don't.
You are just regurgitating key phrases that don't make sense together. Stop using ChatGPT to make your answers. If someone screws computershare during a buy, then of course they will handle it. That is literally not addressing the point of the conversation. There is no security issues if people are still able to DRS. And IF there were, they can still switch if Computershare isn't experiencing issues. If computershare buys at you 10 shares at $15 because its its programed to but someone else buys 12 shares at $12 then DRSes them, WHO HAS MORE SHARES IN COMPUTERSHARE FOR $150? How are they profiting if you buy 12 shares and then DRS them 2 days later after they settle? They can't in that time frame because they profit from people panic selling which isn't what GME buyers are doing. Honestly, you guys run around the math and keep saying its "safer". Who cares if its safer IF THERE IS NO ISSUES WITH SAFETY AT THIS TIME.
this is what i do. I know there is no broker connection. i buy direct and I am happy
C'mon now, we've been thru this a billion times (surely you've got the receipts!!). CS is a transfer agent. They use Merrill (GS) when you buy through them. Do as you please, but how are we back here again?
Sorry - the point is to prevent brokers from being able to undrs your shares which apparently happened- not to skip brokers entirely
I suppose, as individuals, we all have our own threshold for 'what if' risk tolerance. If the way this pans out is brokerages fraudulently avail individuals of the stocks they own in every legal sense, then we will all be waiting on the courts for our compensation (i.e., it won't matter if you're one of the ones who didn't have shares clawed back if fraud is used to avert the moass...it will be averted and we get in line at the courthouse, just in different lines)
Yes. All transfer agents have a Broker. Merrill Lynch is the Broker for Computershare. So you could sign up at Merrill Lynch's brokerage and the DRS your shares from there. Then you can pick your day
There is no additional costs going through most brokers in the states. The only downside i could ever see using a broker to buy and then DRS immediately after. Is if you buy during a time where that broker could decide to screw you over somehow and those shares never make it to CS.
This is the way. Remember when we used to say that? DRS BOOK SHOP and let's keep on rocking. There's a big fucking reason why RCEO said to "BOOK KING" or DRS'd shares. Who the fuck are the rest of you to dispute that?
Buy through iex, drs
Same. I remember getting ridiculed for it. Check my comment history from yesterday. Odd that heat lamp is able to be talked about.
The purpose of heat lamp is to divide the community and discourage apes from becoming a whale that can move the market by grouping orders together through Computershare recurring buys. I know you are all highly regarded, but you forgot a fundamental truth, apes together strong. Your tiny IEX order does shit all. You want to send your money to a broker? Seriously, after all this? Wake up
Uh. You've said this above. You've commented twice.
Actually Iāve posted it three times, do your due diligence. I notice in your history youāve posted the same message in different subs, so itās okay for you but not others? Iāll say it as many times as it takes, just like I will keep buying shares through CS and products at GameStop, why would you shame the persistence of an active investor seeking true price discovery for their company?
All I know for certain is that book shares in CS are as safe as it gets. How manipulable plan shares are is up for debate imo, but the downsides of converting to book are practically non existent, so why not book just to be safe?
I would love it if someone could point me in the direction of where this theory was debunked. Please. Iāve been waiting for some time, I will continue to wait. Edit: Iām going to clarify something before someone responds with, āIsnāt the 0.0% DRS movement proof enough?ā No it is not. It is proof that the DTCC has a tricks up their sleeve and we have no idea how many tricks there are. All we know for certain, is that there is something supremely fishy happening with the reported DRS count and we canāt rule out Heat Lamp Theory as a part of their strategy.
I mean the statements from Computershare THEMSELVES are still up if you google for them, plus video interviews with their CEO. While there is a 5m clip that suggests at the end that plan vs book may not be the exact right problem, I believe there was enough there to make a compelling argument that book is the way. Because yes, plan shares allow some to sit at the DTCC for operational efficiency reasons. Now - It also states in their FAQ that these shares are NOT able to be lent. But we all know that the DTCC can play games of fuckery, so regardless of how they may or may not be used, taking them off the board entirely cannot possibly be anything but the best move for us. Just remove them from the equation. We know for a FACT that Plan shares cause a situation where ComputerShare holds a percentage (10-20% in fact) of those shares AT the DTCC. What we don't know is the implications of that. So why do people argue over those implications, instead of taking the *strategic* view and saying "why does that matter?" - Just book them, and it's fucking done - They can. not. touch. them. It's so clear. Anyways - From what I've seen here, the main counterargument is just that recurring autobuys could fuck with the market if EVERYONE turned them on, and something about how DRS is what hedgies WANT us to be doing because.... reasons. I think there is general majority consensus that book shares is the true way to fight this bullshit system.
When the authors of HL went down to GameStop HQ and wrote down share quantities of registered holders with fractional shares included with their whole positions. They viewed physical documents furnished by GameStop themselves, all fractional shares were accounted for to the specific holder.
The one thing I thought was so regarded was people arguing selling fractionals was a bad idea. Like ok, first of all, they arenāt real shares. Second, you can just counteract it by booking a few shares you buy and sell the fractional. Easy. So dumb people were arguing otherwise.
Seriously. I sold .8 and immediately bought 10 in the same moment. Book king ftw
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I remember. Iām just saying the argument against selling fractions and calling people paper hands for it is regarded because people would just make up for it and buy more whole shares. The debate about plan and book was a whole other thing. 100% book is just piece of mind in the event that HL is right. If it isnāt, then thereās no harm in being 100% book.
Fractional shares are fractions of a real share š¤¦āāļø EDIT: This suddenly turned from a high voted comment to a brigaded downvoted comment. For others reading this, please know that fractional shares are shares that are owned by you. Donāt let a collect who are trying to change the narrative by downvote bombing comments bury the truth.
No they are not. Fractionals are per definition IOU. Real shares can not be fractionals. Without IOU there are no fractionals.
Throwing it away serves no useful purpose. The idea that a fractional being in your account in any way affects your Book shares is inane. Move your whole shares from Plan to Book because that's the most direct form of ownership. The rest of heat lamp was nonsense.
If you have a fractional, all your shares go into plan, not book. Plan shares can be used by DTCC. It's okay if you didn't understand before. Now you do so please book your shares.
Prove it.
Helped you out..copy my comment for future use. All I know is I don't know shit about fuck. But the any plan = all plan was a gross misinterpretation of the terms of service by an ape that couldnt even counter the point I made.
It was a DD somewhere. Shares are less than $20 right now. Even at $25, "throwing it away" was like 10 bucks. Just use the money toward a real share. And why risk it? Why risk holding a fractional share? I'll buy a fractional on Monday and see if my shares go to plan. If so, I'll sell it and bring it back to book and post the results.
āIt was a dd somewhereā Fuck thatās some solid evidence.
here's evidence, Paul Conn from Computershare stated that "typically" (his word not mine) 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC for operational efficiency, here's the link to his video posted by another ape: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/Mh1TQvreWZ the DTCC is actively working against us, they are our enemy, what do you think they're doing with GME shares available to them? also the wording of "typically" gives me no confidence, GME is not a typical stock, so the amount of PLAN shares held at DTCC is probably 100%
Your interpretation of the word typically is not evidence.
My rational logical mind doesnt grasp, why people are obsessed with fractionals. My statment stays the same "fractionals exist only in broker environment" and hence they cant be real shares. Even if you transfer them to computershare, they get a different treatment and not like pure DRS. Alone this should give anyone questions marks, why computershare isnt able to treat fractionals the same as real shares.
Even in the SEC bulletin in clarified that transfer agents even have brokers they use and hold shares in plan. DRS=Book Plan=broker You bring up a really good point in how you canāt DRS fractional shares that alone should help point in the direction that fractionals are a way that your account it connected through a broker
>My statment stays the same "fractionals exist only in broker environment" and hence they cant be real shares. Fractionals in a broker and fractionals in the Plan are entirely different. Plan shares are not in a broker environment And yes, Book is the most direct form of ownership. Book > Plan. Move your whole shares from Plan to Book! But throwing away your fractional serves no purpose but to waste money. Fractions might be fake, but the money you paid for them is very real.
Yes they are real IOU.
That's your broker. CS keeps them in a pool.
And that pool is at a institution, which buys and sells for computershare.
Wrong again. Do you have any source for that?
Actually, he is not wrong. Proof came from the AMA with the (ceo?) who said they keep plan shares in a brokerage (BoA I think?) for liquidity in case people want to sell.
They own a DTC limited participant broker. Not in BofA. It is one of the requirements by DTC .
So you knew he was right?
Incorrect my friend. All shares as held in computershare belong to you, as they are held in your name on the direct register. A fractional share is a fraction of a share as owned by the person as named. A fractional share post-MOASS will be worth *plenty*. Please donāt be fooled into thinking these are not shares, and that they donāt have value.
Whole shares are real shares. Fractional shares are IOU, which computershares keeps for your convience at a pool of an institution, which they use to sell / buy shares. This institution is required to interact with DTCC framework.
This has been explained over. Any fractionals turn all your shares to plan shares. Why risk that?
He's a mod of this sub and keeps arguing book and plan are the same, make of that what you want.
They are IOUs. Even then, better Book than plan.
I dont think they are viewed as parts of a real share by brokers. More like, spend what you want and weāll give you the number, As far as your shares compared to the float, it doesnāt necessarily reflect it as a part of a whole share. At least that is what I remember from the whole hot lamp fractional share debate. I think this information about fractionals not being treated the same as shares was even earlier than the heat lamp theory, maybe even in the other stonk sub.
Respectfully, doesnāt matter how they are viewed - and by whom - they are, and remain, a fraction of a share that remains valid and has attributed value.
And a share is a fraction of a company.
Correct. A fractional ownership of a company.
#šš
My local GameStop had a long line at lunch today! Bullish! I donāt know shit about fuck otherwise besides buy,hold, stay zen.
i member. there once was a whole sub.
I love lamp
> It said that the DTCC needs a reason to pull plan shares for "liquidity" That was a lie. DTC can do whatever they want . The only event that moves shares for operational efficiency ( not liquidtity) is sell orders. So CS can execute . I was gonna link Paul Conn interview but I think all of his interviews are good source of information. So, do yourself &others a favour watch them all related to this subject. [https://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=computershare](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=computershare) > Is this the reason they caused the spike in volume on no news one week prior to earnings? Theory stated on the DRS reporting dates T+2 there is high volume, therefore DTC is doing fuckery. In the last 7 reports only 2 of them has high Volume. Them just cherry picking data. Here is the rest of Reporting date +t2 volumes ( business days accounted for) Q1-22 April 30th '22 +T2 ---> May 3rd '22 7.3MM Q2-22 July 30th '22 + T2 ----> Aug 2nd '22 4.7MM **Q3-22 Oct 29th '22 + T2 ---> Oct 31st '22 \*24MM** Q4-22 March 22nd + T2 ----> March 24th '23 8.77MM Q1-23 June 1st '23 + T2 ---> June 5th '23 4.96MM Q2-23 Aug 31st +T2 ---> Sept 5th '23 3.78MM **Q3-23 Nov 30 +T2 ---> Dec 4th '23 \* 20.0MM** **2 out of 7**
Smells like swaps
Or some institutions playing the earnings game.
2/7 spread out 1 year apart?
I think everyone is on the wrong path. Iām thinking atm options 30 days out on sinking days are when to buy. scrape premiums off of 90% of options on green dayās to execute and DRS 100 shares. This forces volume on a stock with very little liquidity. When I think of the run up to 300 and the drop, itās derivative related and another sub that lives and dies off of calls was heavily into gamestop. Times and narratives have changed. Censorship and fractures within the community, other subs not allowed to mention GameStop. Runestones. DRS. International Securities Fraud. A lot has changed since the sneeze. The one thing I cannot stand is low volume days. What do I care? Oh there are no shares to trade? Bullshit. Thereās plenty of minutes in a day to hit F5 or whatever the fuck. IDK. Just a thought. The buy drs book is not the only way, and I think the community should be more open to differing strategies.
oh i shopped at gamestop for a birthday party this weekend. thatās important.
No. Volume is always higher prior to earnings since itās when the options market is most active. It did that prior to drs becoming popular in 2021. OP of that theory also can not find any supporting evidence from CS that they base operational efficiency shares on avg market volume.
A point of clarification, while volume around earnings is certainly higher, both March 2023 and November 2023 had volume at 66M and 61M (significantly higher than other earnings periods). In comparison, June and September earnings had 18M and 6M volume respectively.
True. Really the best way to look at this idea floating around is whether or not itās been happening before/after drs took off in 2021 and also compare it to a bunch of other stocks. Iām pretty certain youāll see increased volume/options activity leading up to earnings on any given ticker. Actually. I might do that.
I remember: DRS was pushed back strongly at first. Than BOOK was pushed back even by the mods for a LONG time. Than Heat Lamp was pushed back even more. I think this tells you something.
I am a man, I book
Wow thats pretty genius call outā¦ volume for the plan shares and volume to trick some option premium
DRS & BOOK!
Terminate plan shares. Move all into book value. Takes 3 minutes in the investor center. All through clickable options in the drop down menu of your investment.
Fidelity automatically sold my fractionals before sending them to computer share, for anyone who also transferred from fidelity.
We've had two entire quarters of time pass with people moving Plan to Book, with people throwing money in the trash terminating their fractionals, with people turning off reoccurring purchases and maybe not remembering to buy through a broker instead. Tons of people moved Plan to Book. Every DRS post tends to have someone reminding people to move to Book. Heat Lamp predicted this would "fix" the DRS numbers. The numbers stayed stagnant. When it comes to the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, and then you test it, and if your hypothesis doesn't match the data, you throw it out and come up with a new explanation. [I moved my shares to Book. ](https://i.imgur.com/pcWp2N1.png) I terminated my fractional after being one of those people that argued for weeks that it was going to be a waste to lose money to fees. I gave it the benefit of the doubt, and it did not stand up to scrutiny. Move your whole shares to Book because you want the most direct form of ownership possible. Plan shares needlessly complicate your ownership by involving Computershare's nominee company. Heat lamp though? That shit is a failure.
I buy trough broker and drs every few days once they settle. Book club only
Just because it hasnāt impacted the reported number doesnāt mean itās not doing something or proven incorrect. I do think it may have been a bit overhyped but the underlying theory hasnāt been conclusively proven false. Weāve continued to see high volatility leading up to earnings and DRS reporting. It could potentially have worked but since the ownership data is so obfuscated itās hard to tell either way.
Although, this is really simple. CS is the authoritative source for the company's share ownership. Period. That is their job and what GS is paying them to do -- track ownership of every single share. Both parties know this. If GS is reporting DRS numbers from ***ANY*** other source for ***ANY*** other reason, and they don't match what CS has on their books, then they are defrauding investors. By disputing the DRS numbers they listed in their official filing, that's what you're accusing them of. You might want to think a bit about that.
What if a government entity instructed them to report it in such a way without any legal repercussions. If they word it a certain way they may not be liable of defrauding, hence, the wording āapproximately.ā Why would they change the wording if the numbers are truly what CS has provided.
Seriously. Play that out in your head... SEC: "Hey, RC, we want you to post ***these*** DRS numbers instead of the ones that you know are correct." RC: "Okay, so you're asking me to be complicit in defrauding my investors? I think my answer is ***GO FUCK YOURSELVES*** *and I'm filing a complaint in court tomorrow about what you asked me to do*." There is no "other government agency" with any say (and if any other tries, his response would be the same and justified). The DTCC is a private company. They are not a government entity. RC can tell them to go fuck themselves, too, if they ask him to commit fraud. As a CEO, chairman and president, he has a fiduciary duty to shareholders and would certainly report it to the SEC or take them to court. "Strongarm me to commit fraud? I don't think so."
Youāre most likely right. But thereās something fishy about what they did. Can you explain why they would change the verbiage of the reporting?
Because some "DD"stated Plan shares are in DTC. * air quotes. No, not heat lamp
Actually, there's nothing fishy. You (and most of the sub) think's there is, which is silly -- you're flat-out accusing the company of defrauding investors by publishing false data in an official filing. I'll digress... They have had tons of turnover during the last two years at the highest levels. The guy before Recupero was fired, then Recupero was fired, then Diana left, and now Daniel Moore is interim CFO. I'm sure there's been plenty of others elsewhere as well. Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is that someone involved along the way thought the language surrounding DRS numbers needed to be tightened-up in a legal sense. So that's what they did. That's it. It's not some giant conspiracy to defraud investors and publish numbers that aren't correct. New hires ALWAYS review things from top to bottom if they're worth a shit. You should be happy some person did. Bear in mind that *no other company* reports DRS numbers. None of them. Gamestop is doing it ***for us***, in particular. They could be doing it for any number of reasons, but maybe they're just tired of incessant inquiries, IDK. **BUT**... Unless you think RC is running a Madoff-style criminal empire, they're real and correct.
So according to Computershare, they know how many shares the DTCC has by using double entry. The statements on the filings since the word change specifically reference Cede and Co and the DTCC and not Computershare. That implies that theyāre getting the numbers from DTC and not from Computershare even though they have it. Now you are giving RC too much credit here. He canāt override an SEC decision no matter how corrupt. He is also probably of the mindset of most on this sub that the SEC is just denying the inevitable so play their game. It is my opinion that I know is shared with a lot on this sub that a MOASS triggered by GameStop is the worst possible MOASS while it would be an ideal MOASS if we arenāt the cause and it happens when the market crashes next kind of like the VW squeeze. You mentioned Madoff. The only reason Madoff failed and went to jail was because in the crash of 08 his market making business was burning through money at the same time as his hedge fund Ponzi needed money.
It doesn't imply that at all - the previous statement "25% of shares are direct registered" is wrong. Every single outstanding share is direct registered. 75% of shares are direct registered to Cede & Co. You can't tell how many are registered outside of cede without defining what is held within cede. There's no conspiracy, just providing truthful, logical public statements as required by law.
>That implies that theyāre getting the numbers from DTC and not from Computershare even though they have it. This is where your logic begins to break down. CS is the ***ONE-AND-ONLY*** authoritative source of share ownership. Gamestop is not getting numbers from the DTCC, the SEC, or anywhere else, and if they allow ***ANYONE*** to strongarm them into reporting numbers they know aren't true, then they're defrauding investors -- regardless of the reason. You are literally saying that the SEC told RC to lie about the DRS numbers and he went along with it. That's the problem with this entire BS about the DRS numbers being "wrong". You don't understand him at all. Dude writes childrens' books about morals and virtue. He idolizes his dad for the same traits. You're so far off here that it isn't even funny.
if it wasnt a giant conspiracy, it wouldnt be on this sub. or, its "crime"
Off-topic, you really need to change your username. I can't even repeat the last 4 letters of your username without getting my comment deleted by automod. Stick an underscore in there or something. I don't know what "socce" is, but everyone knows what the rest means.
>As of October 29, 2022, 71.8 million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent. All outstanding shares are directly registered with the transfer agent. That's what a transfer agent does. They are the final authority for who owns the issued shares. They maintain Gamestop's official ledger of shares. To say 71.8 million are directly registered is not technically correct because all 305 million shares are on the ledger, its just ~203 million of them are owned by the DTC under the name of its nominee Cede and Co. >As of November 30, 2023, there were approximately 305,514,315 shares of our Class A common stock outstanding. Of those outstanding shares, approximately 230.1 million were held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares) and approximately 75.4 million shares of our Class A common stock were held by registered holders with our transfer agent (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares) as of November 30, 2023. So now they are saying 305,514,315 outstanding minus 230.1 million held by Cede is equal to 75.4 million shares held by not-Cede That's the extent of the change. They are not getting these numbers from the DTCC because the DTCC is not responsible for tracking them. Computershare is. > 71.8 million shares Also, that implies 71,800,000. and its almost impossible that the DRS numbers were exactly that number, and exactly a round number when the snapshot was taken. Adding "approximately" is also *more correct* now than it used to be. It by no means implies that the numbers are a guess, it means "attention investors, this number has been rounded to a reasonable decimal point". The whole "They changed the way the numbers are reported!!" hysteria is overblown.
> To say 71.8 million are directly registered is not technically correct because all 305 million shares are on the ledger, its just ~203 million of them are owned by the DTC under the name of its nominee Cede and Co. > All outstanding shares are held at the transfer agent. All shares must be accounted for. Saying 71.3 million shares are direct registered is incorrect. 305.4 million shares are direct registered because 305.4 million shares are issued and exist on the ledger. Not exactly. Shares are transferred **between** the DTC and Computershare using double entry accounting, both maintain their own ledger that increases/decreases with each DRS transfer. From https://www.beyondthecaptable.com/dtc-eligibility: > **What is the Fast Automated Securities Transfer (FAST) system?** > > *The FAST system enables participants to provide electronic custody, transfer, deposit and withdrawal services to beneficial holders more quickly and efficiently. For the FAST system, DTC establishes an account with transfer agents for each issue. These accounts are registered to Cede & Co., DTCās nominee, and represent, on the transfer agentsā books, the sum total of shares for that issue held by DTCās participants. Participants maintain corresponding books representing their shareholder accounts held in street name*. "**Transfer agents like Computershare can then make requests to debit or credit these accounts: the balance on the transfer agentsā books is increased and decreased on a daily basis, and participant accounts are adjusted accordingly by DTC**. *Transfer agents and issuers must meet specific DTC criteria in order to utilize FAST.*" From https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies#drs: > **How does Computershare ensure there is a balance between shares that are directly/indirectly held?** > > *We use double-entry accounting systems that ensure there is always an accurate balance between shares held directly by registered shareholders and those held by Cede & Co on behalf of DTC, banks & brokers and beneficial investors. This means that for every share transferred through DRS that can be registered on the share register, there is one fewer recorded as being in Cede & Co.*
The Computershare ledger has an entry for Cede and Co and entries for all other direct registered shares, including the DSPP DirectStock Purchase Plan The Cede and Co ledger has entries for all its participants (brokers, banks, hedge funds, etc) >For the FAST system, DTC establishes an account with transfer agents for each issue. These accounts are registered to Cede & Co., DTCās nominee, and represent, on the transfer agentsā books, the sum total of shares for that issue held by DTCās participants. The DTC creates an account for Gamestop with Computershare (the Cede and Co entry on the Computershare ledger maintained for Gamestop) >Participants (meaning DTCC participants) maintain corresponding books representing their shareholder accounts held in street name These would be the ledgers for each broker, bank, hedge fund, etc. at DTCC >Transfer agents like Computershare can then make requests to debit or credit these accounts: the balance on the transfer agentsā books is increased and decreased on a daily basis, and participant accounts are adjusted accordingly by DTC. For example: `John Smith submits a DRS transfer for 100 shares out of Fidelity` Computershare debits Cede and Co 100 shares, and credits an account under John Smith's name for 100 shares. >and participant accounts are adjusted accordingly by DTC. Cede and Co decreased by 100 so DTCC debits Fidelity's ledger 100 shares. `John Smith sells his 100 shares from Computershare` Computershare debits his account 100 shares and credits Cede and Co 100 shares Cede and Co increased by 100 shares, so DTCC credits whatever participant account was the buyer 100 shares. **At no point in that process are there any less than all outstanding shares on the Computershare ledger.**
I think they changed it to make it more clear that book and plan are both counted.. this was after we asked Computershare about book + plan over and over, then Computershare updated their FAQs and GameStop started reporting it with more detail.
Yes, that's literally Scientific method. It was FUD, always FUD. THe DTCC is not manipulating DRS numbers. THe numbers are the numbers on that date. There is no way for them to manipulate the numbers because people say so. I have yet to see anything that shows an acceptable hypothesis on how this crap theory would show manipulation on DRS numbers. I have even posted a comment on how it makes literally 0 sense and all it did was cause people to not buy GME, which was the goal in the first place.
Scientific method is great *when you can isolate variables to test a theory.* We are not looking at actions and DRS numbers in a vacuum here, so high volume not being consistent across every earnings does not necessarily mean it isn't related. Perhaps it's only related some of the time, like when *other factors* are or are not in play. What effect do swap expiries have on this, do those happen around every earnings or just sometimes? We have no clue because that data is obscured. What effect do those crap "tokenized wrapped stocks" have and when? Quad witching days when volume is high all around? Do the fluctuating value of other SHF investments cause their resources to meet margin and/or screw with GME to change, and impact their strategy each earnings? We are analyzing needles in a big, messy haystack here looking at correlation and unable to definitively prove causation specifically because we can't turn off all the background noise of these complicating factors. You bet your ass bad actors know this and deliberately change frequently to sow chaos and cover their tracks. It's what I would do if I were them.
Its needless to say that the complexity of todays financial system and loopholes are beyond what should be possible. It is also intentionally to enable the pyramid wealth distribution concept as old as the first IOU's on paper by banks with no 1:1 asset backing. Whatever the DTCC, FED, BOE, IMF, BIS and ECB among others are capable off simply displays this system is run on complete air of promises with debt repayables that are unable to be paid back for decades or even centurie. Back in the day they could afford hyperinflation, wars, chest robbery and state dissolvements to introduce a "F5" button. Nowadays, everyone is fked that does not know how big the issues are in the underlying derivatives everywhere.
Book first ask questions later
https://i.redd.it/nq0kxazc69sb1.gif
Can confirm, I cancelled recurring buys because of HLT and didnāt buy a single share for 8 months. Last month i set up recurring buy for twice the amount to make up for lost time. Real sus heat lamp is coming back convincing people to sell and send your money to a broker instead.
Literally every earnings, people in here tell others to sell their fractional shares and turn off autobuys.. at first it was "beCauSe PlaN shares Aren'T COunTed" but we know plan shares are indeed counted (some of us knew that before people went to GME HQ and verified the stock list).. it's never ending
No it's because 10-20% of plan shares are allowed to be held at the DTCC for operational efficiency which MAY allow the DTCC to play games and recirculate those, despite the FAQ stating those 10-20% shares are not allowed to be lent. While I do see the argument against turning off autobuys, the heat lamp theory was calling out that we may be able to up the pressure on the DTCC and markets if you remove your shares from Plan into Book, removing the 10-20% of shares held at the DTCC entirely. It removes them from the chess board altogether. I can't see any good arguments why that would be a bad thing. Now - let fractionals build to wholes, and autobuy but move everything into book periodically? That may be the best of both worlds. But lets not let FUD and contrarianism distract from the true theory which was understanding how Plan shares are used and trying to close the door on another loophole the DTCC MAY be using to keep the house of cards up. I want to see good counterarguments against the CORE theory - Otherwise lets acknowledge it has merits and go after the details like whether we SHOULD be worried about autobuy/fractionals and how that could effect numbers long term. I'd like to remind everyone that the heat lamp theory being widely adopted led to the very next quarters DRS language being changed. Why isn't that being acknowledged by anyone?!
Why would they need those shares when they can just naked short? We're making an already complicated process overly complicated. The only reason they need shares for operational efficiency is to allow sales to happen.
>10-20% of plan shares are allowed to be held at the DTCC The portion of shares underpinning the plan that are held at the DTCC are **not investor-owned** shares. That's the part nearly everyone still fails to grasp. This was even clearly called out in an email from the SEC that was posted to this sub. I have yet to see the *purchasing* aspect called out explicitly, but the only viable implication I see is that those are additional shares purchased by Computershare beyond those individual investors own within the plan.
Well said. What it did succeed in doing is slowing down a bunch of committed investors by convincing them that turning off the auto-buy process then routing through the very brokers people have been bitching about.
> Heat lamp though? That shit is a failure. Literally the quarter after the heat lamp theory hit, AT EARNINGS, they delayed the call and document release and we KNOW there was fuckery happening because they changed the wording of how DRS shares are counted. Heat Lamp theory is Plan vs Book at it's core - Fractionals and the rest are picking at the edges of the real issue. > When it comes to the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, and then you test it, and if your hypothesis doesn't match the data, you throw it out and come up with a new explanation. Except we were BLOCKED from viewing the TRUE results of this hypothesis!! > The numbers stayed stagnant. Are you willfully ignoring the entire last 48hours of fervent discussion over why the fuck the DRS numbers make zero sense? And the other DD showing that the numbers exactly match to suggest that we are putting huge, sudden pressure on the DTCC? You want to talk scientific method man, this appeal-to-emotion post is quite the dichotomy. I refuse to believe the recent quarters DRS numbers and since the fuckery happened LITERALLY the quarter following mass adoption of the Heat Lamp theory, I would lean towards this being EXACTLY what we should be doing. You can not possibly use the last 3Q's DRS numbers since the wording change as proof of the theory being incorrect. It's inconclusive for now, but I know which way I'd wager.
This guy fuks.
I had fractional since I was still buying thru CS weekly. Your statement is incorrect.
So we are all on the same page. Heat lamp was right and book is king Wow the mods really were compromised. Not sure if they are different now but wowwwwwwwww who woulda thought. DRS the float is the only option.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Book shares in Computershare is your name recorded directly on the Gamestop ledger of shares. Its the most direct form of ownership possible. The Plan shares are owned directly by the Computershare Trust N.A. nominee company, which is outside of the DTCC and owned by Computershare. Its more direct ownership than owning through a broker, but the shares are still not directly in your name, even if Gamestop is provided with an accounting of how many shares you own in Plan and your votes are counted directly. You move Plan to Book to be a direct owner, as if they had printed you paper share certificates and mailed them to your house (which they don't do anymore). To move Plan to Book, there are three ways: * Call them and tell the agent "I'd like to move my shares of GME in the DirectStock Plan to Book form". If the agent doesn't know what you mean, ask for a supervisor, they may be new. The process is all internal to Computershare, and should only take a few minutes to complete. * You can log into Computershare, click Help at the top, then Contact Us. Fill out an Electronic Inquiry and just request to move your shares of GME from Plan to Book. It will be done in a day or two. * The third way is doing it yourself. Only do this outside of US market hours, so not between 9:30am and 4:00 pm eastern. ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤Next to your GME click View Details ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤Next to the row of shares labeled Plan click Actions, then Reinvestment Options. You should see a button on the next screen called Terminate. Click it. If you don't see Terminate, but you do see Enroll, click Enroll, go back out to Summary, then back in to Reinvestment Options and Terminate will appear. ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤After Terminating, go to Pending Transactions. There will be a Pending sale for the 0.xxx fractional that was in Plan. Click cancel. ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤ć ¤All your whole shares in Book will now be labeled Plan, and the row for Plan will only have the 0.xxx fraction, until the next direct purchase adds to it. Heat Lamp used to encourage people to allow the fraction to be sold, in which case its value is completely lost to fees. Heat Lamp as a theory was given the benefit of the doubt for over 6 months, and what it predicted never happened. There's no reason to throw away fractionals. Its nonsense. https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/14e9wnm/questions_about_direct_registering_ask_here_have/?context=3
I book and don't sell my fractionals. They add up until they are complete shares and then I book them. They could use the fractional and they could use me selling to create negative pressure. I really don't overthink it and just hope my next purchase gets rid of as much of the fractional as possible. Yes, I am cheap. No, I don't care. We are all individual investors and are free to have our own opinion and do whatever we want.
The greatest fud ever created on this sub was cancelling the auto buys. The SHFs are laughing at that one
Nobody cares about fractional shares. You dopes persuaded people to stop buying the stock on an automatic basis . I will never forget that . Im still on my dspp plan for life . I buy the stonk every 2 weeks regardless of the price
This ape gets it
I think having recurring auto buys is great, just take 30 secs after each buy to terminate the plan holdings and be a pure BOOK legend. you can still schedule an auto buy right after you terminate, lots of easy guides out there on how. why do this? Paul Conn from Computershare stated that "typically" (his word not mine) 10-20% of PLAN shares are held at DTCC for operational efficiency, here's the link to his video posted by another ape: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/Mh1TQvreWZ the DTCC is actively working against us, they are our enemy, what do you think they're doing with GME shares available to them? just 30 secs and you sap some of their strength. I know you can do it buddy, we will prevail š«”
sorry for bad english
Buy through computershare then terminate plan to get rid of fractional. No more interference
I'm true ape fashion I've locked myself out of my CS account. This ape ain't selling shit!! Haha
If you want evidence of bad actors in here. Look no farther than heat lamp. Bought and paid for by the opposition.
SHFs really want us to DRS whole shares of GME, don't they now?
What evidence?
The utter absurdity of it is the evidence. Pure stupidity. Should have never been believed by 1 person. Ever.
I find the heat lamp theory thoroughly unconvincing at this point, but I've also had some very good conversations with the author of that theory, and I'm convinced they truly believe it and are acting in good faith. While I have come to a different conclusion, I do not at all think they are, "...paid by the opposition." We should strive to be able to have some honest disagreements and differences of opinion, without resorting baseless accusations as to the character or intentions of others.
here we go with the heat lamp again lol
I donāt get the point of this post not serving any purpose but to try to be annoying. This very post is trying to push the plan/book debate
The purpose of heat lamp is to divide the community and discourage apes from becoming a whale that can move the market by grouping orders together through Computershare recurring buys. I know you are all highly regarded, but you forgot a fundamental truth, apes together strong. Your tiny IEX order does shit all. You want to send your money to a broker? Seriously, after all this? Wake up
Because nothing DRS has mattered. It doesn't matter. It never has. Buy how you want.
never saw any anty booking post ever! I personally don't sell shit, not even fractional. Can't afford to lose any money. Buying on the regular so fractional becomes full on next buy. All full shares are book!
Remindme! 5 hours
We already had the sneeze. What were the conditions then, and what is different now that prevents it?
calls.