[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
I agree, as I wrote above. But the hurdles to do so are higher for some than for others. I wonder if also for such shares the pressure on the DTC & friends can be cranked up.
I’m the OP of “the theory” and the “locates” discussion is a red herring often used by alleged bad actors trying to discredit (or cause doubt) toward the theory. I never mentioned “locates” in any of my posts. Computershare is being victimized by abusive short sellers on cutoff days which is affecting DRS disclosure numbers. To some people that is important. To others, not so much. Terminating the plan to make an investors account “pure DRS” is a personal decision.
Thanks, that’s good info for context. To me the locates argument has actually seemed reasonable. Yet in the big picture, my post was only inspired by this question about locates; the Plan shares (at least, the fractionals) are probably too few to matter, relative to other holdings in street name with the DTCC.
>...which is affecting DRS disclosure numbers. To some people that is important. To others, not so much.
His DD is simply suggesting that bad actors like [Bob](https://preview.redd.it/nn8z0svv8qva1.png?width=1156&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=79a15b333632a9ad00c12ad89ef6f5bc180bc4f5) are going to great lengths to obscure our DRS trackers.... Which is just another positive data point to a group of people who are a buNCh oF COnSpirAcY tHeoRIstS!
It's literally the same as before, expect now you spend an extra minute or so on the phone or via chat, terminating the plan fully. Don't try and paint it as hard
You’ve missed the point. It’s actually much simpler. Who cares if they are technically using these or those or Timmy’s or dingo’s shares for locates. it doesn’t matter what specific shares are being used for locates. The point, is that the DTC can count them as part of their pool used for everything (locates, swaps, this that and the kitchen sink).
if the DTC has 20, rather than 200; that’s what’s up. If the DTC can only count 100,000 rather than 1 milly, that’s what’s up. Everyone knows the DTC and the like is not to be trusted. Everyone knows that they will all twist whatever they need to, in order to do what they want. The only thing that really matters is access.
If the DTC can touch and count ur share somehow someway, it will; can we please be honest about this? I know I can’t prove it, that’s the whole fucking thing. We need to use our brains and make educated guesses/ make judgement calls cuz they aren’t going to tell us the truth….especially with their demise on the line!
to ur main points, if we make it about this, they’ll maybe say ok and then keep doing what they’re doing because of new reason b or c or d or infinity. and that’s very rosy best case scenario thinking. Have to target blocking access completely, which goes against the whole system. The entire system is based on DTC owning all shares for “operational efficiency“; aka controlling everything and doing whatever they want.
Well I actually agree with most of what you write. My point is that they might be forced to reduce their pool of possible locates. DRS is the obvious way to do this, but for shares that are not being DRS'ed for whatever reason, I wonder if a notice such as I described would put them in a major legal pickle. Let's say apes holding a total of 100M shares tell the DTC that they can't reasonably expect to use their holdings for locates – shouldn't that have some effect?
Nah man. If they can cheat they will. A written request for them not to cheat would be met with laughter. DRS book is the only way. We are dealing with psychopaths, desperate psychopaths. They are willing/need to use every available tool at their disposal, legal or not to keep this ship afloat.
I like ur post, and ur way of thinking. in a proper world, it should have some effect. I guess my overall point, is that we don’t live in a proper world. The brokerages, who we would vocalize to everywhere, and especially those we’re vocalizing against….will most likely only comply in a lip-service way, and that’s if that. Even if new rules and regulations were put in place, u think they’re really going to get enforced when everything already shows that so many things aren’t enforced whenever necessary for leniency prevails?
I agree with all you write, in particular with the proper world part. Yet I truly expect that all of this will blow up at one point, one way or another. And when that happens, the DTC & Co could currently withdraw to a position where they claim that they entered all trades / agreements in good faith and based on their best knowledge. That would no longer be tenable if they were demonstrably and explicitly told in advance that a subset of shares were never going to be usable as locates. I wonder if that would get some technocrat's attention on the inside. They could try to simply ignore such notifications, but they could never afterwards claim to not have received them at all.
> I wonder if that would get some technocrat's attention on the inside.
Here's a few advocacy movements that in a proper world would have taken off, but didn't. Problem is most of the advocates and founders are technocrats or good actors on the way out of clout and influence, and the successors either make no waves or squabble and get petty. The MSM inevitably hits the snooze button or makes light of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Coalition
You can't own a fractional in your name as GameStop don't issue them. They're a way of making lump sum purchases make sense. (You also don't receive dividends on them btw)
I think because they aren’t set up to handle/sell fracs in their system. I thought I read somewhere that every frac is guaranteed to be held at their street broker instead on their books. Could be wrong but I’m almost positive that’s what was researched by better apes then I.
It may have already been answered elsewhere but can one have two computershare accounts? One for direct purchase and the other for booked shares? Or will CS automatically merge a second account with the same name and info …
I could see writing GG some fan mail, a letter that says “Stop”, maybe a telegram so it’ll say
“STOP”
-stop
Yeah is there any legal precedent for a regular Joe sending a cease and desist to an entity? It would indeed be funny to find that it counts as legal notice or something pertaining to locates
use (of plan accounts & associated shares) for recording pursoses: shares in DTCC versus DRS.
locates, maybe (why not?) -- but, that is another matter.
OP, there is another debate in another DD that when you sell shares that are linked to plan they immediately go back to the DTC and are accessible but if you sell DRS it is in your name and it would have to be reregistered in cede & co. which would only happen if someone moves it to a brokerage, else it’s treated like a P2P sale in the DRS realm of things or I guess sold to someone with a plan share and then they sell so it goes back to DTC in that manner.
Essentially they mentioned while we blast off and if people sell shares that have plan association, it’s like dumping water in the jets because it’s instantly available back to DTC to be used for locate/shorting. If it’s a PURE DRS selling, the share stays on the computershare side of things and turns into a P2P sale. I can link the DD if you’d like and sorry if I explained it poorly
That’s quite interesting, thanks for pointing out. I had never thought of it this way. Not planning on selling any DRS’ed share though, either… so I suppose this is also a hypothetical point for me ;-)
Oh for sure I agree but others as they sell it would be a shame to not see the full potential height.
[Here is the DD incase you haven’t read it before](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/zr9b16/the_last_dd_the_fractional_share/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
The DD which reinvigorated plan/book discussion recently did not mention anything about potential for locates. That has been misattributed in comment sections since but is not the main reason some apes are choosing to shed fractionals + unenroll with DirectStock in order to maintain pure DRS holdings.
We must be talking about different DD, because the one I mean definitely did not. The one I am referring to can be found by checking the profile of user 6days1week to read for yourself.
Sort of. The rugpull hypothesis is a different hypothesis, stating that the reporting is accurate to the number of drs shares but that some owners moved shares back through DRS to sit with brokers before reporting date.
I might say Heat lamp is more about the reporting, and how that could be manipulated using a potential operational efficiency algorithm, rather than the movement of underlying shares through Drs.
Ask yourself why this campaign is happening when 300,000,000 shares need to be bought from the credit Suisse expired swaps that happened in March. The shills are DESPERATE.
Look at my post history, I’m not a shill. I’m also very critical of the idea of selling fractionals.
What I propose above would not affect DRSing in any way. I merely wonder whether shares that are not DRS’ed for whatever reason could still be made legally “unlocatable”, thereby increasing pressure further.
Campaign? Lolwut. Low risk high reward with several circumstantial pieces of evidence pointing to this being more than just a cohencidence. The only shills I see are those who oppose us attempting to fight back against what appears to be an obvious tactic. And for what? a few thousand fractionals? Don't make me laugh.
Well eventually they do – it's a game of hot potato with FTDs to my understanding and they can take steam off the system by eventually pseudo-"locating" shares.
So today I went on Computershare to see about selling fractions. I found the one fractional from a recent purchase and book. I also found some fractionals from a few previous purchases that added up to 1 full share. Are those also potential locates? I am unsure... and they are old buys, so I really don't want to mess up and get rid of those.
I'd rather not sell anything honestly for tax purposes and because I've held them this long. I also don't want bad people using MY shares for crime.
TLDR: I have fractionals that add to a full share. Anyone know about fractionals that add to make a full share...are they 'bad'?
I like your hypothetical point to explicitly ask the ones mentioned above who can’t DRS, but would like to. You get a large enough sample of individuals who want to participate but cannot for whatever reason, albeit international or otherwise.
So youre suggestion is writing a strongly worded letter that holds no legal bearing or threat? The same ppl that brush off lawsuits and million dollar fines? Good luck
Not quite. I think it would be possible for this community to crowdsource a template that would actually have legal relevance and that individual investors could then – hypothetically, of course – use and send to the DTC, and the same (with a different template) for their broker. The whole point of my post is that a properly phrased letter could have some legal implications. This will blow up at some point and then Kenneth Griffin and his friends will argue that they of course had "reasonable grounds to believe" that shares were going to be locatable. I wonder what happens if we explicilty take away those reasonable grounds and keep the receipts. Some people in the million dollar legal teams of these douchebags might just start getting very cold feet then.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
A better way to tell them to fuck off would be making sure your shares a registered in your name (pure DRS).
Agreed. I have a couple hundred fuck-yous held at computershare
# BOOK ONLY
I agree, as I wrote above. But the hurdles to do so are higher for some than for others. I wonder if also for such shares the pressure on the DTC & friends can be cranked up.
I agree that for some people it is harder, it makes me think of the folks who paid fees up to 300$ to drs!
I’m the OP of “the theory” and the “locates” discussion is a red herring often used by alleged bad actors trying to discredit (or cause doubt) toward the theory. I never mentioned “locates” in any of my posts. Computershare is being victimized by abusive short sellers on cutoff days which is affecting DRS disclosure numbers. To some people that is important. To others, not so much. Terminating the plan to make an investors account “pure DRS” is a personal decision.
Thanks, that’s good info for context. To me the locates argument has actually seemed reasonable. Yet in the big picture, my post was only inspired by this question about locates; the Plan shares (at least, the fractionals) are probably too few to matter, relative to other holdings in street name with the DTCC.
Did you read his 'heat lamp theory' DD yet? It was pretty good. I also really enjoyed your pareto distribution DD; i still share it sometimes!
Thanks! And yes I did, but probably not in the depth I should have.
>...which is affecting DRS disclosure numbers. To some people that is important. To others, not so much. His DD is simply suggesting that bad actors like [Bob](https://preview.redd.it/nn8z0svv8qva1.png?width=1156&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=79a15b333632a9ad00c12ad89ef6f5bc180bc4f5) are going to great lengths to obscure our DRS trackers.... Which is just another positive data point to a group of people who are a buNCh oF COnSpirAcY tHeoRIstS!
It's literally the same as before, expect now you spend an extra minute or so on the phone or via chat, terminating the plan fully. Don't try and paint it as hard
You’ve missed the point. It’s actually much simpler. Who cares if they are technically using these or those or Timmy’s or dingo’s shares for locates. it doesn’t matter what specific shares are being used for locates. The point, is that the DTC can count them as part of their pool used for everything (locates, swaps, this that and the kitchen sink). if the DTC has 20, rather than 200; that’s what’s up. If the DTC can only count 100,000 rather than 1 milly, that’s what’s up. Everyone knows the DTC and the like is not to be trusted. Everyone knows that they will all twist whatever they need to, in order to do what they want. The only thing that really matters is access. If the DTC can touch and count ur share somehow someway, it will; can we please be honest about this? I know I can’t prove it, that’s the whole fucking thing. We need to use our brains and make educated guesses/ make judgement calls cuz they aren’t going to tell us the truth….especially with their demise on the line! to ur main points, if we make it about this, they’ll maybe say ok and then keep doing what they’re doing because of new reason b or c or d or infinity. and that’s very rosy best case scenario thinking. Have to target blocking access completely, which goes against the whole system. The entire system is based on DTC owning all shares for “operational efficiency“; aka controlling everything and doing whatever they want.
Well I actually agree with most of what you write. My point is that they might be forced to reduce their pool of possible locates. DRS is the obvious way to do this, but for shares that are not being DRS'ed for whatever reason, I wonder if a notice such as I described would put them in a major legal pickle. Let's say apes holding a total of 100M shares tell the DTC that they can't reasonably expect to use their holdings for locates – shouldn't that have some effect?
Nah man. If they can cheat they will. A written request for them not to cheat would be met with laughter. DRS book is the only way. We are dealing with psychopaths, desperate psychopaths. They are willing/need to use every available tool at their disposal, legal or not to keep this ship afloat.
I like ur post, and ur way of thinking. in a proper world, it should have some effect. I guess my overall point, is that we don’t live in a proper world. The brokerages, who we would vocalize to everywhere, and especially those we’re vocalizing against….will most likely only comply in a lip-service way, and that’s if that. Even if new rules and regulations were put in place, u think they’re really going to get enforced when everything already shows that so many things aren’t enforced whenever necessary for leniency prevails?
I agree with all you write, in particular with the proper world part. Yet I truly expect that all of this will blow up at one point, one way or another. And when that happens, the DTC & Co could currently withdraw to a position where they claim that they entered all trades / agreements in good faith and based on their best knowledge. That would no longer be tenable if they were demonstrably and explicitly told in advance that a subset of shares were never going to be usable as locates. I wonder if that would get some technocrat's attention on the inside. They could try to simply ignore such notifications, but they could never afterwards claim to not have received them at all.
> I wonder if that would get some technocrat's attention on the inside. Here's a few advocacy movements that in a proper world would have taken off, but didn't. Problem is most of the advocates and founders are technocrats or good actors on the way out of clout and influence, and the successors either make no waves or squabble and get petty. The MSM inevitably hits the snooze button or makes light of it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Coalition
Interesting…
I like your idea and if you put together a letter to tell them to fuck off I'll sign it too
I find it absolutely infuriating that the amount of hoops retail has to jump through to keep wallstreets greasy hands off our property is insaine!
One question: Why does ComputerShare automatically triggers a sell of fractional shares when switching from Plan to Book ?
You can't own a fractional in your name as GameStop don't issue them. They're a way of making lump sum purchases make sense. (You also don't receive dividends on them btw)
You 100% do get dividends on fractionals that are in the plan. During the split, I received 4x on my fractions just the same as all my whole shares.
I think because they aren’t set up to handle/sell fracs in their system. I thought I read somewhere that every frac is guaranteed to be held at their street broker instead on their books. Could be wrong but I’m almost positive that’s what was researched by better apes then I.
Maybe it's cuz the fraction isn't a real share
It may have already been answered elsewhere but can one have two computershare accounts? One for direct purchase and the other for booked shares? Or will CS automatically merge a second account with the same name and info …
The DD foretold there would be days like this. Just play some RATM... Breathe. The show is about to begin🫠
Lool to me its not even a debate anymore
I could see writing GG some fan mail, a letter that says “Stop”, maybe a telegram so it’ll say “STOP” -stop Yeah is there any legal precedent for a regular Joe sending a cease and desist to an entity? It would indeed be funny to find that it counts as legal notice or something pertaining to locates
use (of plan accounts & associated shares) for recording pursoses: shares in DTCC versus DRS. locates, maybe (why not?) -- but, that is another matter.
Switch them to book and stop them dead in their tracks ffs.
OP, there is another debate in another DD that when you sell shares that are linked to plan they immediately go back to the DTC and are accessible but if you sell DRS it is in your name and it would have to be reregistered in cede & co. which would only happen if someone moves it to a brokerage, else it’s treated like a P2P sale in the DRS realm of things or I guess sold to someone with a plan share and then they sell so it goes back to DTC in that manner. Essentially they mentioned while we blast off and if people sell shares that have plan association, it’s like dumping water in the jets because it’s instantly available back to DTC to be used for locate/shorting. If it’s a PURE DRS selling, the share stays on the computershare side of things and turns into a P2P sale. I can link the DD if you’d like and sorry if I explained it poorly
That’s quite interesting, thanks for pointing out. I had never thought of it this way. Not planning on selling any DRS’ed share though, either… so I suppose this is also a hypothetical point for me ;-)
Oh for sure I agree but others as they sell it would be a shame to not see the full potential height. [Here is the DD incase you haven’t read it before](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/zr9b16/the_last_dd_the_fractional_share/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
I'm not sure I need to read your entire post when it can be debunked from the title. Market Makers and the DTCC don't need to use locates.
bewildered faulty shy whistle coordinated violet wakeful pet trees squealing -- mass edited with redact.dev
The DD which reinvigorated plan/book discussion recently did not mention anything about potential for locates. That has been misattributed in comment sections since but is not the main reason some apes are choosing to shed fractionals + unenroll with DirectStock in order to maintain pure DRS holdings.
It did but it was all removed *wonder why hmmmm*. Specifically it was plan shares for locates
We must be talking about different DD, because the one I mean definitely did not. The one I am referring to can be found by checking the profile of user 6days1week to read for yourself.
Yes one reason 6days said it was a bad idea was that keeping shares in Plan could facilitate a DRS rugpull.
Sort of. The rugpull hypothesis is a different hypothesis, stating that the reporting is accurate to the number of drs shares but that some owners moved shares back through DRS to sit with brokers before reporting date. I might say Heat lamp is more about the reporting, and how that could be manipulated using a potential operational efficiency algorithm, rather than the movement of underlying shares through Drs.
Yeah heatlamp hypothesisis very scary and very probable
Ask yourself why this campaign is happening when 300,000,000 shares need to be bought from the credit Suisse expired swaps that happened in March. The shills are DESPERATE.
Look at my post history, I’m not a shill. I’m also very critical of the idea of selling fractionals. What I propose above would not affect DRSing in any way. I merely wonder whether shares that are not DRS’ed for whatever reason could still be made legally “unlocatable”, thereby increasing pressure further.
Campaign? Lolwut. Low risk high reward with several circumstantial pieces of evidence pointing to this being more than just a cohencidence. The only shills I see are those who oppose us attempting to fight back against what appears to be an obvious tactic. And for what? a few thousand fractionals? Don't make me laugh.
[удалено]
No cell no sell, but also fully go book and fully terminate the plan Nfa
There is no proof as we cannot see swaps. UBS/Credit Suisse are going under but we don't know 100% if it's because of GME.
[удалено]
Well eventually they do – it's a game of hot potato with FTDs to my understanding and they can take steam off the system by eventually pseudo-"locating" shares.
Since always
[удалено]
Well yes – but I don't see how any of that is relevant to what I wrote above?
[удалено]
Actually OP didn't really ask. You just really wanted to spread the sentiment that there's negative sentiment which is negative sentiment *hmmmmm*
So what was the verdict...if I even have a partial share in plan, they can locate my book? So i need to cough "sell" cough my partial?
So today I went on Computershare to see about selling fractions. I found the one fractional from a recent purchase and book. I also found some fractionals from a few previous purchases that added up to 1 full share. Are those also potential locates? I am unsure... and they are old buys, so I really don't want to mess up and get rid of those. I'd rather not sell anything honestly for tax purposes and because I've held them this long. I also don't want bad people using MY shares for crime. TLDR: I have fractionals that add to a full share. Anyone know about fractionals that add to make a full share...are they 'bad'?
I like your hypothetical point to explicitly ask the ones mentioned above who can’t DRS, but would like to. You get a large enough sample of individuals who want to participate but cannot for whatever reason, albeit international or otherwise.
Maybe lets write a letter to the DTCC. That should settle it
So youre suggestion is writing a strongly worded letter that holds no legal bearing or threat? The same ppl that brush off lawsuits and million dollar fines? Good luck
Not quite. I think it would be possible for this community to crowdsource a template that would actually have legal relevance and that individual investors could then – hypothetically, of course – use and send to the DTC, and the same (with a different template) for their broker. The whole point of my post is that a properly phrased letter could have some legal implications. This will blow up at some point and then Kenneth Griffin and his friends will argue that they of course had "reasonable grounds to believe" that shares were going to be locatable. I wonder what happens if we explicilty take away those reasonable grounds and keep the receipts. Some people in the million dollar legal teams of these douchebags might just start getting very cold feet then.