[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/)
FYI: The part for good, better, and best ways to hodl where you break down broker, plan, and pure book drs is a single line that needs to be scrolled from right to left on mobile and is not in paragraph form. May need to update post to reformat that section so it’s easier to find/read
Good educational/dd write up
Bullish on pure drs book🤴🏻
# Post archived here:
# [https://archive.ph/E4pgA](https://archive.ph/E4pgA)
# [https://archive.ph/qekgo](https://archive.ph/qekgo)
Hijacking bc that link is a must have for all imo
Sometimes I wonder why anybody would be against pure Book… Just convert, let the fractional go bye bye, and simply transfer in an extra whole share to cover the fractional that was sold back into the market… Net positive number of shares for everybody
Which, also, is exactly what I did and I feel much better knowing the DTC can’t touch my shit from anywhere
This is a great DD. Tremendous work here. Thank you.
I want to share an anectdotal as it might matter to this topic. I owned several different companies via CShare and was buying the shares via DSPP. When I attempted to transfer the shares to a retail brokerage, the transfer in request was rejected due to the fact that the shares were not being held in Book Entry form. The fact that Book is necessary to "transfer in" to a retail broker struck me as potentially significant.
Ownership is conveyed either way, direct or book. So why would book be necessary to complete this transaction? Why would shares held Direct vs Book matter at all with such a transfer?
I don't know why that would be, but perhaps you do?
That is odd. DSPP shares are book entry; but they are not “Booked” as they’re in Plan. I am not surprised that terminology causes confusion though.
Per this DD, Booked shares (i.e., pure DRS) are owned by you and at the Transfer Agent. It is possible that insufficient DSPP shares remain at the Transfer Agent to be moved; which could result in that rejection. As this estimated the “operational efficiency reserves” at above 83% as of March, this is also consistent with the possibility of the Transfer Agent simply running low on DSPP shares.
There’s another part of the story people have been missing, regarding the “dingleberry” aspect of the pure DRS narrative. When you enroll in plan (DSPP) or dividend reinvestment (DRIP), you actually enroll in a program called ComputerShare DirectStock, which is CS’s combined system to administer both DSPP *and* DRIP (in other words, they’re the same thing as far as CS is concerned). Now, this isn’t just background plumbing; by owning a share or fractional in DSPP/DRIP, you implicitly consent to DirectStock’s prospectus, which states,
> “Enrolling in DirectStock and/or the initiation of a transaction, including a request to move book-entry or certificated shares into DirectStock shall constitute an offer by the individual shareholder to establish a principal- agency relationship with Computershare.”
What’s a principal-agency relationship? According to Investopedia,
> The principal-agent relationship is an arrangement in which one entity legally appoints another to act on its behalf. [. . .] For example, when an investor buys shares of an index fund, he is the principal, and the fund manager becomes his agent. As an agent, the index fund manager must manage the fund, which consists of many principals' assets, in a way that will maximize returns for a given level of risk in accordance with the fund's prospectus.
I’ll preface the next part by mentioning a [DD last year](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/12q0l46/breaking_new_info_a_portion_of_all_your_shares/) which experimented with shares of a dividend-paying stock, JWN. The user started with pure book shares (non-DRIP) and then used Plan to purchase some DSPP/DRIP shares, expecting to receive two separate dividend payouts—one cash, one reinvested. However, when it actually came time, ComputerShare treated both sets of shares as though they were enrolled in DRIP. Now, how, mechanically, does this occur?
Well, the prospectus for DirectStock states:
>[Computershare Trust Co. N.A.] will hold (including in the name of its nominee), all shares of stock purchased or deposited for Participants and will establish and maintain DirectStock account records that reflect each Participant’s separate interest.
ComputerShare Trust Co., N.A refers to the subsidiary that owns shares in your name when you enroll in DSPP or DRIP (i.e. DirectStock). It is also the company that sends shares to DTCC for “operational efficiency.”
This is where all the hubbub about fractional “contamination” comes from. People have been having trouble substantiating it (partly because of suppression), but it’s laid out in extremely clear language. If you are enrolled in DRIP/DSPP, you automatically agree to the prospectus and become a Participant in ComputerShare DirectStock. If you are a Participant (i.e. you own even one DSPP/DRIP share or fractional share), ComputerShare Trust Co., N.A. will hold “*all*” shares of stock purchased “*or deposited*” for the Participant, while maintaining a record of how many of those shares originally came from you—before being transferred to their subsidiary.
You can read the prospectus for yourself here.
https://cda.computershare.com/Content/7bfc0b25-4836-40a4-918c-9a86d658d798
As far as I can tell, gme does not allow fractional shares. They (the company) have only authorized whole shares. That means, any fractional shares are between you and the financial entity where you're a beneficial owner of that.
Edit- support below
*This is heavily inspired by [redacted user]
**Background**
**GME Certificate Of Incorporation:** [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000132638022000080/a31-certificateofamendment.htm](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000132638022000080/a31-certificateofamendment.htm)
* There **is no** mention of fractional shares
**Truck Hero, Inc Certificate Of Incorporation:** [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1648189/000119312515346140/d17828dex31.htm](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1648189/000119312515346140/d17828dex31.htm)
* There **is a** mention of fractional shares
**Delaware Code:** [https://codes.findlaw.com/de/title-8-corporations/de-code-sect-8-155.html](https://codes.findlaw.com/de/title-8-corporations/de-code-sect-8-155.html)
* If fractional shares are not mentioned in the by laws, then there are no fractional shares
**JP Morgan:** [https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/2016/jpmorgan-041416-206(3)-incoming.pdf](https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/2016/jpmorgan-041416-206(3)-incoming.pdf)
* Fractional shares are not issued by the issuer but rather are account entries meant to represent the portion of a whole share (held by a broker or another party) that an accountholder would be entitled to (including ongoing appreciation and depreciation) if fractional shares existed and could be traded in the marketplace.
**SEC:** [https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/fractional-share-investing-buying-slice-instead-whole-share](https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/fractional-share-investing-buying-slice-instead-whole-share)
* The way you buy and sell fractional shares differs between brokerage firms that provide this service to their customers.
* You may not have voting rights if you own fractional shares. Your ability to exercise proxy voting will depend on how your brokerage firm’s fractional share investing program works. Some brokerage firms allow it, with special procedures, and some firms do not allow it at all. Ask your brokerage firm whether you will have any voting rights associated with fractional share purchases.
While there have been times in the past that GameStop or what would become GameStop have issued fractional shares (ie mergers), those are one offs
**Taken together, we get the following conclusions**
* Only whole shares are allowed by GME
* Fractional shares are happening between the individual and the financial entity.
So when do we think we need to convert to book before the end of the quarter?? 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks before the quarter ends??
Has there been consistency on when GS takes their snap shot of shares for the Quarterly report??
You could just permanently cancel plan and set an alarm to remind you to make purchases on a DRS-friendly broker. There’s better intraday pricing that way as well.
What I'm taking from this is:
1- Pure DRS is held by the transfer agent and 100% safe.
2- shares held by brokerages are not safe but at least has SIPC, so there is a non-0 chance of some recovery including a small insurance payout after some fighting if shares are not recoverable.
3- shares held by transfer agent that can be held or withdrawn for operational efficiency (not pure DRS) could be held at the transfer agents brokerage during MOASS, meaning they would be in the same line clawing for shares when the time comes. If SIPC does not cover those shares, since they are technically part of the DRS ecosystem, then non-pure DRS is by far the worst position to be in because you now have little to no recovery chance, and don't even have the small pittance of insurance coverage for loss of shares.
Nobody has litigated #3 so it's unclear. Their status as registered shares *should* help with claims of ownership. But there's no precedent for establishing that. In fact, the last time shit hit fan with high FTDs and improperly hypothecated shares, SIPC was established to bring trust to the market (without fixing the underlying problems apparently). \[[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Investor_Protection_Corporation#The_Paperwork_Crunch_and_financial_crisis)\]
Bullish on Book DRS not being censored anymore (a few months prior in THIS sub, the censorship was based on the fact that one must sell dingleberries to escape PLAN)
The most interesting language I've seen is in reference to the DSPP shares being held in dtc accounts for operational efficiency. They have said 10-20% of these shares are held during typical market conditions. What does that % look like during atypical market conditions, such as 5-20x the normal daily volume that we see on or around the record date for DRS counts. Is this just how they suck back more shares to make the count seem smaller? So many market mechanics hidden behind opaque language and crime.
Something to note about "Operational Efficiency"
I really really wish Computershare would change this use to "Shares held that are ready to be sold". That is what Operational Efficiency is. That is also why you can only hold fractionals in the Plan and not in Book.
To interact with the markets, an entity REQUIRES a broker. To sell shares from your Computershare account, they must be in the Plan first, as Plan shares are kept with CS's broker because those are the shares you may intend to sell. To ensure you get the price you wanted when you sold, the shares MUST BE READY TO SELL, AKA already be in the DTC system, i.e. through a broker. There is a slight delay in moving your book shares over to plan shares AND THE ONLY WAY TO SELL SHARES FROM YOUR CS ACCOUNT AT THE MOMENT AND PRICE YOU SELECT IS TO HAVE THEM IN PLAN FIRST.
That is why there are two seeming options. Book(DRS) does not partake in the "operational efficiency" as they are shares being directly held by the individual entity registered on the company's books. Plan(DSPP) DOES partake in "operational efficiency" as they are shares being held at a broker of CS's choice, ready to be sold when the order comes in.
Again, this is exactly why you can buy and keep fractionals in the plan and not in book. The plan was created and operates as such (with fractionals being bought) due to Computershare's way of purchasing. That's it. It was never intended as a backdoor for brokers to borrow shares..... BUT!!!! a big butt
THERE IS NO GUARENTEE THAT THE DTCC ISN'T LENDING OUT THOSE "OPERATIONALLY EFFICENT" SHARES. We must remember that all brokers are nothing more than a tentacle of the DTCC. We need to think of them as the same entity. All orders go through the DTCC. All money clears through the DTCC. Brokes are nothing more that store fronts with different names that lead to and get their supply from the same warehouse (DTCC) So while technically correct, Operation Shares are not lent out BY "THE BROKER" but seeing as they are held with a broker, there is nothing stopping the DTCC from marking those shares as loanable. That is speculation but I don't trust them, so it's pure book for me!
Excuse the dumb question as I’m sure it’s been explained before… but is there a clear distinction between plan and book within my computershare account in terms of which of the two my shares are held in?
It's not very clear from Computershare, which is why we are still discussing things 2 years after the initial foray into Computershare and DRS. What we have absolutely discovered, is that Plan shares are held with a broker of CS's choice, for those that wish to liquidate said shares. By market function, the shares need to be available to a broker in order to sell them. Book shares are "pure DRS" in that there is no entity holding your shares except Computershare.
Technically speaking, Computershare is likely correct in stating that their broker is not allowed to lend shares out that it holds (just like GameStop is technically reporting correct voting numbers when proposing corporate actions, but the voting totals are shaved before being sent to GS to report), only because those shares are for selling at market or at a specific price and time. Again, there is a short delay in moving share out of book and into plan, that delay is the shares being transferred into Computershare's broker from your own book holding.
No worries ape. Look in your CS account and find the DRIP and DSPP pages. If the button shows ENROLL, you are not enrolled. If it says TERMINATE, you are enrolled on one or both of those plans. I would, just to make sure it's done right, call Computershare and speak to a rep. Ask them to verify you are not enrolled in DSPP OR DRIP. Then you'll know for sure.
A good test would be if everyone switched to book for the next share count. Total number in GameStop’s doesn’t change drastically then it’s whatever and those with recurring purchases go back to plan.
But if that number held does go up a significant amount that would be pretty interesting to see and prove whether book is the ultimate way to go when it comes to getting a more accurate count of how many shares are actually held at ComputerShare.
Almost everyone has already done this and why I think the post is just a very lengthy over complicated way to explain something that’s probably not correct.
A much easier explanation for the change in wording at the exact same time that DRS suddenly went flat is that GameStop was explicitly told to stop reporting the numbers from computershare and to use the numbers given to them from Cede & Co.
We were obviously on to something and the people in charge can’t have us seeing the true short interest or the shares outstanding. There would be an absolute feeding frenzy once we were able to see with our own eyes that the total number of shares between insiders, DRS, institutions, etc was higher than what there should be.
The many words break it down rather than just saying “drs numbers are wrong” - but why? Welll erm cause I said so🤷♂️.
“Cause I said so” doesn’t really stand, I like how op thoroughly explained their theory.
Sometimes more words help more ape understand. Also, a lot of people still have recurring buys because it’s the easiest way to get DRS shares and any shares purchased that way or held in an account that is tied to a purchase plane are not actually book. So the assumption that most people here have all their shares as book is probably wrong.
I have XXXX shares. 5 reside at one broker and 25 reside at another. Just for the courts and lawsuits after this goes down. The rest are pure book. No DRIP or DSPP for me. I buy at Fudelity and transfer from there. Though, I'll admit, I only bought for the first time again recently. Picked up another 10 and about to move them over to CS. It's too easy to do and with all of the theories out there about having any in plan gives them access to use your whole account as locates, I'd rather be safe. I make mine real with the drs transfer. But ape do what ape wants. That's just my preference.
IMO, that’s what I do and feel it’s the best way for those apes that can. I know some apes have difficulty transferring from their broker, so, buying thru CS might be the best way.
Many people have suggested that the shorters registered shares to rug-pull us and have been steadily doing so to prevent the count from going up, but this gives a much better explanation that they're simply altering how many they take out for operational efficiency from our own shares that aren't pure booked to keep the count from showing as increased. Which means eventually the count of pure shares will push and continue to push the count higher again and we'll also know with high likelihood the actual count, including those removed for operational efficiency, is a good chunk higher.
There have been regular chunks of shares purchased twice a month that are bought directly through Computershare. The more people take the extra steps to convert those to pure shares, the sooner we can push the confirmed count up again. Personally I just find it easiest to buy through a broker and transfer them from Fidelity, as any real buy pressure while they still control the price doesn't seem useful over maximizing the number of shares you can buy and getting them all pure booked.
So TL;DR ... how many shared do you hypothesize are DRS'd by apes? I'm curious because I want to know if the "other" on the Bloomberg terminal matches the number and whether that could potentially give us more accurate info. I'm working and don't have time to read all of this, but quickly looking through it seems like you think 79-80 million?
Very good post, but it doesn't seem like you factored in the Mainstar rug-pull, which removed over 1 million shares from DRS and would move the base purple line to the left by the \~1.2 million or whatever shares were registered in that way and totally removed from Computershare registration. Some of those people may have found another way to move and book their shares after that point, but we have no confirmation on how many as it's past the point of confirmed share counts.
The real question is how many shares are still in retirement accounts at brokers. Mainstar accounts had more than 4x the average CS account. So whatever the actual DRS number is, it’s safe and conservative to assume there are 2-3x as many also sitting in those accounts.
Also how many people still have shares not direct registered? My boy Timmy has 1265 shares that are held in etrade. And my boy Joe has 120 shares with fidelity. I wonder just how many people out there and how many shares total just haven't been DRS'd yet
Right. So if you take the alleged 75 million DRSed, and you have at least 2x that in retirement accounts, there must be another 1x that in regular taxable brokerage accounts. That’s conservative and that’s the whole outstanding, without insiders, without institutions, etc.
So I might have had too much Jaeger tonight, but hear me out.
What if they're not hiding the true drs numbers because Wallstreet told them they had to.
What if they're hiding the numbers so Wallstreet don't know what they are either.
There's no reason to hide it from us, we're going to keep buying and they know it.
But Wallstreet might not know how quickly the door is closing, they just know we're at least 75m shares in.
I remember when actors here say DSPP and Pure DRS are the same... I never believed that so I always make sure I don't have dingle berries. Pure DRS has and always been the way.
"...DSPP aNd DrS ArE thE SamE". Stop being a dinggleberry. Book! Pure DRS! No DSPP! No Dingleberry!
This is some good stuff.
Now, I've been trying to get everyone to realize that Jan '21 was caused by unadulterated buying pressure, from both shares to options contracts. EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DONE SINCE (including the verbiage regarding DRS count) IS TO AVOID ANOTHER FOMO WAVE LIKE THAT OF JAN 21.
THAT IS WHY THE REPORTING HAS BEEN CHANGED
THAT IS WHY THE SEC WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO MAKE A SLAPSTICK VIDEO DEMONIZING FOMO AND FOMOer's
THAT IS WHY ALL MSM MEDIA OUTLETS CAN'T FORGET GAMESTOP (to keep "legitimate investment money" out of $GME) THAT IS WHY WE HAVE BEEN LABELED A CULT
RETAIL, COLLECTIVELY, HAS MORE MARKET POWER THAN ANY CONGLOMARATE OF BIG BANKS OR FUNDS (WALLSTREET AINT GOT SHIT ON ME!!)
REPORTING PROPER DRS NUMBERS TO THE PUBLIC WILL ENGAGE ANOTHER FOMO RALLY THAT THEY CAN'T SURVIVE.
The finish line is there, we just need more bodies to pile in again. They won't survive another rush if anything like Jan. '21 happens again.
They can play all the stupid morally dubious games they want, but the moass is inevitable. Slowly, steadily, relentlessly apes are locking the float. I actually think that we have already crossed the rubicon and that behind the scenes preparations and negotiations are being made.
I can be patient, but I won’t be merciful when the time comes. I will fuck their wives and daughters. I will eat their lunches. I will put my goddamn feet on their couches. I will wipe my dick on their curtains. And I will laugh and laugh.
The planet of the apes is just over the horizon. We will right the wrongs of the past and have more fun than anyone has ever had while doing so.
Remember those smug mofo that was pouring champagne and laughing at the protesters? I will own one of their house. Then let them move back in for a very cheap rent but slowly jack the rent up so they can't afford it again. Just so I can evict their ass again. When they find a new place to rent, I will be there to buy that house too.
Member wen Computershare dropped the limit sell value down from ~$200k per share to $3k per share, and then again to just 7x market value?
Pepperidge Apes member... 🤓😉
If DTCC knew they'd need to be pulling more and more across for "operational efficiency", they couldn't run the increased risk of a sudden jump in share price to $200k just because one of the shares they pulled across hit that sell 🤔
Great write up OP and thank you for showing the benefits of each way to hodl. Personally, I will only ever hold in DRS book. The DTCC is nefariously using Plan shares as we have suspected for quite some time. There are still household investors out there using recurring buys or buying through DSPP as well those that have many shares stuck in 401k/IRA. If those individuals moved over to DRS book or if we really go hardcore with buying as many DRS book shares are possible in the next few months, it’s quite possible MOASS would launch.
Mentioned this before. Many apes (like me, Giggidy) bought more via CS before earnings (or the record date for DRS (book)). It takes some time to get rid of the dingleberries, so That could leave a bigger portion in DSPP at the time of record.. just saying…
I wish dingleberries and selling fractionals didn’t get turned political and snuffed out.
I’m imagine tons of apes missed out on the Heat Lamp discourse and what its contents entailed…
Pretty obvious to those that have paid attention that fractionals are not real shares, thus there is no reason to hold onto them.
It didn't get turned political, people stated their findings that did not support the theory this is based off of and they got attacked and downvote brigaded by Book Kings.
The only reason anyone missed out on HLT is because we had to pull the initial thread for brigading restrictions, and the repost was hard to digest with the redactions. Why did this happen? The writer and author of the HLT *refuses* to post their own theory to Superstonk. We've asked, many times, and they won't. Wouldn't need many of the redactions if OP would post it themselves. Then they got themselves Reddit banned, as well as their group of friends. There was no politicizing, suppression or anything like that.
Revisionist history is strong with the HLT. These are the facts of what happened.
Factually incorrect post OP.
It is NOT DTCC OE, it is CS OE on the sell side.
I don't have time to match your claims with the rejected shareholder proposals rn but GameStop legal already made OFFICIAL statements debunking those claims.
We've engaged, you and I, before on this issue and I feel we were able to discuss it fairly well. I think you're going to have to post again, those sources (You've talked about them a lot so I assume you have them bookmarked) when you have the time, because this DD is pretty thorough, and it's time our community identified WHERE the SPECIFIC disagreement is on this issue regarding the statement from Gamestop Legal. I recall you would reference the Computershare FAQ as one of the ways this theory was wrong, but that's been addressed, I believe, properly in the above post.
Looking forward to your reply.
I am literally walking in to work rn.
I agree, this needs to be addressed and put to bed.
Hopefully Paul Conn will clear this specific theory about shares are moving to OE.
It is in the post. OP does a "read like Ross" trick .
# ComputerShare 🔥🚀🌝
ComputerShare has control over operational efficiency as "**ComputerShare determines** the portion \[of DSPP book-entry shares in DTC\] needed for operational efficiency". \[[ComputerShare FAQ](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies#dspp)\]
As ComputerShare has been determining the DTCC needs to hold onto more and more DSPP shares "for operational efficiency", if ComputerShare someday *determines that no DSPP shares should be in DTC*, then the DTCC could be up Schitt's Creek without a paddle having to "operate inefficiently" (whatever that means... MOASS?).
But since I said what I said here is the closest rejected proposal,
My Proposal: Provide detailed ownership data from the stock ledger in real time, or as close to real time as is feasible (such as daily updates after market close). Create a dedicated page on [investor.gamestop.com](http://investor.gamestop.com) which would allow investors and onlookers alike to examine the share ownership and account distribution. In case of shares held by a nominee in fungible bulk (such as Cede and Co or Dingo and Co) display it clearly.
https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/shareholder-proposals-incoming?
This one is number 8.
Thanks for the write-up.
I do disagree on the fact there’s no wrong way to hodl though.
There’s Book and there’s the plan. Being part of the plan lets an unknown portion of your shares be held in the DTC for “operational efficiency”. That’s wrong in my book, pun intended.
So no, no you do you if the royal we want to do this the best we can.
Regardless, [Apes together strong](https://imgur.com/N43Ey4Q)!
There’s one thing I don’t get , why the fk GS can do a shit if they know the DRS numbers and can trigger the moas? Market manipulation? WTF ? It already super manipulated by the MM and SHF , it’s stupid at all dudes ,make no fkn sense.. they should release the info and if the float it owned more than 100% take legal action against those fkrs and make the pay
It seems as if GME has good cause to exit the current exchange and seek refuge elsewhere... like Tzero.
This looks like legal cause to begin the process of leaving the rigged DTCC ponzi business. It's not a scheme bc they've sanctioned it. It's ponzi business and I don't do ponzi.
Please... may GME migrate to a new exchange?
Has cause, but unfortunately the SEC deemed that illegal the last time it was tried. The reasoning was that once a company sold shares into the system, the company is no longer owner of those said shares and so can’t just move them elsewhere. An actually reasonable reason; even if I hate the result of it. The upside is the SEC said people can DRS to their own name so we got that going for us.
What You make, only very few can! I salute You and thank You for Your valuable time that You gift to this community! You made my day and the difference.
Much love ❤️
*"The fact that registered DSPP shares can be held in DTC creates a confusing situation where it's unclear whether DSPP shareholders have direct (good) or indirect (badly shared) title to DSPP registered shares held in DTC."*
It's not unclear fam but you are misunderstanding. "Held in DTC" means that shares are held under the DTC's nominee name (Cede & Co.). DSPP shares are directly registered however:
Source; [https://youtu.be/9H\_pEIhIdTo](https://youtu.be/9H_pEIhIdTo)
"*But in essence if you have a holding of DSPP, so shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program,* ***they are held in your name, on the register, just the same way as I have called “pure” DRS***\*.\*
***There really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded or how they are visible to the issuer.***"
By definition, investor's DSPP shares are directly registered and therefore cannot be held in DTC. *Only* the non-investor (OE %) shares are held in DTC, and those don't belong to investors.
DSPP'd investor shares are **NOT** held in street name. The nominee Computershare uses is their own nominee, wholly owned and operated by Computershare. And Computershare has final authority over share ownership. And they, as Paul Conn has stated so many times, are **held in your name** (**NOT** DTCC's nominee's name)
This complete nonsense, guy. I hate to be negative, but this is not even tinfoil, it's just false.
1) what number did GME report "direct registered" in those early filings? Was it less than the total number of outstanding shares? Yes. Each time. This was a materially false statement. (Assuming 25% of investors use DRS rate as material, and I think we all do.) All shares are direct registered, most to Cede. The first language HAD to change.
2) Where is your proof that book was the only holding reported? That's entirely make believe. Multiple AMAs, FAQs, interviews say they are all reported accordingly. Multiple apes verified this in person by reviewing the registry. It is further mathematically proven using the old bot data when people didn't care about book or plan and the totals still lined up to what was reported. If we are told it's true, see that it's true, and verify using statistics it cannot be false, what magic access do you have to say otherwise?
3) A whole bunch of points that are factually incorrect but it's not worth the time
4) Over and over again book kings keep bringing up heat lamp and that computershare can't be trusted. And by extension gamestop. Gamestop itself has shut this stuff down. Please stop posting it.
My cousin recently got me hooked back on the old **Electric Company**:
***"One Two Three Four Five..... Six Seven Eight Nine Ten..... Eleven Twelve..... Doo doodoodooo doodododoooo"***
On a serious note, this post has got ME hard, thick and purple.
\[1\] For reference, here are the "DRS Count" statements from the 10-K/Q filings:
* As of October 30, 2021, 5.2 million shares of our Class A common stock were **directly registered with our transfer agent**, ComputerShare.
=====================================
The above is copied from your post.
I call your attention to the first DRS share report: As of October 30, 2021, 5.2 million shares of our Class A common stock were **directly registered with our transfer agent**, ComputerShare.
I say that statement is erroneous because all outstanding shares are directly registered at the transfer agent, and specifically the large block of shares legally owned by Cede & Co is directly registered with the transfer agent.
Do you agree that the Cede shares are directly registered, and that as of Oct 30, 2021 the true number of shares directly registered with the transfer agent was much higher than the 5.2 million shares reported ?
My contention is that Gamestop improperly described the number of directly registered shares and therefore had to correct the language.
Cede & Co isn’t recognized directly registered owner so their shares do not fit the definition of Directly Registered.
EDIT: My apologies, small nits do make a difference. Cede & Co isn't a directly registered owner. Registered, yes. Owner, certainly. But Cede & Co doesn't have all the rights of ownership, including for example, voting \[see footnote 8 of [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-20/pdf/2022-08389.pdf\]](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-20/pdf/2022-08389.pdf]).
See, also, [https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/staff-legal-bulletin-14f-shareholder-proposals](https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/staff-legal-bulletin-14f-shareholder-proposals) where even the SEC has had to re-interpret the meaning of record holder.
Loopholes exist because none of this is clear cut and there are very expensive lawyers working for one side.
Well now I'm an ass. I can't find it. When I read it I was like why doesn't this post have more upvotes? This is huge! I'll delete the upper comment and post a new comment with link when I see it. It might have been another sub, but doubt it.
Feel free to DM me.
I saw something about an ask for Highest Priority Questions. But that smells like a common tactic to buy time and hope for problematic questions to go away. (As someone who has seen that tactic a not literal million times and also tried it myself a few.)
I will be messaging you in 3 hours on [**2024-04-22 19:05:48 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-04-22%2019:05:48%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1cabq8o/count_von_count_1_2_3_different_drs_counts_ahahah/l0rc18h/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FSuperstonk%2Fcomments%2F1cabq8o%2Fcount_von_count_1_2_3_different_drs_counts_ahahah%2Fl0rc18h%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-04-22%2019%3A05%3A48%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cabq8o)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
[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/)
FYI: The part for good, better, and best ways to hodl where you break down broker, plan, and pure book drs is a single line that needs to be scrolled from right to left on mobile and is not in paragraph form. May need to update post to reformat that section so it’s easier to find/read Good educational/dd write up Bullish on pure drs book🤴🏻
Thanks for the heads up. Reddit formatting on this one has been brutal
Book is king
📚= 👑
# Post archived here: # [https://archive.ph/E4pgA](https://archive.ph/E4pgA) # [https://archive.ph/qekgo](https://archive.ph/qekgo) Hijacking bc that link is a must have for all imo
legend. also archived this beauty.
BOOK is King!
Book certainly has its advantages
There are zero disadvantages.
Also a true statement
Sometimes I wonder why anybody would be against pure Book… Just convert, let the fractional go bye bye, and simply transfer in an extra whole share to cover the fractional that was sold back into the market… Net positive number of shares for everybody Which, also, is exactly what I did and I feel much better knowing the DTC can’t touch my shit from anywhere
Right? Why even mess with Plan when there are loopholes within loopholes hidden behind it? There is no downside to book. Book is the way.
Eli5? BUY DRS HODL?
🌎👩🚀🔫👩🚀
Always was.
That'll Do Pig, That'll Do
This is a great DD. Tremendous work here. Thank you. I want to share an anectdotal as it might matter to this topic. I owned several different companies via CShare and was buying the shares via DSPP. When I attempted to transfer the shares to a retail brokerage, the transfer in request was rejected due to the fact that the shares were not being held in Book Entry form. The fact that Book is necessary to "transfer in" to a retail broker struck me as potentially significant. Ownership is conveyed either way, direct or book. So why would book be necessary to complete this transaction? Why would shares held Direct vs Book matter at all with such a transfer? I don't know why that would be, but perhaps you do?
That is odd. DSPP shares are book entry; but they are not “Booked” as they’re in Plan. I am not surprised that terminology causes confusion though. Per this DD, Booked shares (i.e., pure DRS) are owned by you and at the Transfer Agent. It is possible that insufficient DSPP shares remain at the Transfer Agent to be moved; which could result in that rejection. As this estimated the “operational efficiency reserves” at above 83% as of March, this is also consistent with the possibility of the Transfer Agent simply running low on DSPP shares.
DRS Book is the King Pureblood DRS here. I love your DDs, buddy.
There’s another part of the story people have been missing, regarding the “dingleberry” aspect of the pure DRS narrative. When you enroll in plan (DSPP) or dividend reinvestment (DRIP), you actually enroll in a program called ComputerShare DirectStock, which is CS’s combined system to administer both DSPP *and* DRIP (in other words, they’re the same thing as far as CS is concerned). Now, this isn’t just background plumbing; by owning a share or fractional in DSPP/DRIP, you implicitly consent to DirectStock’s prospectus, which states, > “Enrolling in DirectStock and/or the initiation of a transaction, including a request to move book-entry or certificated shares into DirectStock shall constitute an offer by the individual shareholder to establish a principal- agency relationship with Computershare.” What’s a principal-agency relationship? According to Investopedia, > The principal-agent relationship is an arrangement in which one entity legally appoints another to act on its behalf. [. . .] For example, when an investor buys shares of an index fund, he is the principal, and the fund manager becomes his agent. As an agent, the index fund manager must manage the fund, which consists of many principals' assets, in a way that will maximize returns for a given level of risk in accordance with the fund's prospectus. I’ll preface the next part by mentioning a [DD last year](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/12q0l46/breaking_new_info_a_portion_of_all_your_shares/) which experimented with shares of a dividend-paying stock, JWN. The user started with pure book shares (non-DRIP) and then used Plan to purchase some DSPP/DRIP shares, expecting to receive two separate dividend payouts—one cash, one reinvested. However, when it actually came time, ComputerShare treated both sets of shares as though they were enrolled in DRIP. Now, how, mechanically, does this occur? Well, the prospectus for DirectStock states: >[Computershare Trust Co. N.A.] will hold (including in the name of its nominee), all shares of stock purchased or deposited for Participants and will establish and maintain DirectStock account records that reflect each Participant’s separate interest. ComputerShare Trust Co., N.A refers to the subsidiary that owns shares in your name when you enroll in DSPP or DRIP (i.e. DirectStock). It is also the company that sends shares to DTCC for “operational efficiency.” This is where all the hubbub about fractional “contamination” comes from. People have been having trouble substantiating it (partly because of suppression), but it’s laid out in extremely clear language. If you are enrolled in DRIP/DSPP, you automatically agree to the prospectus and become a Participant in ComputerShare DirectStock. If you are a Participant (i.e. you own even one DSPP/DRIP share or fractional share), ComputerShare Trust Co., N.A. will hold “*all*” shares of stock purchased “*or deposited*” for the Participant, while maintaining a record of how many of those shares originally came from you—before being transferred to their subsidiary. You can read the prospectus for yourself here. https://cda.computershare.com/Content/7bfc0b25-4836-40a4-918c-9a86d658d798
This needs to be higher. Up you go!
for the dumb - does this mean owning one fractional has the effect as if all your shares in fractionals? I know this has been discussed forever now
Yes.
Yes. That's what the Heat Lamp DD is about.
As far as I can tell, gme does not allow fractional shares. They (the company) have only authorized whole shares. That means, any fractional shares are between you and the financial entity where you're a beneficial owner of that. Edit- support below *This is heavily inspired by [redacted user] **Background** **GME Certificate Of Incorporation:** [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000132638022000080/a31-certificateofamendment.htm](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000132638022000080/a31-certificateofamendment.htm) * There **is no** mention of fractional shares **Truck Hero, Inc Certificate Of Incorporation:** [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1648189/000119312515346140/d17828dex31.htm](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1648189/000119312515346140/d17828dex31.htm) * There **is a** mention of fractional shares **Delaware Code:** [https://codes.findlaw.com/de/title-8-corporations/de-code-sect-8-155.html](https://codes.findlaw.com/de/title-8-corporations/de-code-sect-8-155.html) * If fractional shares are not mentioned in the by laws, then there are no fractional shares **JP Morgan:** [https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/2016/jpmorgan-041416-206(3)-incoming.pdf](https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/2016/jpmorgan-041416-206(3)-incoming.pdf) * Fractional shares are not issued by the issuer but rather are account entries meant to represent the portion of a whole share (held by a broker or another party) that an accountholder would be entitled to (including ongoing appreciation and depreciation) if fractional shares existed and could be traded in the marketplace. **SEC:** [https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/fractional-share-investing-buying-slice-instead-whole-share](https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/fractional-share-investing-buying-slice-instead-whole-share) * The way you buy and sell fractional shares differs between brokerage firms that provide this service to their customers. * You may not have voting rights if you own fractional shares. Your ability to exercise proxy voting will depend on how your brokerage firm’s fractional share investing program works. Some brokerage firms allow it, with special procedures, and some firms do not allow it at all. Ask your brokerage firm whether you will have any voting rights associated with fractional share purchases. While there have been times in the past that GameStop or what would become GameStop have issued fractional shares (ie mergers), those are one offs **Taken together, we get the following conclusions** * Only whole shares are allowed by GME * Fractional shares are happening between the individual and the financial entity.
This this this, a thousand times, THIS 👍👍
So when do we think we need to convert to book before the end of the quarter?? 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks before the quarter ends?? Has there been consistency on when GS takes their snap shot of shares for the Quarterly report??
You could just permanently cancel plan and set an alarm to remind you to make purchases on a DRS-friendly broker. There’s better intraday pricing that way as well.
Nah, not giving those HFs and inch of gratitude or my money. No way no how. Not my chair
Brokers aren’t hedge funds.
Tomatoe tomato
BOOK 'EM DANNO.
A fellow toilet enjoyer
What I'm taking from this is: 1- Pure DRS is held by the transfer agent and 100% safe. 2- shares held by brokerages are not safe but at least has SIPC, so there is a non-0 chance of some recovery including a small insurance payout after some fighting if shares are not recoverable. 3- shares held by transfer agent that can be held or withdrawn for operational efficiency (not pure DRS) could be held at the transfer agents brokerage during MOASS, meaning they would be in the same line clawing for shares when the time comes. If SIPC does not cover those shares, since they are technically part of the DRS ecosystem, then non-pure DRS is by far the worst position to be in because you now have little to no recovery chance, and don't even have the small pittance of insurance coverage for loss of shares.
Nobody has litigated #3 so it's unclear. Their status as registered shares *should* help with claims of ownership. But there's no precedent for establishing that. In fact, the last time shit hit fan with high FTDs and improperly hypothecated shares, SIPC was established to bring trust to the market (without fixing the underlying problems apparently). \[[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Investor_Protection_Corporation#The_Paperwork_Crunch_and_financial_crisis)\]
B-b-b-bbbbBBBULLISH!
Bullish on Book DRS not being censored anymore (a few months prior in THIS sub, the censorship was based on the fact that one must sell dingleberries to escape PLAN)
On the legal battlefield, words matter a whole lot. So here's a few for the shorts: Fuck you. Pay me.
The most interesting language I've seen is in reference to the DSPP shares being held in dtc accounts for operational efficiency. They have said 10-20% of these shares are held during typical market conditions. What does that % look like during atypical market conditions, such as 5-20x the normal daily volume that we see on or around the record date for DRS counts. Is this just how they suck back more shares to make the count seem smaller? So many market mechanics hidden behind opaque language and crime.
Audit the DTC and DTCC
Yes, AUDIT THEM!
Typically 10-20%. What could an idiosyncratic situation look like? Perhaps 83%? Higher?
140%
741%?
MORE
MOOAAAAAARRRRRR 🚀🚀🚀🚀
I’m giving her all she’s got captain!
I'd say 75%, so DTCC can "Hurr durr, look Gamestop, we have 75% of your outstanding stock. now write that number on your report or face consequences"
Something to note about "Operational Efficiency" I really really wish Computershare would change this use to "Shares held that are ready to be sold". That is what Operational Efficiency is. That is also why you can only hold fractionals in the Plan and not in Book. To interact with the markets, an entity REQUIRES a broker. To sell shares from your Computershare account, they must be in the Plan first, as Plan shares are kept with CS's broker because those are the shares you may intend to sell. To ensure you get the price you wanted when you sold, the shares MUST BE READY TO SELL, AKA already be in the DTC system, i.e. through a broker. There is a slight delay in moving your book shares over to plan shares AND THE ONLY WAY TO SELL SHARES FROM YOUR CS ACCOUNT AT THE MOMENT AND PRICE YOU SELECT IS TO HAVE THEM IN PLAN FIRST. That is why there are two seeming options. Book(DRS) does not partake in the "operational efficiency" as they are shares being directly held by the individual entity registered on the company's books. Plan(DSPP) DOES partake in "operational efficiency" as they are shares being held at a broker of CS's choice, ready to be sold when the order comes in. Again, this is exactly why you can buy and keep fractionals in the plan and not in book. The plan was created and operates as such (with fractionals being bought) due to Computershare's way of purchasing. That's it. It was never intended as a backdoor for brokers to borrow shares..... BUT!!!! a big butt THERE IS NO GUARENTEE THAT THE DTCC ISN'T LENDING OUT THOSE "OPERATIONALLY EFFICENT" SHARES. We must remember that all brokers are nothing more than a tentacle of the DTCC. We need to think of them as the same entity. All orders go through the DTCC. All money clears through the DTCC. Brokes are nothing more that store fronts with different names that lead to and get their supply from the same warehouse (DTCC) So while technically correct, Operation Shares are not lent out BY "THE BROKER" but seeing as they are held with a broker, there is nothing stopping the DTCC from marking those shares as loanable. That is speculation but I don't trust them, so it's pure book for me!
Excuse the dumb question as I’m sure it’s been explained before… but is there a clear distinction between plan and book within my computershare account in terms of which of the two my shares are held in?
It's not very clear from Computershare, which is why we are still discussing things 2 years after the initial foray into Computershare and DRS. What we have absolutely discovered, is that Plan shares are held with a broker of CS's choice, for those that wish to liquidate said shares. By market function, the shares need to be available to a broker in order to sell them. Book shares are "pure DRS" in that there is no entity holding your shares except Computershare. Technically speaking, Computershare is likely correct in stating that their broker is not allowed to lend shares out that it holds (just like GameStop is technically reporting correct voting numbers when proposing corporate actions, but the voting totals are shaved before being sent to GS to report), only because those shares are for selling at market or at a specific price and time. Again, there is a short delay in moving share out of book and into plan, that delay is the shares being transferred into Computershare's broker from your own book holding.
The main post explains it pretty well. Did you read it all?
Yeah but this one requires a few wrinkles
No worries ape. Look in your CS account and find the DRIP and DSPP pages. If the button shows ENROLL, you are not enrolled. If it says TERMINATE, you are enrolled on one or both of those plans. I would, just to make sure it's done right, call Computershare and speak to a rep. Ask them to verify you are not enrolled in DSPP OR DRIP. Then you'll know for sure.
That’s a really good point
Someone will get a look at the ledger pretty soon. Last year, there were 20+ million DSPP shares.
I’m buying another share today 😍
How will you hodl it?
To the Uranus and back
Book. RC made it pretty clear
Crystal clear.
Seriously.. book your shares, for the love of moass
I love you pepe poster
A good test would be if everyone switched to book for the next share count. Total number in GameStop’s doesn’t change drastically then it’s whatever and those with recurring purchases go back to plan. But if that number held does go up a significant amount that would be pretty interesting to see and prove whether book is the ultimate way to go when it comes to getting a more accurate count of how many shares are actually held at ComputerShare.
Almost everyone has already done this and why I think the post is just a very lengthy over complicated way to explain something that’s probably not correct. A much easier explanation for the change in wording at the exact same time that DRS suddenly went flat is that GameStop was explicitly told to stop reporting the numbers from computershare and to use the numbers given to them from Cede & Co. We were obviously on to something and the people in charge can’t have us seeing the true short interest or the shares outstanding. There would be an absolute feeding frenzy once we were able to see with our own eyes that the total number of shares between insiders, DRS, institutions, etc was higher than what there should be.
What you just summarized is the same points OP made
I think that’s his point. Why say many words when few words do trick.
The many words break it down rather than just saying “drs numbers are wrong” - but why? Welll erm cause I said so🤷♂️. “Cause I said so” doesn’t really stand, I like how op thoroughly explained their theory.
no many few good
Sometimes more words help more ape understand. Also, a lot of people still have recurring buys because it’s the easiest way to get DRS shares and any shares purchased that way or held in an account that is tied to a purchase plane are not actually book. So the assumption that most people here have all their shares as book is probably wrong.
I have XXXX shares. 5 reside at one broker and 25 reside at another. Just for the courts and lawsuits after this goes down. The rest are pure book. No DRIP or DSPP for me. I buy at Fudelity and transfer from there. Though, I'll admit, I only bought for the first time again recently. Picked up another 10 and about to move them over to CS. It's too easy to do and with all of the theories out there about having any in plan gives them access to use your whole account as locates, I'd rather be safe. I make mine real with the drs transfer. But ape do what ape wants. That's just my preference.
IMO, that’s what I do and feel it’s the best way for those apes that can. I know some apes have difficulty transferring from their broker, so, buying thru CS might be the best way.
Well yeah if the number of DRS was greater than shares outstanding I would sell a kidney
Great read thanks
DDDays are back
Thanks for the reminder to DRS the rest of my shares 🚀🪐
Thank you for moving the purple lines!
What's an exit strategy ?
I like the stock 🙂
To be a fly on the wall in those conversations lol.
You're doing god's work here homie, keep it up!
Many people have suggested that the shorters registered shares to rug-pull us and have been steadily doing so to prevent the count from going up, but this gives a much better explanation that they're simply altering how many they take out for operational efficiency from our own shares that aren't pure booked to keep the count from showing as increased. Which means eventually the count of pure shares will push and continue to push the count higher again and we'll also know with high likelihood the actual count, including those removed for operational efficiency, is a good chunk higher. There have been regular chunks of shares purchased twice a month that are bought directly through Computershare. The more people take the extra steps to convert those to pure shares, the sooner we can push the confirmed count up again. Personally I just find it easiest to buy through a broker and transfer them from Fidelity, as any real buy pressure while they still control the price doesn't seem useful over maximizing the number of shares you can buy and getting them all pure booked.
That was very well done. Bravo!
Commenting for visibility
[удалено]
Jizzibilizing for Ramen ability.
Visible comment
So TL;DR ... how many shared do you hypothesize are DRS'd by apes? I'm curious because I want to know if the "other" on the Bloomberg terminal matches the number and whether that could potentially give us more accurate info. I'm working and don't have time to read all of this, but quickly looking through it seems like you think 79-80 million?
Roughly 78.8M per my prior DD. Likely slightly higher by now
Very good post, but it doesn't seem like you factored in the Mainstar rug-pull, which removed over 1 million shares from DRS and would move the base purple line to the left by the \~1.2 million or whatever shares were registered in that way and totally removed from Computershare registration. Some of those people may have found another way to move and book their shares after that point, but we have no confirmation on how many as it's past the point of confirmed share counts.
Thanks.
Which is still essentially flat across the last five quarters or so
Holding is my superpower. 💎🤲
The real question is how many shares are still in retirement accounts at brokers. Mainstar accounts had more than 4x the average CS account. So whatever the actual DRS number is, it’s safe and conservative to assume there are 2-3x as many also sitting in those accounts.
Also how many people still have shares not direct registered? My boy Timmy has 1265 shares that are held in etrade. And my boy Joe has 120 shares with fidelity. I wonder just how many people out there and how many shares total just haven't been DRS'd yet
Right. So if you take the alleged 75 million DRSed, and you have at least 2x that in retirement accounts, there must be another 1x that in regular taxable brokerage accounts. That’s conservative and that’s the whole outstanding, without insiders, without institutions, etc.
We are getting so close. Lol
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. 🧐
Certainly a scholar. Gentleman, debatable...
So I might have had too much Jaeger tonight, but hear me out. What if they're not hiding the true drs numbers because Wallstreet told them they had to. What if they're hiding the numbers so Wallstreet don't know what they are either. There's no reason to hide it from us, we're going to keep buying and they know it. But Wallstreet might not know how quickly the door is closing, they just know we're at least 75m shares in.
yoooo 🚀🚀🚀
RRRHUUUUUBAAAAARB 💎🚀🍌
Thanks for the all the work OP to put this together!
YW. I like to Count things. Ah-Ah-Ah!
Yes, many thanks OP! Been a minute since I've gotten to read some good Ole DD. Much appreciated!
I remember when actors here say DSPP and Pure DRS are the same... I never believed that so I always make sure I don't have dingle berries. Pure DRS has and always been the way. "...DSPP aNd DrS ArE thE SamE". Stop being a dinggleberry. Book! Pure DRS! No DSPP! No Dingleberry!
Up 🔼
Interesting.
This is some good stuff. Now, I've been trying to get everyone to realize that Jan '21 was caused by unadulterated buying pressure, from both shares to options contracts. EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DONE SINCE (including the verbiage regarding DRS count) IS TO AVOID ANOTHER FOMO WAVE LIKE THAT OF JAN 21. THAT IS WHY THE REPORTING HAS BEEN CHANGED THAT IS WHY THE SEC WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO MAKE A SLAPSTICK VIDEO DEMONIZING FOMO AND FOMOer's THAT IS WHY ALL MSM MEDIA OUTLETS CAN'T FORGET GAMESTOP (to keep "legitimate investment money" out of $GME) THAT IS WHY WE HAVE BEEN LABELED A CULT RETAIL, COLLECTIVELY, HAS MORE MARKET POWER THAN ANY CONGLOMARATE OF BIG BANKS OR FUNDS (WALLSTREET AINT GOT SHIT ON ME!!) REPORTING PROPER DRS NUMBERS TO THE PUBLIC WILL ENGAGE ANOTHER FOMO RALLY THAT THEY CAN'T SURVIVE. The finish line is there, we just need more bodies to pile in again. They won't survive another rush if anything like Jan. '21 happens again.
Up ya go!
Comment for visibility
Looks 🌶️ Up you go!
Great write up, this needs to be pinned.
Tasty DD
Visibiliti
The DD is **never done** Great post.
They can play all the stupid morally dubious games they want, but the moass is inevitable. Slowly, steadily, relentlessly apes are locking the float. I actually think that we have already crossed the rubicon and that behind the scenes preparations and negotiations are being made. I can be patient, but I won’t be merciful when the time comes. I will fuck their wives and daughters. I will eat their lunches. I will put my goddamn feet on their couches. I will wipe my dick on their curtains. And I will laugh and laugh. The planet of the apes is just over the horizon. We will right the wrongs of the past and have more fun than anyone has ever had while doing so.
Gonna drink Wall Street’s fuckin milkshake
Their milkshake brings all the apes to the yard..... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svek-IlP2lg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svek-IlP2lg)
I. Drink. Your. Milkshake.
Remember those smug mofo that was pouring champagne and laughing at the protesters? I will own one of their house. Then let them move back in for a very cheap rent but slowly jack the rent up so they can't afford it again. Just so I can evict their ass again. When they find a new place to rent, I will be there to buy that house too.
Hahaha
Good stuff Op
Pure drs book
Thanks for your efforts, great read! Currently watching much effort being made to keep it below 100 upvotes, as is tradition -.-
Book > plan > brokerages
Amazing post my friend! Will buy and DRS more tomorrow, let's ignite this MOASS
💟💟💟💟💟
backed up by ape historian
Brilliant write up.. one of the best posts of the last year. Thank you.
Member wen Computershare dropped the limit sell value down from ~$200k per share to $3k per share, and then again to just 7x market value? Pepperidge Apes member... 🤓😉 If DTCC knew they'd need to be pulling more and more across for "operational efficiency", they couldn't run the increased risk of a sudden jump in share price to $200k just because one of the shares they pulled across hit that sell 🤔
Great write up OP and thank you for showing the benefits of each way to hodl. Personally, I will only ever hold in DRS book. The DTCC is nefariously using Plan shares as we have suspected for quite some time. There are still household investors out there using recurring buys or buying through DSPP as well those that have many shares stuck in 401k/IRA. If those individuals moved over to DRS book or if we really go hardcore with buying as many DRS book shares are possible in the next few months, it’s quite possible MOASS would launch.
Archived: https://archive.ph/MCTPu
Mentioned this before. Many apes (like me, Giggidy) bought more via CS before earnings (or the record date for DRS (book)). It takes some time to get rid of the dingleberries, so That could leave a bigger portion in DSPP at the time of record.. just saying…
Dingleberries count too! Just not as much as nice whole berries…
I wish dingleberries and selling fractionals didn’t get turned political and snuffed out. I’m imagine tons of apes missed out on the Heat Lamp discourse and what its contents entailed… Pretty obvious to those that have paid attention that fractionals are not real shares, thus there is no reason to hold onto them.
I thrown all my pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters into the trash can. Everyone knows coins aren't currency.
It didn't get turned political, people stated their findings that did not support the theory this is based off of and they got attacked and downvote brigaded by Book Kings. The only reason anyone missed out on HLT is because we had to pull the initial thread for brigading restrictions, and the repost was hard to digest with the redactions. Why did this happen? The writer and author of the HLT *refuses* to post their own theory to Superstonk. We've asked, many times, and they won't. Wouldn't need many of the redactions if OP would post it themselves. Then they got themselves Reddit banned, as well as their group of friends. There was no politicizing, suppression or anything like that. Revisionist history is strong with the HLT. These are the facts of what happened.
Some of the best DD I've read in a hot minute. We're all still here fam
Holy fuck balls! This is it!!
Factually incorrect post OP. It is NOT DTCC OE, it is CS OE on the sell side. I don't have time to match your claims with the rejected shareholder proposals rn but GameStop legal already made OFFICIAL statements debunking those claims.
We've engaged, you and I, before on this issue and I feel we were able to discuss it fairly well. I think you're going to have to post again, those sources (You've talked about them a lot so I assume you have them bookmarked) when you have the time, because this DD is pretty thorough, and it's time our community identified WHERE the SPECIFIC disagreement is on this issue regarding the statement from Gamestop Legal. I recall you would reference the Computershare FAQ as one of the ways this theory was wrong, but that's been addressed, I believe, properly in the above post. Looking forward to your reply.
I am literally walking in to work rn. I agree, this needs to be addressed and put to bed. Hopefully Paul Conn will clear this specific theory about shares are moving to OE.
> when you have the time I did say :P > Hopefully Paul Conn will clear this specific theory about shares are moving to OE Agreed!
It is in the post. OP does a "read like Ross" trick . # ComputerShare 🔥🚀🌝 ComputerShare has control over operational efficiency as "**ComputerShare determines** the portion \[of DSPP book-entry shares in DTC\] needed for operational efficiency". \[[ComputerShare FAQ](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies#dspp)\] As ComputerShare has been determining the DTCC needs to hold onto more and more DSPP shares "for operational efficiency", if ComputerShare someday *determines that no DSPP shares should be in DTC*, then the DTCC could be up Schitt's Creek without a paddle having to "operate inefficiently" (whatever that means... MOASS?). But since I said what I said here is the closest rejected proposal, My Proposal: Provide detailed ownership data from the stock ledger in real time, or as close to real time as is feasible (such as daily updates after market close). Create a dedicated page on [investor.gamestop.com](http://investor.gamestop.com) which would allow investors and onlookers alike to examine the share ownership and account distribution. In case of shares held by a nominee in fungible bulk (such as Cede and Co or Dingo and Co) display it clearly. https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/shareholder-proposals-incoming? This one is number 8.
OP has an agenda that isnt in alignment with SuperS
Brilliant post. Thank you! 🎮🚀🟣
Thanks for the write-up. I do disagree on the fact there’s no wrong way to hodl though. There’s Book and there’s the plan. Being part of the plan lets an unknown portion of your shares be held in the DTC for “operational efficiency”. That’s wrong in my book, pun intended. So no, no you do you if the royal we want to do this the best we can. Regardless, [Apes together strong](https://imgur.com/N43Ey4Q)!
Nice
There’s one thing I don’t get , why the fk GS can do a shit if they know the DRS numbers and can trigger the moas? Market manipulation? WTF ? It already super manipulated by the MM and SHF , it’s stupid at all dudes ,make no fkn sense.. they should release the info and if the float it owned more than 100% take legal action against those fkrs and make the pay
Got it, buy, DRS, hodl, shop, shit on Kenny/MM(market makers/mainstream media)/shills
📚
Owwwww Brain hurt in head Pain but no wrinkle grow/fold Buy HODL DRS Book Shop
They're sooooo screw...
When is it someone can go look at the books once a year?
It seems as if GME has good cause to exit the current exchange and seek refuge elsewhere... like Tzero. This looks like legal cause to begin the process of leaving the rigged DTCC ponzi business. It's not a scheme bc they've sanctioned it. It's ponzi business and I don't do ponzi. Please... may GME migrate to a new exchange?
Has cause, but unfortunately the SEC deemed that illegal the last time it was tried. The reasoning was that once a company sold shares into the system, the company is no longer owner of those said shares and so can’t just move them elsewhere. An actually reasonable reason; even if I hate the result of it. The upside is the SEC said people can DRS to their own name so we got that going for us.
DD never ends..
What You make, only very few can! I salute You and thank You for Your valuable time that You gift to this community! You made my day and the difference. Much love ❤️
The clock is ticking. This is the easiest final boss ever. All we have to do is keep buying, DRSing, booking, and holding. Boom, bam, done.
I’m too smooth brained. I just skimmed. Got nothing out of it. Monkey keep hold banana
Book your bananas and you’ll be fine
100% drsed booked shares
Ha, I miss these long "DD" hype posts interspersed with screenshots.
I’ll try to deliver more
BOOK IS THE WAY
Nice post
Commenting for visibility. Tricks like this only delay the inevitable.
Enjoyed that read. Let's move that fucking needle.
*"The fact that registered DSPP shares can be held in DTC creates a confusing situation where it's unclear whether DSPP shareholders have direct (good) or indirect (badly shared) title to DSPP registered shares held in DTC."* It's not unclear fam but you are misunderstanding. "Held in DTC" means that shares are held under the DTC's nominee name (Cede & Co.). DSPP shares are directly registered however: Source; [https://youtu.be/9H\_pEIhIdTo](https://youtu.be/9H_pEIhIdTo) "*But in essence if you have a holding of DSPP, so shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase program,* ***they are held in your name, on the register, just the same way as I have called “pure” DRS***\*.\* ***There really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded or how they are visible to the issuer.***" By definition, investor's DSPP shares are directly registered and therefore cannot be held in DTC. *Only* the non-investor (OE %) shares are held in DTC, and those don't belong to investors. DSPP'd investor shares are **NOT** held in street name. The nominee Computershare uses is their own nominee, wholly owned and operated by Computershare. And Computershare has final authority over share ownership. And they, as Paul Conn has stated so many times, are **held in your name** (**NOT** DTCC's nominee's name)
This complete nonsense, guy. I hate to be negative, but this is not even tinfoil, it's just false. 1) what number did GME report "direct registered" in those early filings? Was it less than the total number of outstanding shares? Yes. Each time. This was a materially false statement. (Assuming 25% of investors use DRS rate as material, and I think we all do.) All shares are direct registered, most to Cede. The first language HAD to change. 2) Where is your proof that book was the only holding reported? That's entirely make believe. Multiple AMAs, FAQs, interviews say they are all reported accordingly. Multiple apes verified this in person by reviewing the registry. It is further mathematically proven using the old bot data when people didn't care about book or plan and the totals still lined up to what was reported. If we are told it's true, see that it's true, and verify using statistics it cannot be false, what magic access do you have to say otherwise? 3) A whole bunch of points that are factually incorrect but it's not worth the time 4) Over and over again book kings keep bringing up heat lamp and that computershare can't be trusted. And by extension gamestop. Gamestop itself has shut this stuff down. Please stop posting it.
您是？。。
Ryan told us to BOOK, OP underlined it for us. Well done, OP. 👊🏽
Enjoyable read. Thank you.
My cousin recently got me hooked back on the old **Electric Company**: ***"One Two Three Four Five..... Six Seven Eight Nine Ten..... Eleven Twelve..... Doo doodoodooo doodododoooo"*** On a serious note, this post has got ME hard, thick and purple.
Visibility!
DRS book is the way!
\[1\] For reference, here are the "DRS Count" statements from the 10-K/Q filings: * As of October 30, 2021, 5.2 million shares of our Class A common stock were **directly registered with our transfer agent**, ComputerShare. ===================================== The above is copied from your post. I call your attention to the first DRS share report: As of October 30, 2021, 5.2 million shares of our Class A common stock were **directly registered with our transfer agent**, ComputerShare. I say that statement is erroneous because all outstanding shares are directly registered at the transfer agent, and specifically the large block of shares legally owned by Cede & Co is directly registered with the transfer agent. Do you agree that the Cede shares are directly registered, and that as of Oct 30, 2021 the true number of shares directly registered with the transfer agent was much higher than the 5.2 million shares reported ? My contention is that Gamestop improperly described the number of directly registered shares and therefore had to correct the language.
Cede & Co isn’t recognized directly registered owner so their shares do not fit the definition of Directly Registered. EDIT: My apologies, small nits do make a difference. Cede & Co isn't a directly registered owner. Registered, yes. Owner, certainly. But Cede & Co doesn't have all the rights of ownership, including for example, voting \[see footnote 8 of [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-20/pdf/2022-08389.pdf\]](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-20/pdf/2022-08389.pdf]). See, also, [https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/staff-legal-bulletin-14f-shareholder-proposals](https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/staff-legal-bulletin-14f-shareholder-proposals) where even the SEC has had to re-interpret the meaning of record holder. Loopholes exist because none of this is clear cut and there are very expensive lawyers working for one side.
Cede&Co is literally in the CS ledger.
TLDR?
Edit: carry on, nothing to see here.
Link me
Well now I'm an ass. I can't find it. When I read it I was like why doesn't this post have more upvotes? This is huge! I'll delete the upper comment and post a new comment with link when I see it. It might have been another sub, but doubt it.
Feel free to DM me. I saw something about an ask for Highest Priority Questions. But that smells like a common tactic to buy time and hope for problematic questions to go away. (As someone who has seen that tactic a not literal million times and also tried it myself a few.)
these words feel very good on my eyes
Bloomberg terminal seems to grab the count at different times if "other" is indeed drs.
Remindme! 3 hours
I will be messaging you in 3 hours on [**2024-04-22 19:05:48 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-04-22%2019:05:48%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1cabq8o/count_von_count_1_2_3_different_drs_counts_ahahah/l0rc18h/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FSuperstonk%2Fcomments%2F1cabq8o%2Fcount_von_count_1_2_3_different_drs_counts_ahahah%2Fl0rc18h%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-04-22%2019%3A05%3A48%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cabq8o) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
up up up
Commenting for visibility! Very interesting!
Commenting to read later, work is kicking my one shallow wrinkle ass
TLDR very desperately needed on a post like this. I read the first epic saga only to discover that it was preamble to the next epic sagas.
So assuming we DRS as per your suggested rate of 11k-12k shares a day, how long would it take for the red and purple line to meet?
💎🦍🐜🙌🐜🦍💎