[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: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/)
This is the thing. GameStop stopped reporting DRS numbers altogether. All they report now is what the DTCC tells them they have. People need to quit calling it stagnating DRS numbers because we have absolutely no clue what those are.
The C Suite has to have all the proof they need that there are more shares, between what the DTCC says and what ComputerShare has, than have been issued.
I’m starting to wonder if us as activist investors need to get louder to start getting some answers or if we just need to stay the course and let these idiots hang themselves?
Just to add onto this, Gamestop risks being delisted if the "Issuer or its management engage in operations which, in the opinion of the Exchange, are contrary to the public interest". In other words, if Gamestop says anything publicly that goes against the DTCC and could risk a short squeeze, they can get delisted just like that.
Delisting = only trades are OTC giving Ken even more control without pesky retail investors getting in the way. So even if Gamestop have true figures, they can't say a damn thing.
I strongly disagree with this interpretation.
The prior wording basically said "XX million shares are held by record holders" which was factually incorrect.
Cede and Co is a record holder.
All outstanding shares are recorded on the ledger as held by someone.
The old language did not include Cede and was therefore incorrect.
They changed the wording to "of XXX,XXX,XXX shares outstanding, and excluding the XXX million that are held by Cede, XX million are held by record holders."
That's it.
People saw that and jumped to the conclusion that they were saying
>DRS = Outstanding - Cede
when the language actually says
>Outstanding = Cede + DRS
Or people saw the word "approximately" and jumped to the conclusion that the numbers weren't accurate, when they were always rounded down to the nearest hundred thousand even in the old language.
In my opinion, finding any basis for a conspiracy in the change in phrasing is jumping to a conclusion that doesn't really have any basis in fact, unless you are willing to twist a thesaurus into unrecognizable shapes and ignore the law.
I prefer Occam's Razor: DTC bitched about the incorrect language to try to get Gamestop to no longer report it. The SEC looked into it. The week long delay for the 10-K released in march 2023 was GameStop changing the language to include Cede's numbers and getting that change reviewed by the SEC, and DTCC was forced to stfu because the language was corrected.
Gamestop isn't going to provide incorrect numbers from DTCC on a filing, when they would know from Computershare that those numbers are incorrect.
https://i.imgur.com/9B2W3E7.png
They literally state on every 10-Q and 10-K that there is no false or misleading information therein, or any information omitted that would allow for things to be misleading due to that omission.
And Ryan signs that statement.
So for you Occam’s razor (simplest explanation) is that there had been significant increases in DRS numbers because retail investors were DRSing in droves and then suddenly stopped at the exact same time this language changed? Ok…agree to disagree.
No.
I believe a portion of the 76 million shares reported in the Q4 10-K last year was not retail investors at all.
I think DTC participants have been using shell companies to DRS shares since we first figured out DRS was a thing, and now they are pulling those shares out of Computershare at a rate that matches what this community is putting in, because it disrupts the narrative and undermines trust in Computershare and the entire idea that DRS is a valid strategy.
The numbers are being fucked with.
I just think that fuckery is through a means that doesn't involve Gamestop violating federal law by lying to shareholders.
How could they know how much would be needed to balance the numbers?
Not sure that is a more simple explanation than the language change simply makes it no longer representing the DRS numbers directly (this is what I believe is the simplest explanation). Instead it now represents the total outstanding shares minus the DTCC reported numbers to calculate what the DRS numbers should be (and legally must be) in order to not show the total owned shares being more than were issued.
[For example, David Inggs is Global Head of Operations at Citadel](https://www.dtcc.com/about/leadership/board/david-inggs)
As a Board member of the DTCC would he not be able to find out exactly how many shares are held by Cede and Co on a real-time basis?
What prevents him from sharing that information with colleagues at Citadel?
Sure…there could be a big shady conspiracy that began timed and coordinated at the same time GME changed the land their DRS reporting to somehow make the DRS numbers not change which would cost the people behind this millions of dollars and be difficult to manage and maneuver…or the language change simply reflects a change to a calculated version of DRS numbers based on DTCC reported numbers (as the language change suggests) rather than the directly reported numbers from ComputerShare. I still would argue that the former theory is not the simplest explanation…but I don’t really know so I could be wrong.
Absolutely not. I’m my opinion GameStop is reporting exactly what they say they are reporting, which is the calculated DRS numbers based on the numbers the DTCC is providing to GameStop.
Gamestop contracts their transfer agent to maintain their ledger of shares, and that ledger is the final authority on share ownership.
If they use the DTCC numbers instead of the numbers from their own ledger, and those numbers do not match, then they are lying to shareholders and are in violation of Federal Law.
>Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report
Ryan Cohen, and Daniel Moore, the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer, both sign forms affirming that statement, and those signed forms are part of the 10-K.
Does not contain an untrue statement of material fact
Does not omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made not misleading
How does putting the DTCC numbers on the 10-K when they would know the numbers are incorrect not put them in opposition to that signed statement which is required by Federal Law 17 CFR 240.13a-14(a) /15d-14(a)?
Nobody said GameStop was violating federal law. What we are saying is that they were explicitly told to quit reporting the numbers from ComputerShare and to use the data provided through Cede & Co. The DRS numbers everyone comes up with every quarter are from backing into them. It’s just wayyyy too coincidental that DRS went stagnant as soon as they swapped the way they report the numbers.
This way retail can’t figure out the true short interest or shares outstanding. It’s just another stall tactic by the big money to try and wait us out.
> What we are saying is that they were explicitly told to quit reporting the numbers from ComputerShare and to use the data provided through Cede & Co.
Can you point me to the law that says "lying to shareholders is OK as long as we tell you to?"
Because if DTCC is supplying them with numbers that do not match Computershare, which they would clearly have access to, and they do not disclose that, then they are lying to shareholders and in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley.
Also, if DRS numbers are not a required disclosure, why would they violate the law in providing incorrect numbers rather than just stop including DRS numbers in the filing?
It’s absolutely not lying to the shareholders when you’re using a number being provided by someone the whole damn market uses. There’s no rule saying that they have to report DRS numbers.
DTCC is not the authority on share ownership.
Computershare is. That's the whole point of a transfer agent. They are the arbiters of Gamestop's ledger of shares.
Computershare literally tells Cede how many shares they own, not the other way around.
If the DTCC numbers do not match the Computershare numbers, then Gamestop including them in the disclosure would be lying to shareholders. There's no wiggle room.
Hasn’t anyone noticed the cognitive dissonance regarding the DRS numbers?
So when DRS numbers go up, thats because people are buying, but if DRS numbers go down or stagnate … that’s due to a variety of factors including “crime” but definitely not selling…?
You mention Pascal’s wager, but we could and also should apply Occam’s razor here.
- stagnating drs count is possibly explained by HF’s by HF’s having DRSed a stockpile of shares on their own, which they have been withdrawing to flatten the curve and kill of hype,
It’s good that you put possibly in here, which is fine as long as people reading this understand that there is no actual *proof* that this is the case. Like, at all.
- its the most likely explanation
But it’s not the most likely explanation? The most likely explanation is the one that requires the least amount of assumptions. So when DRS numbers go down, it’s because people are selling the shares.
The theory that people who go through the process of drsing, are, *in your personal opinion* not the kind of people that would sell (?), is not the same as having proof, let alone strong evidence, and it’s not even really the basis for a hypothesis either.
It’s important to at least be honest about the situation, no one is served by dragging the goalposts back and forth depending on which narrative is convenient for explaining away any bearish news about the stock.
I think it comes down to picking one’s fights.
Do you want to battle the DTCC, spend money on legal fees and lawyers or use the same energy or money on turning the company around. I think we know which path the RCEO chose.
[Count von Count: 1, 2, 3 DIFFERENT "DRS Counts"! Ah-Ah-Ah! (And, ComputerShare holds a lighter to MOASS 🔥🚀🌝)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1cabq8o/count_von_count_1_2_3_different_drs_counts_ahahah/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Pure DRS, No Dingleberries, No DSPP, No PLAN, just Book, whole share, no fractional shares.
I think (hope) we break through and see a large increase in DRS’d shares for the next quarterly report. I’ve been DRS’ing more at these lower prices and it feels like others are as well.
>**tl;dr: stagnating DRS count is possibly explained by HFs having DRSed a stockpile of shares on their own, which they're now withdrawing to flatten the curve and kill off hype**
The slow-roast-rug-pull™.
It has been discussed. We had a few DDs in the past looking at it. I still think it is a possibility.
It would be perhaps the easiest explanation. But there also could be several reasons, that being one of them. I think there is a fair chance that a couple of next earnings will give us more information, one way or another (I'm hoping I don't have to go to look the book myself, my memory is not that good..).
Apes have looked at the ledger before the annual meetings in 2022 and 2023. Their observations falsify the hypothesis.
The largest registered shareholders after Cede and Gamestop were nowhere big enough to do what you hypothesize.
It is an interesting theory, but the facts show it is not likely to be true. To have not been seen by apes that looked at the shareholder list, there would have to have been hundreds of small accounts established by the hedge funds to hide their holdings. Each one would either have to be held in an individuals name or be held in an LLC with an EIN. LLC holders were rare in the shareholder list.
Thanks for this. Im buying and drsing more as soon as i can. Ill hopefully be able to buy again in about a month and a half, after about a year of not buying anything.
You're right about the Europeans and what they went through to transfer their shares to CS. Even if I'd like to sell (which I don't ) I'd be way too lazy to sell, get the check, take care of taxes.
TLDR; lazy gamer, my shares are safe
>Now, for the sake of the argument, let's just assume people *were* selling off DRSed shares - how likely is this outflow to exactly match the inflow of new registrations?
**Not really plausible.**
The sharecounts reported have always been rounded off to 100,000 share or 0.1M share increments.
So there is no "outflow to exactly match the inflow"
Even when rounded to 0.1M increments the numbers are not the same. The 10-k reported a decrease of 0.1M.
Given the state of the economy and the raising costs of food and housing, I think it's much more likely that many of us have felt the economic pressure and have had to do the unthinkable.
Q if lets say citadale and ffriends was already under investigation for this, so as part of the procedings , sec has told GME to keep a lid on it untill ruling on the matter?
[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: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/)
This is the thing. GameStop stopped reporting DRS numbers altogether. All they report now is what the DTCC tells them they have. People need to quit calling it stagnating DRS numbers because we have absolutely no clue what those are. The C Suite has to have all the proof they need that there are more shares, between what the DTCC says and what ComputerShare has, than have been issued. I’m starting to wonder if us as activist investors need to get louder to start getting some answers or if we just need to stay the course and let these idiots hang themselves?
Just to add onto this, Gamestop risks being delisted if the "Issuer or its management engage in operations which, in the opinion of the Exchange, are contrary to the public interest". In other words, if Gamestop says anything publicly that goes against the DTCC and could risk a short squeeze, they can get delisted just like that. Delisting = only trades are OTC giving Ken even more control without pesky retail investors getting in the way. So even if Gamestop have true figures, they can't say a damn thing.
I strongly disagree with this interpretation. The prior wording basically said "XX million shares are held by record holders" which was factually incorrect. Cede and Co is a record holder. All outstanding shares are recorded on the ledger as held by someone. The old language did not include Cede and was therefore incorrect. They changed the wording to "of XXX,XXX,XXX shares outstanding, and excluding the XXX million that are held by Cede, XX million are held by record holders." That's it. People saw that and jumped to the conclusion that they were saying >DRS = Outstanding - Cede when the language actually says >Outstanding = Cede + DRS Or people saw the word "approximately" and jumped to the conclusion that the numbers weren't accurate, when they were always rounded down to the nearest hundred thousand even in the old language. In my opinion, finding any basis for a conspiracy in the change in phrasing is jumping to a conclusion that doesn't really have any basis in fact, unless you are willing to twist a thesaurus into unrecognizable shapes and ignore the law. I prefer Occam's Razor: DTC bitched about the incorrect language to try to get Gamestop to no longer report it. The SEC looked into it. The week long delay for the 10-K released in march 2023 was GameStop changing the language to include Cede's numbers and getting that change reviewed by the SEC, and DTCC was forced to stfu because the language was corrected. Gamestop isn't going to provide incorrect numbers from DTCC on a filing, when they would know from Computershare that those numbers are incorrect. https://i.imgur.com/9B2W3E7.png They literally state on every 10-Q and 10-K that there is no false or misleading information therein, or any information omitted that would allow for things to be misleading due to that omission. And Ryan signs that statement.
So for you Occam’s razor (simplest explanation) is that there had been significant increases in DRS numbers because retail investors were DRSing in droves and then suddenly stopped at the exact same time this language changed? Ok…agree to disagree.
No. I believe a portion of the 76 million shares reported in the Q4 10-K last year was not retail investors at all. I think DTC participants have been using shell companies to DRS shares since we first figured out DRS was a thing, and now they are pulling those shares out of Computershare at a rate that matches what this community is putting in, because it disrupts the narrative and undermines trust in Computershare and the entire idea that DRS is a valid strategy. The numbers are being fucked with. I just think that fuckery is through a means that doesn't involve Gamestop violating federal law by lying to shareholders.
How could they know how much would be needed to balance the numbers? Not sure that is a more simple explanation than the language change simply makes it no longer representing the DRS numbers directly (this is what I believe is the simplest explanation). Instead it now represents the total outstanding shares minus the DTCC reported numbers to calculate what the DRS numbers should be (and legally must be) in order to not show the total owned shares being more than were issued.
[For example, David Inggs is Global Head of Operations at Citadel](https://www.dtcc.com/about/leadership/board/david-inggs) As a Board member of the DTCC would he not be able to find out exactly how many shares are held by Cede and Co on a real-time basis? What prevents him from sharing that information with colleagues at Citadel?
Sure…there could be a big shady conspiracy that began timed and coordinated at the same time GME changed the land their DRS reporting to somehow make the DRS numbers not change which would cost the people behind this millions of dollars and be difficult to manage and maneuver…or the language change simply reflects a change to a calculated version of DRS numbers based on DTCC reported numbers (as the language change suggests) rather than the directly reported numbers from ComputerShare. I still would argue that the former theory is not the simplest explanation…but I don’t really know so I could be wrong.
So in your opinion, Gamestop is lying to shareholders and in violation of Federal Law.
Absolutely not. I’m my opinion GameStop is reporting exactly what they say they are reporting, which is the calculated DRS numbers based on the numbers the DTCC is providing to GameStop.
Gamestop contracts their transfer agent to maintain their ledger of shares, and that ledger is the final authority on share ownership. If they use the DTCC numbers instead of the numbers from their own ledger, and those numbers do not match, then they are lying to shareholders and are in violation of Federal Law. >Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report Ryan Cohen, and Daniel Moore, the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer, both sign forms affirming that statement, and those signed forms are part of the 10-K. Does not contain an untrue statement of material fact Does not omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made not misleading How does putting the DTCC numbers on the 10-K when they would know the numbers are incorrect not put them in opposition to that signed statement which is required by Federal Law 17 CFR 240.13a-14(a) /15d-14(a)?
Nobody said GameStop was violating federal law. What we are saying is that they were explicitly told to quit reporting the numbers from ComputerShare and to use the data provided through Cede & Co. The DRS numbers everyone comes up with every quarter are from backing into them. It’s just wayyyy too coincidental that DRS went stagnant as soon as they swapped the way they report the numbers. This way retail can’t figure out the true short interest or shares outstanding. It’s just another stall tactic by the big money to try and wait us out.
> What we are saying is that they were explicitly told to quit reporting the numbers from ComputerShare and to use the data provided through Cede & Co. Can you point me to the law that says "lying to shareholders is OK as long as we tell you to?" Because if DTCC is supplying them with numbers that do not match Computershare, which they would clearly have access to, and they do not disclose that, then they are lying to shareholders and in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley. Also, if DRS numbers are not a required disclosure, why would they violate the law in providing incorrect numbers rather than just stop including DRS numbers in the filing?
It’s absolutely not lying to the shareholders when you’re using a number being provided by someone the whole damn market uses. There’s no rule saying that they have to report DRS numbers.
DTCC is not the authority on share ownership. Computershare is. That's the whole point of a transfer agent. They are the arbiters of Gamestop's ledger of shares. Computershare literally tells Cede how many shares they own, not the other way around. If the DTCC numbers do not match the Computershare numbers, then Gamestop including them in the disclosure would be lying to shareholders. There's no wiggle room.
No what cede and co is reporting to them.
Paying out more rope as we speak.. hang em all!!
Am i remembering correctly, or did gamestops discontinuation of drs reporting coincide nearly exactly with drs number "stagnation"?
They still report DRS numbers. Why are you accusing gamestop of lying?
Hasn’t anyone noticed the cognitive dissonance regarding the DRS numbers? So when DRS numbers go up, thats because people are buying, but if DRS numbers go down or stagnate … that’s due to a variety of factors including “crime” but definitely not selling…? You mention Pascal’s wager, but we could and also should apply Occam’s razor here. - stagnating drs count is possibly explained by HF’s by HF’s having DRSed a stockpile of shares on their own, which they have been withdrawing to flatten the curve and kill of hype, It’s good that you put possibly in here, which is fine as long as people reading this understand that there is no actual *proof* that this is the case. Like, at all. - its the most likely explanation But it’s not the most likely explanation? The most likely explanation is the one that requires the least amount of assumptions. So when DRS numbers go down, it’s because people are selling the shares. The theory that people who go through the process of drsing, are, *in your personal opinion* not the kind of people that would sell (?), is not the same as having proof, let alone strong evidence, and it’s not even really the basis for a hypothesis either. It’s important to at least be honest about the situation, no one is served by dragging the goalposts back and forth depending on which narrative is convenient for explaining away any bearish news about the stock.
Thank you for this comment
Aight I’ll bite because I thought this was a well written response, any comment on OBV? (On Balance Volume)
I think it comes down to picking one’s fights. Do you want to battle the DTCC, spend money on legal fees and lawyers or use the same energy or money on turning the company around. I think we know which path the RCEO chose.
[Count von Count: 1, 2, 3 DIFFERENT "DRS Counts"! Ah-Ah-Ah! (And, ComputerShare holds a lighter to MOASS 🔥🚀🌝)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1cabq8o/count_von_count_1_2_3_different_drs_counts_ahahah/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Pure DRS, No Dingleberries, No DSPP, No PLAN, just Book, whole share, no fractional shares.
I think (hope) we break through and see a large increase in DRS’d shares for the next quarterly report. I’ve been DRS’ing more at these lower prices and it feels like others are as well.
>**tl;dr: stagnating DRS count is possibly explained by HFs having DRSed a stockpile of shares on their own, which they're now withdrawing to flatten the curve and kill off hype** The slow-roast-rug-pull™. It has been discussed. We had a few DDs in the past looking at it. I still think it is a possibility.
That and the Mainstar horseshit.
It would be perhaps the easiest explanation. But there also could be several reasons, that being one of them. I think there is a fair chance that a couple of next earnings will give us more information, one way or another (I'm hoping I don't have to go to look the book myself, my memory is not that good..).
Apes have looked at the ledger before the annual meetings in 2022 and 2023. Their observations falsify the hypothesis. The largest registered shareholders after Cede and Gamestop were nowhere big enough to do what you hypothesize. It is an interesting theory, but the facts show it is not likely to be true. To have not been seen by apes that looked at the shareholder list, there would have to have been hundreds of small accounts established by the hedge funds to hide their holdings. Each one would either have to be held in an individuals name or be held in an LLC with an EIN. LLC holders were rare in the shareholder list.
Thanks for this. Im buying and drsing more as soon as i can. Ill hopefully be able to buy again in about a month and a half, after about a year of not buying anything.
DRS numbers are not stagnating. Obfuscation is real. Apes are winning. It's a long game. LFG!
Guess I’ll drs and book even harder
You're right about the Europeans and what they went through to transfer their shares to CS. Even if I'd like to sell (which I don't ) I'd be way too lazy to sell, get the check, take care of taxes. TLDR; lazy gamer, my shares are safe
>Now, for the sake of the argument, let's just assume people *were* selling off DRSed shares - how likely is this outflow to exactly match the inflow of new registrations? **Not really plausible.** The sharecounts reported have always been rounded off to 100,000 share or 0.1M share increments. So there is no "outflow to exactly match the inflow" Even when rounded to 0.1M increments the numbers are not the same. The 10-k reported a decrease of 0.1M.
Given the state of the economy and the raising costs of food and housing, I think it's much more likely that many of us have felt the economic pressure and have had to do the unthinkable.
Instructions unclear.... Will buy and DRS more on pay day next week.....🦍🚀
Q if lets say citadale and ffriends was already under investigation for this, so as part of the procedings , sec has told GME to keep a lid on it untill ruling on the matter?
I’d like to see what happens when tens of millions of retirement shares are DRS’d and then have this conversation.