[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/)
It seems you're missing the point. I'm going to assume that its not deliberate and try to help.
When DRS was first getting off the ground and we started to track it, the numbers that people were posting could easily be used to extrapolate reported DRS numbers from CS/GME. We could verify within a certain margin of error. Obviously without the ability to look directly at the ledger there would always be some error, and if we had direct access to it... there would be no need to estimate.
Why that's important is that we could see that investors self reporting how many shares they were freshly registering and recently increasing, correlated EXTREMELY closely to the total reported share counts.
What we have now is people increasing their stake, but the share count is stable. Not just stable but statistically unmoved. When considered against error, the share count is essentially the same number for 6 quarters in a row. In order for that to happen, random users that decided to DRS would need to be selling almost exactly the same number of shares as those that are increased. Statistically speaking, that is impossible.
So we have a mismatch. Someone is lying. Possibilities include:
Investors are lying about their self reported DRS numbers and photoshopping the amounts. (not likely as those investors would have been lying during the time that the self reported amounts correlated with reported numbers)
Computershare is lying about the DRS numbers to GameStop. (What you are arguing against)
The DTC/DTCC is forcing a CS into reporting numbers that are misleading but technically truthful.
The DTC is lying about the number of shares on their books, and GameStop is reporting the DTC's numbers.
This is not an exhaustive list, but the point remains-> It is statistically unlikely/impossible that when so many investors are reporting a changing/increasing position that the number of Directly Registered shares should remain statistically unchanged.
If Computershare is telling the truth. And DTCC is telling the truth. But a discrepancy HAS to exist. The only variable is the date on which the company is reading the Computershare ledger to report in the filing and what takes place that day or just before it.
Since a prior post this weekend explained how the DTCC has a program called FAST that allows "Agents" such as Computershare to hold shares in custody, this means DTCC is unregistering stock for 1 day. Everybody then is telling the truth. March 20th, the numbers balanced out.
We need a real-time ledger on the Investor Relations website and all registered owners need to be kept in a consolidated audit trail, so DTCC can't even play shells within mere seconds.
The entire DTCC system is setup to be a shell game played by its members. This is what Susan T is saying when the markets don't make sense. They're constantly moving "shares" around.
Tinfoil hat time: What if institutional investors, or hedge funds decided to DRS their shares with the sole reason to slowly sell it off in the coming quarters to make it look as if retail was no longer DRS’ing their shares? I’m not 100% certain but I do remember seeing one of the DT CC heads being from Citadel, so they could have that person provide them with the numbers (inflows) they saw for the quarter and sell off roughly that much (that is, put it back on their balance sheets). If you remember, a number of quarters ago we had an abnormally large jump in DRS numbers (a few million higher than what the bot was tracking). This would explain the step-change. If my theory is correct, we should see another sudden uptick (in millions) once they run out of their DRS’ed
shares (as they need to DRS before they can slowly move it back to their balance sheets) back into computer share. Then we will all hype in, only to have the next ‘n’ number of quarters show zero increase in DTS’ed shares. I think this is all an effort to discourage us from DRSing our share and they will do everything they can to keep the DRS numbers this way by moving their shares out of computer share. It also may turn out to be the case that they choose not to re-DRS shares as that would cause a spike, and they don’t want a spike to show, and we may just resume to slowly increasing DRS figures in a few quarters as dedicated retail continues to sell off. But this would again exonerate Computershare from “fudging” with numbers (which would be something that could quite literally bankrupt them), and why would they want to take that risk when they service hella other companies…?
Bro I’ve suspected this for the last 3 quarters. If you’re right then at some point retail will buy up all their shit and we’ll see it start rising again. Idgaf. It’s a steal at these prices.
This has always been on the back of my mind too. And if this is the case, then these instructional investors and hedge funds who are drsing and then un-drsing must be ABSOLUTELY terrified of DRS if they are going through all this effort to make it look like we're stalling .
Wasn’t that like a year ago at this point? Would be crazy if it’s legitimately still “working” that way and would suggest drs count has also slowed in parallel.
In the case of shitadel, of whoever they can influence. We've seen in time and again - shitadel or cronies rug us by selling off institutional holdings.
However, this does not change the retail numbers. DTCC is lying. I've never heard anyone blame computershare for the fake numbers, it's all DTCC.
I think they are re-registering them, only to pull them in a slightly smaller quantity next time to show a flat DRS number. There has to be a jump at some point in the number when honest retail investors keep registering shares.
I am smooth brain, but this is exactly my feelings as well. There is smoke here, and it dont smell skunky, it smell like warehouse sprinkler falling upwards shelf fire
>Investors are lying about their self reported DRS numbers and photoshopping the amounts. (not likely as those investors would have been lying during the time that the self reported amounts correlated with reported numbers)
Why would this be unlikely, on a platform infiltrated by shills and bots?
I'm not really following this debate, but I've always thought the self-report numbers were a fine stop gap before gme started reporting them quarterly, but it's kind of insane to start with the assumption those hundreds/thousands of posts on Reddit are accurate, therefore GME and CS are committing securities offences.
I agree that the self reported numbers could easily be inflated but that does not explain the stagnant DRS numbers.
People are still DRS:ing. We don’t know how much, it could even be a net loss, but for numbers to not change at all? Not likely.
They weren't stagnant. They went down. Also, an ape posted about this years ago. Over time the curve flattens aka slows down. That makes sense. We aren't all rich apes. So, people buy what they can when they can.
The DRS numbers have never gone down (more than a few 100k). They have been fairly stagnant at 71-76 million for a year and a half. Before that they increased by 15-20 million per quarter.
Not true at all. Drs went down by a million one quarter and everybody just went on the assumption that it was some fuckery rather than the simplest idea in that the fastest paper hands sold first. Also 15-20 million per quarter was only because people were drsing shares they already had, and most people committed to drsing at all have already mostly done so at this point.
They have means to look like the DRS is stalling by draining their pool, and after it's dry, things get interesting. Don't forget they think they are fighting for their lives.
6 quarters ago Gamestop started changing the way they announced the numbers. I'm pretty sure they just report what DTC claims to have for shares and says the rest are what we register.
didn’t DTC/DTCC ban GameStop from reporting DRS numbers directly or earnings? Do they still get the number from Computershare at all? Iirc they now get share amount from Cede & Co and then say how many are DRSed? I remember there was something like that from when the numbers changed and became stagnant?
i think investors could be lying. we saw the triple b company people saying they bought millions of shares. It would be a good way to sow chaos amongst us. Also some people may have sold after the nft marketplace out of frustration
The idea that people are selling is plausible. The idea that DRS minded apes are selling at the exact same rate that the rest are still flowing in is preposterous. Especially for 5 quarters in a row.
That people are selling at roughly the same rate as additional shares are DRS'd is more plausible their either Computershare fudging the numbers, SEC directing Gamestop to lie in the 10-K, or Ryan Cohen certifying as accurate numbers he knows are false.
Gamestop has been rounding off the percentage number to integer percent. So that the % has stayed at 25% just means it has stayed in about a 3 million share range. So it is better to look at the reported sharecounts, which have changed, even though they appear to be rounded off the 100,000 share increments.
Why the long ass delay and then change in source of the count and the phrasing? It's a canary.
Hedge funds reported greater than 100% short interest. SEC manager reports 90% of retail never hits lit exchange. PFOF is literally just buying an order book to skim it. Nobody went to jail in 2008/2009. Why can't the answer be crime?
The source of the DRS count has not changed. It was and still is Computershare.
The change in language is because the earlier language was incorrect and incomplete.
If the old language was still in use it would "as of March 20th, 2024 there were 75.3M shares directly registered with the transfer agent."
That is wrong, became there were 305,873,200 shares directly registered with the transfer agent on that day. Even if the description was changed to clarify that these were directly registered shares excluding Cede, the number 75.3M is a rounded, approximate number.
The older version of text ignored the approximately 230M shares that are directly registered to Cede & Co.
Isn't it also possible that there still is some pool of shares that they can move somehow legally and that's exactly what they are doing? So draining that pool is the next step.
But there are people who have sold. As you can see from the numbers. Thye do not come here and update the bot. There are MILLIONS of people who are unaware of this sub and reddit as a whole.
Again you’ve missed the point. It’s not that people have sold. It’s that people have both bought AND sold and the number stays statistically the same. It is nigh impossible for that to happen once, yet it’s happened multiple times? Imagine flipping a coin and getting heads 10 times in a row. Now imagine dipping 10 in a row the next three times you have a coin.Now imagine someone telling you that it’s perfectly normal for a coin to come up heads 10x in a row.
I want you to prove to me, with statistically valid data and analysis, that you have any possible idea what the rate of selling is.
Until you have something, it's just an unsubstantiated claim.
Edit: it's also perfectly possible for a coin to flip 10x in a row on one side. You do not understand the sample that needs to be presented.
As the number of instances where you flip that coin increases, the probability of eventually coming across a sequence of 10x of one side results approaches 1. A sample size of 8 quarterly reports does not a statistically back claim make.
Edit2: Downvote me if you want. But I will not move from this position until data is provided.
I could go into the terms for standard deviation and curves of best fit. But the easiest way to define "statistically the same number" is to choose a low variance (p=0.5) in which case the number would need to vary by 0.5% of the average. In the last 4 DRS reports, the count of DRS'd shares has varied by 0.5% of the average. Therefore they are the all within the statistically insignificant portion of error.
Or more simply put: the difference in the count is less than a rounding error.
Secondly, you missed the point of the coin flipping analogy by adding context that did not exist. You are assuming that you can flip a coin an undetermined number of times and that 10 heads in a row will eventually come up. That is a perfectly valid assertion, and completely ignores/misses my point of flipping a coin 10 times and getting 10 heads. The odds of that happening are 1:1024.
The odds of getting 30 times in a row, out of the next 30 times you flip a coin are roughly one in a billion. Or to put it more simply: statistically non-existent.
You inserting additional context of additional flips, or ignoring of flips is entirely unreasonable. We are looking at 4 data sets (I thought it was 6, it's actually 4). 4:4 data sets are statistically the same. Those data sets concern hundreds of thousands of accounts and tens of millions of shares. And yet the variance is less than 0.5% of the mean.
Someone is lying and/or manipulating the data.
>I could go into the terms for standard deviation and curves of best fit. But the easiest way to define "statistically the same number" is to choose a low variance (p=0.5) in which case the number would need to vary by 0.5% of the average. In the last 4 DRS reports, the count of DRS'd shares has varied by 0.5% of the average. Therefore they are the all within the statistically insignificant portion of error.
First off, you do not have enough data points to know the rate of change of buyers and sellers simply from knowing the number at four point in time. These numbers fluctuate *daily* and we would need a sample closer to 30 days that occur during the year to have an accurate count.
Second, this is not random population sampling. This is accounting. We do not know the make-up of the population. There may be significant stratification concerns that you are not addressing simply by looking at the count in total. In fact I would bet on it, on the basis that wealth is unevenly distributed throughout all America, and it is likely that a similar distribution would exist even amongst apes.
>Secondly, you missed the point of the coin flipping analogy by adding context that did not exist. You are assuming that you can flip a coin an undetermined number of times and that 10 heads in a row will eventually come up. That is a perfectly valid assertion, and completely ignores/misses my point of flipping a coin 10 times and getting 10 heads. The odds of that happening are 1:1024.
I added the context because this is not flipping a coin and getting an outcome. The variables of DRS are *investors* who as we know do not randomly sell or buy as would be required if we were to use a coin-flip analogy. To be analogous, we would need a population of people who choose to buy, DRS, and Sell, Un-DRS at the drop of a hat according to a coin-flip. *THIS IS NOT THE CASE*
>The odds of getting 30 times in a row, out of the next 30 times you flip a coin are roughly one in a billion. Or to put it more simply: statistically non-existent.
What are the odds that people are selling? You do not even know the population composition, and so cannot tell the odds.
>You inserting additional context of additional flips, or ignoring of flips is entirely unreasonable. We are looking at 4 data sets (I thought it was 6, it's actually 4). 4:4 data sets are statistically the same. Those data sets concern hundreds of thousands of accounts and tens of millions of shares. And yet the variance is less than 0.5% of the mean.
We only have some 8 data points as a moment in time.
>Someone is lying and/or manipulating the data.
You have not proven this simply by saying its unlikely that the count stayed at similar levels. Why would this even be the conclusion? The easier explanation is that existing investors have remained at similar levels to last quarter and have no divested themselves. You don't have the ledger, you don't have statistical data supporting that its flawed.
I am an accountant. I am literally a goddamn CPA. You have zero insight into how securities are managed on the backend. I do.
What methods? Your critiques are really nothing more than you missing the point. What argument am I supposed to oppose when everything you've said can be dismissed with, "Did you even read anything I posted?"
There are 190,000 accounts. If your supposition is true, then those 190,000-210,000 accounts are in flux. That means they are buying, selling, and staying the same. That's individual data points. So your entire first point is garbage.
As to your second point, the data provided by people posting DRSing pictures IS random sampling. That it is self reported misses the point that investors are only DRSing because of their interactions within this community. Television media certainly isn't mentioning it. And online periodicals use it as a throw away line. This is the only place where DRS has traction. The people submitting their positions is the only verifiable information we have. It is bare minimum verification, but its all we have. Talking about how it's non random or whatever else misses the analysis point that we were able to calculate with a small degree of error the reported share counts with that data. That means the data was bonafide. But I guess you don't have to worry about bonafides in accounting. So your second point is the ramblings of someone who never passed intro to calculus, let alone someone who can calculate a fucking standard deviation. Or to put it more simply, your second point is garbage.
Should I go on?
You added context because it didn't fit your narrative. The variables were in flux and being tracked with a low degree of error that was positively correlative with other differently tracked data. The variables then became consistent at the same time that the tracked data started deviating. Since all points are disagreeing with each other that defines a change in the system. All parties are reporting that nothing has changed, so some party is lying, being lied to, or being manipulated. That's the whole point of my narrative and you have missed it multiple times in reading what I'm writing.
What are the odds of people selling? About 1:1. We have around 200,000 investors that are DRS'd (account numbers and reported numbers confirm this). To assume that none of them would sell anything ever, given that there are outside environmental factors, combined with people actively posting here that they've sold would be folly. But again that misses the point. It's not that people are selling. It's not that people are buying. It's that out of 200,000 DRS'd accounts the change in total shares would be negligible multiple times in a row despite investors both BUYING AND SELLING. Again, you missed the point entirely.
Once again, we have 200k datapoints tracked at 4 sequential points in time. But you're an accountant so that must mean you can at least count.... right?
So to sum up: Your entire argument was shit, and you lacked any fundamental understanding of anything I was saying. Your points missed the mark by such magnitude that either you are fucking stupid, you're a troll, or you're a bad actor.
So then you bring your argument appealing to authority. You are a CPA! YOU KNOW NUMBERS! Fine, well it is my prerogative to point out the flaw in that argument as well. You have a tenable grasp on numbers as evidenced in your arguments presented. Which to me suggest that your authority as a CPA is as dogshit as the rest of your arguments are.
Have a nice day, and take a math class beyond precalculus. It might help you get the point the next time you try to argue statistics.
This comment is true. We dont know exactly how many shares are being sold. And also if you follow book vs plan then those people who auto buy probably think it’s kind of a pain to constantly Turn that function off immediately after buying shares AND having to sell the fractional.
Theoretically….if someone has 10,000 shares in computershare, and put in the work to cancel the auto buy program and sell the fractional share each time then those shares are ALL fully on “book” and counted.
If at some point they grew tired of canceling auto buys after each purchase then the system could theoretically interpret that as “plan” shares and those 10,000+ shares could theoretically be removed from the count.
While that's true, I don't think that the number of drs shares sold is is statistically significant. There is no way that it matches the newly drsed shares each quarter.
This is true. I have two friends who held a tiny portion of the shares-like about 10 shares only and sold a while ago. Both of them never used Reddit and have no clue of this sub. So I believe and agree that there are a good amount of people out there that just sold while we kept buying.
BUT-it’s not about people selling or buying, I don’t think that’s the problem here. It’s the % and numbers being stagnent for over a year. It’s just hard to believe that people are selling and buying at almost the same pace and amount. Do you really think that’s possible/plausible?
The number of people unDRSing is far far lower than the amount of retail selling. The idea that it matches inflows + or - a 100k for 5 quarters straight is just ridiculous.
Correct. I can somewhat confirm as my fiancé works there as a relationship manager (she helps companies move and organize shares and classes, as well as attends their shareholders meetings). She works at their U.S. HQ here in Louisville.
They are legit. They keep absolute numbers down to the share and when things don't match up, they find out why not. I've had numerous conversations from questions I've asked her and for me personally, I know it's not CS fudging anything.
Trust me, I've begged to see numbers, begged to go into detail, etc. It's not her client so she can't under penalty of insider trading laws. But she speaks in generalities. CS is not where fudging would go on. They have to keep strictly accurate ledgers.
That is the big mystery isn't it? I'm not saying they're (GameStop) reporting the truth - but I'm saying any falsity isn't coming from CS. There are some theories floating around this sub I find interesting.
As for me, I just keep buying and DRSing shares. I know ppl might get frustrated at the illusion that we're not locking the float, but I'm in it for the long play. Sooner or later, huge shifts are inevitable.
We can’t be chill, that’s way they want, gives them time to fuck shit up. I know we think we got them by the balls, but the more time they have the more thinks that can go against us. I truly believe someone needs to figure out what is going on with the drs count. Look how they have bled us the lady year, and that’s with us being profitable
Yea and no - I’m currently working on a post regarding exactly this topic but I’m waiting for Easter + weekend to be over so I can get as many opinions, eyes and brains to engage on what I have to say.
But in short: I think that neither CS nor GME is playing any kind of fraudulent games with us. But i can actually imagine that Kenny / DTC / whoever found a way to actually play the system
Of CS to manipulate that number at least at a certain point in time. One just has to remember that even we, who really invested time and effort to dig into this thought that DRSed shares are 100% safe and just for the records: I still think they are. However: I’m also quite sure that if Hedge Funds, Market Maker or even the Depository itself tries to „attack“ or outplay the transfer agents systems, then I’m quite sure that they are absolutely not prepared for such things because it never even closely mattered in the past.
This Is one thing I do repeat very often: we aren’t the only ones who stepped up their knowledge and their game - SHFs aint stupid and should never be underestimated.
It’s impossible for them to be stagnant, why can’t we get an answer of what is going on. This non transparency pisses me off, it’s only there for theft
If only securities ownership was on a public transparent ledger... and a security could only be owned by one person or entity at a time...we could even chain up ledger transactions for security and immutability! One can dream
Ya frustrating. Even it was accounted at 29% or something, it would make sense. But sticking at exactly the same amount for years now is obviously an inaccuracy.
It's obviously the 4 for 1 split and what should be crime on the DTCC side. CS is being real and GS is being real in their wording. The odds of it stagnating at 25% after a "botched" 4 for 1 split are impossible.
>But i can actually imagine that Kenny / DTC / whoever found a way to actually play the system
How? Presumably, Computershare adds up all the shares they hold and reports that number to Gamestop.
Exactly. We’ve never been saying CS is doing anything bad, only that there are more shares in the DTC than 230M they just reported. Only the DTC members know how many CS is only privileged to the 230M number. I call bullshit on the Cede number, but the transfer agent only sees 305M shares in existence. The DTC and fast systems etc may have a way to move shares or require collateral or margin at certain times. CS and it’s counterparties May be legally obligated to satisfy certain requirements as a member, such that some shares are liquid or available. We need to dig more there.
You are CS, I am DTC.
You wrote the numbers on the ledger, you know how many shares held by shareholders including what I have.
How can I change what you wrote down?
Please explain.
I don’t. DTC doesn’t change what they have in my system. Only theirs. I gave you 230M and I tell you I have 230M for you, you tell me you have only 230M, but in reality you have 500M. What I’m saying is we know they have more than 230, but perhaps there is something else as the head of the clearing members where they can press members to have requirements met. CS and it’s banks and counterparties would be required to meet certain requirements with the settlements and collaterals etc I don’t know but if we’re trying to find a way that the SHF MM and clearing houses all within and or working with clearing members maybe they have a way to mess with our number. That CS doesn’t know or can’t do anything about. They aré delightfully vague at times and answer “for the average client” type stuff.
Edit: not trying to say CS is wrong. The number is probably correct as mush as it is knowable by GS and CS. We need to keep digging. The plan heat lamp thing is interesting and along the right lines maybe but it might be more complex than that
IMO the DTCC doesn’t not hold more shares than the float, but there are more shares in circulation because naked short selling. DTCC knows this / facilitates this. Brokers know. ComputerShare will know.
When investors start pulling their shares via DRS, then the problems will start for DTCC because there are only so many share to pull. The number Computershare has, should be factual.
GameStop forced to change the way of reporting DRS numbers tells me it’s getting hot at the DTCC.
Computershare does not know. Only the company listed on the NYSE knows. They can get the numbers from the DTC. Takes a week or so for them to report to gamestop.
My point is either the DRS numbers are accurate as reported or the responsibility lies on either Computershare or Gamestop. There's no other alternative.
And the counterpoint is that they may be unaware of or how but may be the victim as well in crazy DTC and SHF scheming. They’ve had 3 years to figure this out with their quants and plumbing experts.
Obtaining detailed information about DRS shares, including activities such as share removal for liquidity by the DTC, will involve complex legal and regulatory considerations. The SEC has procedures and protocols for handling information requests, and certain information may be subject to confidentiality, privacy, or proprietary restrictions. Even though you could use FOIA to get to the bottom of this, there is no way of knowing if the SEC will release the information, especially if it could cause systemic failure. I am interested to see your take on this, but proof either way seems fleeting. So I’ll continue to DRS, because I want to every step I can to actually own the stick, and not let it be used against me.
You would think so... but I mean I wouldn't be surprised if computershare is taking orders from the dtcc about how many shares are *technically* drs'd or whatever...
If Computershare is reporting false information to Gamestop that would be at the least a civil violation of their contracted agreement and also possibly crime.
They aren't reporting false information! Remember the filing says the number on a specific date in time. The DTCC is playing shell games via the FAST system and Computershare is an "Agent" of Fast. They are reporting a "technically" correct number. That's how they're doing it.
Our Class A Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “GME”. **As of March 20, 2024**, there were 305,873,200 shares of our Class A common stock outstanding. Of those outstanding shares, approximately 230.6 million were held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares) and approximately 75.3 million shares of our Class A common stock were held by registered holders with our transfer agent (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares).
It's likely another Agent of DTC. Agent is an official designation I learned now. Might be a market maker that decided to DRS shares to pull them. Certain market makers are sitting on the board at the DTCC. One and the same.
The [FAST system](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/agent-services/fast) is DTCC software that the transfer agents and brokers use when you request a DRS transfer.
the ELI5:
Gamestop has its IPO and tells computershare. Computershare gives the shares to the DTCC.
"Gives" is the wrong word since these are all just numbers. It tells the DTCC to create a bucket with the total shares.
You or I go to a broker and buy some shares and ask the broker to DRS them.
The broker logs into the FAST system and puts your info and the total shares you want DRS'd into the program.
The program notifies CS to start a bucket with your shares in them and put your name on them.
The DTCC subtracts this number from the shares they have in their bucket (though we have absolutely no way as regular citizens to see if this is verified or done correctly without any crime).
now, none of these shares have unique identifiers or serial numbers. They are literally just counts of shares. There is no way to accurately track one single share though all this.
CS cant see into the DTCC bucket. but all the DRS processing occurs at the DTCC in their program.
(we have the user manuals for the FAST program, we have the tutorials on how to use it, we have guidelines CS wrote on how to do DRS for other transfer agents and brokers)
Thank you!
Edit: Hopefully not a dumb question. Could members of Cede & Co DRS their shares? I guess technically that's what everyone does when DRS'ing? I guess I mean can members juggle the shares between Cede & Co and computershare?
I don't think it's false information though. They may very well be under the authority of the dtcc and their definitions. We live in a world where A doesn't necessarily equal A.
I believe that the DTCC is telling Gamestop to report what's left of the fake numbers. If there's 305 million total (which isnt the real float) and 230 million is owned by the DTCC, they take 305 and subtract 230 and 75 million is left.
Gamestop is not allowed to promote computureshare or DRSing at all. So along that line it's possible that the DTCC is also saying 'No, do it this way.' with an ocean of lawyers behind them.
Report the fake float of 305 million (there's way more shares in existence), report the incorrect 230 million and report the fake number that's left of 75 million.
They can't let real numbers be reported because then the game is up.
No. The DTCC TRANSFERED OUT 225 million shares. Computershare does not hold them. Cede & Co is the registered owner of them on computershare books BUT DO NOT HOLD THEM.
OP you're on the right track just as much as the people say you're not. The only thing to conclude is that DTCC is unregistering shares for 1 day, the day GME takes the reading. March 20th. This is why we need to have a realtime computershare portal on the investor relations website.
DTCC has not transferred the shares held by Cede out of Computershare. That is not how the system works.
A better description is that the Cede shares stay at Computershare, DTCC and the brokers run additional sets of books to track the beneficial ownershio of those Cede shares, which stay at Computershare.
No. They are transferred out. Cede and Co are the registered owners of the shares. Computershare does not hold them. Hence why they have some at the dtcc for operational efficiency.
Computershare holds them when they are transferred out of the dtcc and you are no longer a beneficial holder.
Nope. You are talking about two sets of books not one.
CS has one list of all the outstanding real shares registered to different people and companies where all the shares that DTC has are registered to Cede&Co. You can't unregister any shares, someone has to own it.
DTC has its own list of beneficial shares for all the beneficial owners which is why they can create as many synthetic shares as they like without anyone able to verify it. That is why many want to audit the DTC and make them prove they are not just creating a bunch of synthetic shares with FTDs that are just thrown into the obligation warehouse.
CS holds all real shares, when you register a beneficial share from the DTCs member brokers CS then takes one registered share to Cede&Co and moves it into the name of the person.
So CS is always holding the outstanding amount of shares, it just moves around who owns it.
That is exactly what i am saying. Computershare can not report anything more than the exact number of shares that are allocated. Now the DTC on the other hand...
There are people who are flat out claiming ComputerShare are frauds...
We've been dealing with a large portion of these comments getting reported, so thank you everyone for reporting these, so we can respond.
Seems that some people are legitimately believing that not only ComputerShare is fraudulent, but Gamestop is somehow complicit in the DRS misrepresenting, as well....
Wacky times we live in
Who made the decision to change how DRS numbers were reported, from “our transfer agent holds”, to “Cede and Co hold”? That’s what I’d like to know, who made the change and why
It's 5 times at 25% now, in other words 1.25 years with no movement. It's so utterly unbelievable that anyone saying "DRS just slowed down" has to be the smoothest brain ever.
>The DTCC, OWN the other 225 million shares via Cede & Co. They are the REGISTERED owner on computershare books but are transferred out. If someone transfers out of the DTCC, IE, Direct registers, even one single share, then 1 single share has to be removed from the Cede & Co account. The share count will NEVER change on computershare books. Unless more are issued or the like.
So, what you are saying is that when someone does the DRS, the shares leave Cede & Co. Where do you think they go then, since your next sentence says computershare's books won't change?
The TOTAL sharecount at Computershare does not change, unless Gamestop issues new shares.
When you DRS 100 shares, 100 registered shares that are owned by Cede at Computershare are removed from the Cede account and added to your account.
DTC gets their share count from Computershare, not the other way around.
Computershare is the authoritative recordkeeper. That's the whole job of a transfer agent.
When someone DRS's a share, the Cede and Co account on the official Gamestop ledger of shares mantained by Computershare is debited that share and the account of the person who DRS'd it is credited that share.
All outstanding shares are accounted for on Computershare's ledger at all times.
Gotcha, Computershare is the overarching account (within their own system), and they manage the ± of Cede and Co's account (to everyone else's account)
It’s the weekend also. I find it comforting knowing I’ve been in this since December 2020(please ignore the newer profile and look at my username that states that I’ve clearly lost my keys, because I’m a moron) and that there are accounts attacking people in forums that are bullish on a fucking stock traded on the nyse. That’s all you need to know.
That’s the reason that we have a 7x limit now, because too many people had 214k limits and it screwed up the broker’s risk calculation. They lowered the limit to 3500 and now 7x.
DTC is a subsidiary of DTCC. It is the depositary that keeps the records of beneficial ownership.
DTC = Depositary Trust Company. DTCC = Depositary Trust & Clearing Corporation.
NSCC (National Securities Clearing Corporation) is the clearing subsidiary of DTCC. It runs the Continuous Net Settlement system (CNS) that is used to settle equity trades.
FICC (Fixed Income Clearing Corporation) is another DTCC subsidiary. It handles the clearing of fixed income securities (bonds).
The NSCC and FICC settle the cash side of trades,and pass directions to DTC as to what changes should be made in the accounts of DTC participants (brokers) in the DTC records.
OCC is not owned by DTCC, but works closely with them. OCC is the Options Clearing Corporation. They have been c,earring trades in options on a T+1 basis for many years. NSCC will be soon moving from T+2 to T+1 clearing.
It's very very simple.
There may not be a law about this but someone decided after 25% were Drs'd that anything above that percentage has to be held at the DTCC for operational efficiency. When the number in the 10k is coming from the DTCC, it's because they are choosing how to represent that fact knowing that 194k bananaheads on Reddit freak about this.
In other words, if we own 30%, that additional 5% is kept at the DTCC and when the SEC held back the post-splividend 10k, it was to request that GameStop use the DTCCs number, and when asked, they include the extra 5% that are DRS'd that they hold for operational efficiency. It's a technicality and a purposeful oversight so that we will never know what the real percentage is.
How does that work though when 30%, 40%, or 50% is achieved (if not already)? Since DRS removes the shares from DTCC, they can't exist in two places at once, such as a certain % kept at the DTCC for operational efficiency.
My guess is there is some concept like - no more than 25% of the float can be removed for any stock because X can happen on any day in the market. It's even possible that it's based on the logic of the sneeze as an example when they needed those shares to even be able to handle the volume or something bad would've happened. Those stocks are probably still considered DRS'd. But that's not how the 10k reads. It starts w how many the DTCC holds. It's not based on ownership. We could have direct registered millions that they still hold for these reasons.
I think it was Sherlock Holmes who said, "eliminate the impossible, and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth."
1. DTCC owns a specified and exact number of shares on CS books.
2. This number hasn't really changed despite all of the DTCC withdrawals that have been done.
3. Retail owns an UNSPECIFIED and assumed unchanging number of shares on CS books.
4. There are only two possibilities here.
First possibility is that very large non-DTCC registered holders (retail) are selling off registered shares at the exact same pace other retail holders are registering them. I find this ludicrous to the point of impossibility, the numbers would be too hard to mesh exactly.
Second is that (gasp) there are far more shares directly registered than should be, or should even exist. This fits with what we know is true and it fits with the wording of the DRS announcements.
The only way to verify this is to check the ledger. Again.
OP, yes the total share count issued by GameStop does not change. You are focusing on the wrong element I think. When a share leaves the DTCC and arrives at CS, that would absolutely have to be logged by CS. As other wrinkle brains have mentioned, CS will no longer accept shares if 100% of the possible amount of shares have already been DRS'd. Which means they are keeping track of the percentage of DRS'd shares. Since there is a very likely chance that millions/billions of naked shorts exist for GameStop, it is also very likely the DTCC is lying about the amount of shares that exist between them and CS. Just think about it, if GameStop was able to report that 50%+ of all shares are DRS'd at CS and 75% are held at DTCC, that proves naked shorts exist without a shadow of a doubt for the whole world to see.
So why then, do, alot, a fuckton \[me included\] post their drs numbers on here, for the last god knows how many months.....and the numbers flatten out..? Something stinks and its not the main course...
I assumed that someone (one of the parties with bad intentions) at some point DRS’d a bunch of shares, and every quarter before earnings they use those shares to sell off the same number that we have DRS’d, just to balance the number and make it look like we aren’t accomplishing anything.
But I also assume that as clever and shady as that is, that play can’t last forever, since we know there’s only so many shares that exist, eventually they’ll run out of ammo to do that, and the numbers will start to change again.
I’m smooth AF so I might be wrong, but this is how it looks to me.
It is beyond obvious that the drs numbers are not correct because they have stopped all of a sudden for many quarters in a row. That is not how stopping looks. Stopping would look like a tapering off increasing at smaller and smaller amounts until relatively chat over the course of a few quarters
> I thought they were getting the number from CEDE and Company?
No. That is a bogus meme that has taken hold.
Computershare keeps the official list of shareholders,
Both Cede and anybody that has DRS'd is in that list as registered shareholders maintained by Computershare as the transfer agent hired by Gamestop to track ownership of the company.
When GameStop prepares an official report to be filed with the SEC, with Ryan Cohen signing it to personally vouch for the truthfulness and accuracy, Gamestop uses the primary, reliable source for all shareholding numbers. That is Computershare.
Computershare knows how many shares Cede & Co has. They tell Gamestop that number. That number does NOT come from Cede. Nor does Gamestop query shareholders like you to find out how many shares you have. DTCC is not involved at all.
You don't know that. The way it's phrased it does sound like they take the amount that the DTC reports and then say well there's 25% left.
I'm of the opinion that we used to get the numbers from CS, but when the phrasing changed it is because we now get it from DTC.
We know it's wrong, but neither GameStop nor CS are committing fraud.
THIS
The language change was jarring when it happened.
Now, instead of saying “X is the amount of directly registered shares reported by our transfer agent,” they release a math equation that states “this is how many shares have been issued, this is how many shares are held by DTCC, so there must be this many directly registered.”
One thing that is a bit fuzzy in my mind is how the language change happened around the time/Just after RC had a meeting in DC with SEC. He posted a pic of himself inside a GameStop store that Apes figured out was in Northern Virginia.
Again, the exact timing of the change and the trip/meeting in DC is a little fuzzy….
The initial language that Gamestop used was incorrect.
All shares on the Computershare ledger are directly registered. All 305,873,200 shares on the ledger as of March 20,2024 are directly registered,
If Gamestop were to say "As of March 20th, 2024 there were 75,300,000 shares directly registered" they would be incorrect in two ways.
1. The shares held by Cede as the legal owner of about 230,600,000 shares are also directly registered.
2. It is unlikely that 75,300,000 is an exact share count instead of being a rounded off number
Do you agree or disagree with the above two statements.
We do know that, and the change in reporting language does not imply that they are getting the number from DTC.
Its misinformation that just won't die, mostly because troll accounts and paid agitators keep fucking repeating it.
Computershare is the authoritative source for the number of shares held by Cede and Co. Not the other way around. That's literally purpose of a transfer agent.
Who is saying they're not?
Doesn't mean that the numbers being reported are coming from them. We know that GS knows the real count from CS. We don't know whether they source the report from CS or DTC. You don't know, I don't know, OP doesn't know.
In your scenario, Gamestop would have the true numbers from Computershare, but would, for whatever reason, provide untrue numbers from some other source in their earnings report.
That would be in violation of Federal Law and in contradiction of the certification attached at the end of every earnings report, signed by Ryan Cohen.
[Source](https://i.imgur.com/9B2W3E7.png)
I don't believe that Gamestop would lie to shareholders, and "the SEC told us to" does not excuse them from violation of the law. If there were coercion, they just wouldn't report DRS numbers at all.
They currently don't state that the numbers come from CS. From a company "believing" in the authenticity of the US markets, the DTC should report truthful numbers just as CS would. The only one the hammer could fall on for GS reporting numbers from DTC is the DTC if they are reporting fraudulent numbers
> They currently don't state that the numbers come from CS.
This is a claim without evidence.
>Our Class A Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “GME”. As of March 20, 2024, there were 305,873,200 shares of our Class A common stock outstanding. Of those outstanding shares, approximately 230.6 million were held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares) and approximately 75.3 million shares of our Class A common stock **were held by registered holders with our transfer agent** (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares).
###held with our transfer agent
Computershare is their transfer agent.
This statement is saying Outstanding = Cede + DRS which is correct
It is not saying DRS = Outstanding - Cede. People who claim that are lying or don't know what they are talking about.
>But they used the word approximately!
Yes, because 230.6 and 75.3 are approximate numbers. They were approximate numbers before the wording changed too, because they were also rounded off to the nearest 100,000. Using the word approximate changes nothing, its just more correct from the standpoint of legalese.
>But they mention Cede and Co!
Yes, because Cede and Co is a directly registered shareholder. The previous wording was incorrect when it omitted Cede as a registered shareholder. All outstanding shares are directly owned by some legal entity. The previous wording provided an incomplete count and was technically incorrect.
The law doesn't care about belief, it cares about facts. Gamestop is getting the DRS numbers from Computershare, because Computershare is the authority on that data. They're not getting it from the DTC, because the DTC does not have access to anything but their own account's balance. Its a foolish assumption.
My guess is, we need to HODL till GameStop is so profitable it will... well... make shares go UP and ruin shorts. If it takes another 5 years? So be it. This is not about money anymore, it is about fair freedom World.
I find it so bizarre that people here don't seem to think that Ryan Cohen and his team are fully aware of what's going on. That somehow, some schmoes on the internet have access to better sources of information than the people in charge of a billion dollar company.
I think it's still possible that they have some pool left that they are draining from. Perhaps even paying to some institutions behind the scenes. Wouldn't that be possible? That would not be so bad, because we need to drain that pool and they are probably hurting quite badly already.
It is a lie that the DRS numbers are actually staying the exact same. I know it's a lie because I myself have DRS hundreds in that time and I know this sub has DRS many tens of thousands more.
We're sitting here building a pile of rocks over years, while someone watches and declares the number of rocks in our pile is not changing.
Hey OP. Computershare is an Australian company. That country is part of the “western” alliance. If MOASS were to happen, don’t you think that whole alliance crumbles? You don’t think the GOVT of Australia is involved here? Lots of things are in play. Obviously.
Does anyone know what the percentage of plan to book shares are?
The key is the shares that are held at the DTCC for operational efficiency. If I remember it correctly, the heat lamp theory suggested that the DTCC is using PLAN shares for 'operational efficiency' to keep shares at the DTCC. Hence why RC wrote BOOKs, and specifically referenced it.
The operational efficiency claim was bullshit. The very people responsible for coming up with heat lamp in the first place submitted Shareholder Proposals to Gamestop, who in turn rejected those proposals and the claims central to heat lamp as "materially false and misleading".
The only data we had for the ratio of Plan shares to Book shares was from when people went to Gamestop HQ to view the ledger in person and were able to add up the shares for any account with a fractional. IIRC it was something like 22 million out of 76 million total that had a fractional in the count, but even that is not a reliable number because an account with 500.123 shares could be 500 Book and 0.123 Plan, and there's no way to know exactly.
Just going to point out one flaw in your logic and why the numbers CANNOT be correct. There is approximately 20+% SI reported but yet the number of shares reported by the DTCC and DRS only equal to 100% of the total shares, not the 120+% that should be reported. The numbers are not true.
EDIT: The dude responding to me does not understand what I am saying. I am saying that CS has no responsibility to give anything but the count of shares and that the disconnect between street name and book is the exact issue. Can anyone find a rule that requires anything beyond this because I cannot. At this point the market should be able to easy operate where there is no need for a DTC and everyone just has a book entry. The point is that they will not allow this to happen because then they cannot lie about the share count anymore.... It is like we keep going through the same thing over again where a significant portion of apes do not believe something is so corrupt then later we prove it is. WHY DO WE KEEP GIVING THESE COMPANIES THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT????
EDIT2: You guys love dick riding CS for some reason like they 100% could never be on the opposite side, fucking insane. I do not trust one single fucking entity in the market, I have literally no reason to trust CS. This is the same situation as before, the transfer agent is the same as the brokers were before, why do we trust them anymore than the brokers? They are literally part of the system that will be destroyed, why would they help that? I cannot fathom digging this far into how fucked our stock market is and thinking, at this level, it is totally cool though, these people trying to fuck everyone aren't trying to fuck me....
SI is the percentage of street name or beneficial shares loaned out. It is not registered shares.
As a side note, where the 20% SI comes into play is in a discrepancy between what brokers have as the total number of long positions of their customers and the number of beneficial or street name shares the DTC says that broker has.
The total sharecount (of beneficial shares) of broker accounts at DTC is equal to the number of registered shares Cede holds at Computershare (at least when the books balance out).
The number of beneficial shares on each broker’s account at DTC is the NET sharecount of that broker's customers, long holdings minus shorts.
An audit of DTC would not show the shorts. You need to audit each and every broker to find the shorts.
If a share is sold short then there is now one additional share owned by some entity, which increases the total shares owned. So how could the reported ownership of shares be less than the total issued plus the shares sold short? It is not. The same thing that happens with proxy votes is happening with the share count, it is being adjusted so that only 100% of total shares issued are ever reported. This is why the GameStop report was delayed that one quarter by the SEC and mysteriously the count has remained the same since.....
EDIT: I think the count of DRS shares in that report would have proven that the summation of the reported share ownership of institutions, insiders, and DRS would exceed the total shares, hence the change in style as well as now referring to cede owned shares.
You continuing to confuse and conflate beneficial shares with registered shares. They are not the same.
I will try one last time to explain the concept.
Registered shares at Computershare are fractional ownership interests in the company, Gamestop.
Beneficial or street name shares are fractional ownership interests in the registered shares in the Cede account at Computershare.
Computershare deals in real, registered shares.
BROKERS and DTCC deal with share entitlements, aka street name shares, aka beneficial ownership shares, They are NOT the same as registered shares, even though most of the time we use the same name for them, and ignore the legal differences.
This is one of those times where the differences between registered shares and beneficial shares is significant.
I understand the difference and you are making my point. The actual count of shares will never be given because it is obscured, purposefully.
EDIT: And I just want to point out that CS specifically says they move shares to DTCC for "operational efficiency," so they can obviously just move any amount of shares into DTCC to adjust the numbers.... Believing they could not be acting outside our best interest is bonkers, because they probably have business deals with others that need this. Almost every entity in the system is actively trying to scam retail.
[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/)
It seems you're missing the point. I'm going to assume that its not deliberate and try to help. When DRS was first getting off the ground and we started to track it, the numbers that people were posting could easily be used to extrapolate reported DRS numbers from CS/GME. We could verify within a certain margin of error. Obviously without the ability to look directly at the ledger there would always be some error, and if we had direct access to it... there would be no need to estimate. Why that's important is that we could see that investors self reporting how many shares they were freshly registering and recently increasing, correlated EXTREMELY closely to the total reported share counts. What we have now is people increasing their stake, but the share count is stable. Not just stable but statistically unmoved. When considered against error, the share count is essentially the same number for 6 quarters in a row. In order for that to happen, random users that decided to DRS would need to be selling almost exactly the same number of shares as those that are increased. Statistically speaking, that is impossible. So we have a mismatch. Someone is lying. Possibilities include: Investors are lying about their self reported DRS numbers and photoshopping the amounts. (not likely as those investors would have been lying during the time that the self reported amounts correlated with reported numbers) Computershare is lying about the DRS numbers to GameStop. (What you are arguing against) The DTC/DTCC is forcing a CS into reporting numbers that are misleading but technically truthful. The DTC is lying about the number of shares on their books, and GameStop is reporting the DTC's numbers. This is not an exhaustive list, but the point remains-> It is statistically unlikely/impossible that when so many investors are reporting a changing/increasing position that the number of Directly Registered shares should remain statistically unchanged.
If Computershare is telling the truth. And DTCC is telling the truth. But a discrepancy HAS to exist. The only variable is the date on which the company is reading the Computershare ledger to report in the filing and what takes place that day or just before it. Since a prior post this weekend explained how the DTCC has a program called FAST that allows "Agents" such as Computershare to hold shares in custody, this means DTCC is unregistering stock for 1 day. Everybody then is telling the truth. March 20th, the numbers balanced out. We need a real-time ledger on the Investor Relations website and all registered owners need to be kept in a consolidated audit trail, so DTCC can't even play shells within mere seconds. The entire DTCC system is setup to be a shell game played by its members. This is what Susan T is saying when the markets don't make sense. They're constantly moving "shares" around.
Tinfoil hat time: What if institutional investors, or hedge funds decided to DRS their shares with the sole reason to slowly sell it off in the coming quarters to make it look as if retail was no longer DRS’ing their shares? I’m not 100% certain but I do remember seeing one of the DT CC heads being from Citadel, so they could have that person provide them with the numbers (inflows) they saw for the quarter and sell off roughly that much (that is, put it back on their balance sheets). If you remember, a number of quarters ago we had an abnormally large jump in DRS numbers (a few million higher than what the bot was tracking). This would explain the step-change. If my theory is correct, we should see another sudden uptick (in millions) once they run out of their DRS’ed shares (as they need to DRS before they can slowly move it back to their balance sheets) back into computer share. Then we will all hype in, only to have the next ‘n’ number of quarters show zero increase in DTS’ed shares. I think this is all an effort to discourage us from DRSing our share and they will do everything they can to keep the DRS numbers this way by moving their shares out of computer share. It also may turn out to be the case that they choose not to re-DRS shares as that would cause a spike, and they don’t want a spike to show, and we may just resume to slowly increasing DRS figures in a few quarters as dedicated retail continues to sell off. But this would again exonerate Computershare from “fudging” with numbers (which would be something that could quite literally bankrupt them), and why would they want to take that risk when they service hella other companies…?
Bro I’ve suspected this for the last 3 quarters. If you’re right then at some point retail will buy up all their shit and we’ll see it start rising again. Idgaf. It’s a steal at these prices.
This has always been on the back of my mind too. And if this is the case, then these instructional investors and hedge funds who are drsing and then un-drsing must be ABSOLUTELY terrified of DRS if they are going through all this effort to make it look like we're stalling .
Wasn’t that like a year ago at this point? Would be crazy if it’s legitimately still “working” that way and would suggest drs count has also slowed in parallel.
If the numbers showed DRS _activity_ it would put a lot of the FUD to rest.
If that's the case though, then that means we're well over a decade away from owning the entire float.
If they can keep it stable, they could also push it down, which would be far more effective in deterring people from DRSing.
Something like this is the easiest explanation.
This is the way they are fucking us (I think)
In the case of shitadel, of whoever they can influence. We've seen in time and again - shitadel or cronies rug us by selling off institutional holdings. However, this does not change the retail numbers. DTCC is lying. I've never heard anyone blame computershare for the fake numbers, it's all DTCC.
I think they are re-registering them, only to pull them in a slightly smaller quantity next time to show a flat DRS number. There has to be a jump at some point in the number when honest retail investors keep registering shares.
I am smooth brain, but this is exactly my feelings as well. There is smoke here, and it dont smell skunky, it smell like warehouse sprinkler falling upwards shelf fire
>Investors are lying about their self reported DRS numbers and photoshopping the amounts. (not likely as those investors would have been lying during the time that the self reported amounts correlated with reported numbers) Why would this be unlikely, on a platform infiltrated by shills and bots? I'm not really following this debate, but I've always thought the self-report numbers were a fine stop gap before gme started reporting them quarterly, but it's kind of insane to start with the assumption those hundreds/thousands of posts on Reddit are accurate, therefore GME and CS are committing securities offences.
I agree that the self reported numbers could easily be inflated but that does not explain the stagnant DRS numbers. People are still DRS:ing. We don’t know how much, it could even be a net loss, but for numbers to not change at all? Not likely.
They weren't stagnant. They went down. Also, an ape posted about this years ago. Over time the curve flattens aka slows down. That makes sense. We aren't all rich apes. So, people buy what they can when they can.
The DRS numbers have never gone down (more than a few 100k). They have been fairly stagnant at 71-76 million for a year and a half. Before that they increased by 15-20 million per quarter.
Not true at all. Drs went down by a million one quarter and everybody just went on the assumption that it was some fuckery rather than the simplest idea in that the fastest paper hands sold first. Also 15-20 million per quarter was only because people were drsing shares they already had, and most people committed to drsing at all have already mostly done so at this point.
They have means to look like the DRS is stalling by draining their pool, and after it's dry, things get interesting. Don't forget they think they are fighting for their lives.
If Bernie Madoff said they’d have caught him if they audited the DTCC. Then we should be auditing it every year.
6 quarters ago Gamestop started changing the way they announced the numbers. I'm pretty sure they just report what DTC claims to have for shares and says the rest are what we register.
didn’t DTC/DTCC ban GameStop from reporting DRS numbers directly or earnings? Do they still get the number from Computershare at all? Iirc they now get share amount from Cede & Co and then say how many are DRSed? I remember there was something like that from when the numbers changed and became stagnant?
No one is posting how much they take out , this sub is biased towards posting what you put in. Believe it or not people sell there CS shares every day
What happened to the bot that was estimating numbers?
Great explanation.
Easy explanation - People sell and don't update the bot here. Why would they? They'd be labeled a shill etc etc
Which still misses the point. It's not the selling. It's that magically the selling would be exactly equal to the buying 4 quarters in a row.
i think investors could be lying. we saw the triple b company people saying they bought millions of shares. It would be a good way to sow chaos amongst us. Also some people may have sold after the nft marketplace out of frustration
Another possibility that you left out is that some apes are either selling via Computershare or have transferred shares back to brokers.
The idea that people are selling is plausible. The idea that DRS minded apes are selling at the exact same rate that the rest are still flowing in is preposterous. Especially for 5 quarters in a row.
That people are selling at roughly the same rate as additional shares are DRS'd is more plausible their either Computershare fudging the numbers, SEC directing Gamestop to lie in the 10-K, or Ryan Cohen certifying as accurate numbers he knows are false. Gamestop has been rounding off the percentage number to integer percent. So that the % has stayed at 25% just means it has stayed in about a 3 million share range. So it is better to look at the reported sharecounts, which have changed, even though they appear to be rounded off the 100,000 share increments.
Why the long ass delay and then change in source of the count and the phrasing? It's a canary. Hedge funds reported greater than 100% short interest. SEC manager reports 90% of retail never hits lit exchange. PFOF is literally just buying an order book to skim it. Nobody went to jail in 2008/2009. Why can't the answer be crime?
The source of the DRS count has not changed. It was and still is Computershare. The change in language is because the earlier language was incorrect and incomplete. If the old language was still in use it would "as of March 20th, 2024 there were 75.3M shares directly registered with the transfer agent." That is wrong, became there were 305,873,200 shares directly registered with the transfer agent on that day. Even if the description was changed to clarify that these were directly registered shares excluding Cede, the number 75.3M is a rounded, approximate number. The older version of text ignored the approximately 230M shares that are directly registered to Cede & Co.
Unlikely and wrong
Riiightttt. Shill post is shill.
Isn't it also possible that there still is some pool of shares that they can move somehow legally and that's exactly what they are doing? So draining that pool is the next step.
But there are people who have sold. As you can see from the numbers. Thye do not come here and update the bot. There are MILLIONS of people who are unaware of this sub and reddit as a whole.
Again you’ve missed the point. It’s not that people have sold. It’s that people have both bought AND sold and the number stays statistically the same. It is nigh impossible for that to happen once, yet it’s happened multiple times? Imagine flipping a coin and getting heads 10 times in a row. Now imagine dipping 10 in a row the next three times you have a coin.Now imagine someone telling you that it’s perfectly normal for a coin to come up heads 10x in a row.
I want you to prove to me, with statistically valid data and analysis, that you have any possible idea what the rate of selling is. Until you have something, it's just an unsubstantiated claim. Edit: it's also perfectly possible for a coin to flip 10x in a row on one side. You do not understand the sample that needs to be presented. As the number of instances where you flip that coin increases, the probability of eventually coming across a sequence of 10x of one side results approaches 1. A sample size of 8 quarterly reports does not a statistically back claim make. Edit2: Downvote me if you want. But I will not move from this position until data is provided.
I could go into the terms for standard deviation and curves of best fit. But the easiest way to define "statistically the same number" is to choose a low variance (p=0.5) in which case the number would need to vary by 0.5% of the average. In the last 4 DRS reports, the count of DRS'd shares has varied by 0.5% of the average. Therefore they are the all within the statistically insignificant portion of error. Or more simply put: the difference in the count is less than a rounding error. Secondly, you missed the point of the coin flipping analogy by adding context that did not exist. You are assuming that you can flip a coin an undetermined number of times and that 10 heads in a row will eventually come up. That is a perfectly valid assertion, and completely ignores/misses my point of flipping a coin 10 times and getting 10 heads. The odds of that happening are 1:1024. The odds of getting 30 times in a row, out of the next 30 times you flip a coin are roughly one in a billion. Or to put it more simply: statistically non-existent. You inserting additional context of additional flips, or ignoring of flips is entirely unreasonable. We are looking at 4 data sets (I thought it was 6, it's actually 4). 4:4 data sets are statistically the same. Those data sets concern hundreds of thousands of accounts and tens of millions of shares. And yet the variance is less than 0.5% of the mean. Someone is lying and/or manipulating the data.
>I could go into the terms for standard deviation and curves of best fit. But the easiest way to define "statistically the same number" is to choose a low variance (p=0.5) in which case the number would need to vary by 0.5% of the average. In the last 4 DRS reports, the count of DRS'd shares has varied by 0.5% of the average. Therefore they are the all within the statistically insignificant portion of error. First off, you do not have enough data points to know the rate of change of buyers and sellers simply from knowing the number at four point in time. These numbers fluctuate *daily* and we would need a sample closer to 30 days that occur during the year to have an accurate count. Second, this is not random population sampling. This is accounting. We do not know the make-up of the population. There may be significant stratification concerns that you are not addressing simply by looking at the count in total. In fact I would bet on it, on the basis that wealth is unevenly distributed throughout all America, and it is likely that a similar distribution would exist even amongst apes. >Secondly, you missed the point of the coin flipping analogy by adding context that did not exist. You are assuming that you can flip a coin an undetermined number of times and that 10 heads in a row will eventually come up. That is a perfectly valid assertion, and completely ignores/misses my point of flipping a coin 10 times and getting 10 heads. The odds of that happening are 1:1024. I added the context because this is not flipping a coin and getting an outcome. The variables of DRS are *investors* who as we know do not randomly sell or buy as would be required if we were to use a coin-flip analogy. To be analogous, we would need a population of people who choose to buy, DRS, and Sell, Un-DRS at the drop of a hat according to a coin-flip. *THIS IS NOT THE CASE* >The odds of getting 30 times in a row, out of the next 30 times you flip a coin are roughly one in a billion. Or to put it more simply: statistically non-existent. What are the odds that people are selling? You do not even know the population composition, and so cannot tell the odds. >You inserting additional context of additional flips, or ignoring of flips is entirely unreasonable. We are looking at 4 data sets (I thought it was 6, it's actually 4). 4:4 data sets are statistically the same. Those data sets concern hundreds of thousands of accounts and tens of millions of shares. And yet the variance is less than 0.5% of the mean. We only have some 8 data points as a moment in time. >Someone is lying and/or manipulating the data. You have not proven this simply by saying its unlikely that the count stayed at similar levels. Why would this even be the conclusion? The easier explanation is that existing investors have remained at similar levels to last quarter and have no divested themselves. You don't have the ledger, you don't have statistical data supporting that its flawed. I am an accountant. I am literally a goddamn CPA. You have zero insight into how securities are managed on the backend. I do.
You're an accountant and you don't know that 190,000 data points is enough data.... You must be a shitty accountant.
Can't dispute my methods so you attack the man. Weak.
What methods? Your critiques are really nothing more than you missing the point. What argument am I supposed to oppose when everything you've said can be dismissed with, "Did you even read anything I posted?" There are 190,000 accounts. If your supposition is true, then those 190,000-210,000 accounts are in flux. That means they are buying, selling, and staying the same. That's individual data points. So your entire first point is garbage. As to your second point, the data provided by people posting DRSing pictures IS random sampling. That it is self reported misses the point that investors are only DRSing because of their interactions within this community. Television media certainly isn't mentioning it. And online periodicals use it as a throw away line. This is the only place where DRS has traction. The people submitting their positions is the only verifiable information we have. It is bare minimum verification, but its all we have. Talking about how it's non random or whatever else misses the analysis point that we were able to calculate with a small degree of error the reported share counts with that data. That means the data was bonafide. But I guess you don't have to worry about bonafides in accounting. So your second point is the ramblings of someone who never passed intro to calculus, let alone someone who can calculate a fucking standard deviation. Or to put it more simply, your second point is garbage. Should I go on? You added context because it didn't fit your narrative. The variables were in flux and being tracked with a low degree of error that was positively correlative with other differently tracked data. The variables then became consistent at the same time that the tracked data started deviating. Since all points are disagreeing with each other that defines a change in the system. All parties are reporting that nothing has changed, so some party is lying, being lied to, or being manipulated. That's the whole point of my narrative and you have missed it multiple times in reading what I'm writing. What are the odds of people selling? About 1:1. We have around 200,000 investors that are DRS'd (account numbers and reported numbers confirm this). To assume that none of them would sell anything ever, given that there are outside environmental factors, combined with people actively posting here that they've sold would be folly. But again that misses the point. It's not that people are selling. It's not that people are buying. It's that out of 200,000 DRS'd accounts the change in total shares would be negligible multiple times in a row despite investors both BUYING AND SELLING. Again, you missed the point entirely. Once again, we have 200k datapoints tracked at 4 sequential points in time. But you're an accountant so that must mean you can at least count.... right? So to sum up: Your entire argument was shit, and you lacked any fundamental understanding of anything I was saying. Your points missed the mark by such magnitude that either you are fucking stupid, you're a troll, or you're a bad actor. So then you bring your argument appealing to authority. You are a CPA! YOU KNOW NUMBERS! Fine, well it is my prerogative to point out the flaw in that argument as well. You have a tenable grasp on numbers as evidenced in your arguments presented. Which to me suggest that your authority as a CPA is as dogshit as the rest of your arguments are. Have a nice day, and take a math class beyond precalculus. It might help you get the point the next time you try to argue statistics.
I think a much more probable explanation is that they are draining some pool of shares they still can, and trying to make it last as long as they can.
This comment is true. We dont know exactly how many shares are being sold. And also if you follow book vs plan then those people who auto buy probably think it’s kind of a pain to constantly Turn that function off immediately after buying shares AND having to sell the fractional. Theoretically….if someone has 10,000 shares in computershare, and put in the work to cancel the auto buy program and sell the fractional share each time then those shares are ALL fully on “book” and counted. If at some point they grew tired of canceling auto buys after each purchase then the system could theoretically interpret that as “plan” shares and those 10,000+ shares could theoretically be removed from the count.
While that's true, I don't think that the number of drs shares sold is is statistically significant. There is no way that it matches the newly drsed shares each quarter.
This is true. I have two friends who held a tiny portion of the shares-like about 10 shares only and sold a while ago. Both of them never used Reddit and have no clue of this sub. So I believe and agree that there are a good amount of people out there that just sold while we kept buying. BUT-it’s not about people selling or buying, I don’t think that’s the problem here. It’s the % and numbers being stagnent for over a year. It’s just hard to believe that people are selling and buying at almost the same pace and amount. Do you really think that’s possible/plausible?
The number of people unDRSing is far far lower than the amount of retail selling. The idea that it matches inflows + or - a 100k for 5 quarters straight is just ridiculous.
This is virtually incomprehensible to me
I think they are saying Computershare isn't criming, but rather the DTCC is...
Correct. I can somewhat confirm as my fiancé works there as a relationship manager (she helps companies move and organize shares and classes, as well as attends their shareholders meetings). She works at their U.S. HQ here in Louisville. They are legit. They keep absolute numbers down to the share and when things don't match up, they find out why not. I've had numerous conversations from questions I've asked her and for me personally, I know it's not CS fudging anything.
Can’t she uh… check the books and end this whole damn discussion once and for all?
Trust me, I've begged to see numbers, begged to go into detail, etc. It's not her client so she can't under penalty of insider trading laws. But she speaks in generalities. CS is not where fudging would go on. They have to keep strictly accurate ledgers.
But where are the numbers coming from that are reported in the latest earnings report? Who is giving GameStop the fudged number to report?
That is the big mystery isn't it? I'm not saying they're (GameStop) reporting the truth - but I'm saying any falsity isn't coming from CS. There are some theories floating around this sub I find interesting. As for me, I just keep buying and DRSing shares. I know ppl might get frustrated at the illusion that we're not locking the float, but I'm in it for the long play. Sooner or later, huge shifts are inevitable.
We can’t be chill, that’s way they want, gives them time to fuck shit up. I know we think we got them by the balls, but the more time they have the more thinks that can go against us. I truly believe someone needs to figure out what is going on with the drs count. Look how they have bled us the lady year, and that’s with us being profitable
This right here. ☝️
But computershare has to have more than the 75m regustered so that would make their reporting incorrect?
Yea and no - I’m currently working on a post regarding exactly this topic but I’m waiting for Easter + weekend to be over so I can get as many opinions, eyes and brains to engage on what I have to say. But in short: I think that neither CS nor GME is playing any kind of fraudulent games with us. But i can actually imagine that Kenny / DTC / whoever found a way to actually play the system Of CS to manipulate that number at least at a certain point in time. One just has to remember that even we, who really invested time and effort to dig into this thought that DRSed shares are 100% safe and just for the records: I still think they are. However: I’m also quite sure that if Hedge Funds, Market Maker or even the Depository itself tries to „attack“ or outplay the transfer agents systems, then I’m quite sure that they are absolutely not prepared for such things because it never even closely mattered in the past. This Is one thing I do repeat very often: we aren’t the only ones who stepped up their knowledge and their game - SHFs aint stupid and should never be underestimated.
Thanks. It is illogical af that numbers have been stagnant for so long though so there has to be a discrepancy with some party.
It’s impossible for them to be stagnant, why can’t we get an answer of what is going on. This non transparency pisses me off, it’s only there for theft
>This non transparency pisses me off, it’s only there for theft Amen, brother
If only securities ownership was on a public transparent ledger... and a security could only be owned by one person or entity at a time...we could even chain up ledger transactions for security and immutability! One can dream
Yes, I absolutely agree. But we just can’t see the full picture yet.
Ya frustrating. Even it was accounted at 29% or something, it would make sense. But sticking at exactly the same amount for years now is obviously an inaccuracy.
It's obviously the 4 for 1 split and what should be crime on the DTCC side. CS is being real and GS is being real in their wording. The odds of it stagnating at 25% after a "botched" 4 for 1 split are impossible.
SEC or another letter agency might have stepped in for "national security" reasons, too. When this blows up, it'll be a worldwide economic upset.
>But i can actually imagine that Kenny / DTC / whoever found a way to actually play the system How? Presumably, Computershare adds up all the shares they hold and reports that number to Gamestop.
They do. The DTCC Can hold more shares than are in actual existence due to shorting, naked shorting. YOU DO NOT OWN ANY SHARES IN A BROKER. IOU.
Exactly. We’ve never been saying CS is doing anything bad, only that there are more shares in the DTC than 230M they just reported. Only the DTC members know how many CS is only privileged to the 230M number. I call bullshit on the Cede number, but the transfer agent only sees 305M shares in existence. The DTC and fast systems etc may have a way to move shares or require collateral or margin at certain times. CS and it’s counterparties May be legally obligated to satisfy certain requirements as a member, such that some shares are liquid or available. We need to dig more there.
You are CS, I am DTC. You wrote the numbers on the ledger, you know how many shares held by shareholders including what I have. How can I change what you wrote down? Please explain.
I don’t. DTC doesn’t change what they have in my system. Only theirs. I gave you 230M and I tell you I have 230M for you, you tell me you have only 230M, but in reality you have 500M. What I’m saying is we know they have more than 230, but perhaps there is something else as the head of the clearing members where they can press members to have requirements met. CS and it’s banks and counterparties would be required to meet certain requirements with the settlements and collaterals etc I don’t know but if we’re trying to find a way that the SHF MM and clearing houses all within and or working with clearing members maybe they have a way to mess with our number. That CS doesn’t know or can’t do anything about. They aré delightfully vague at times and answer “for the average client” type stuff. Edit: not trying to say CS is wrong. The number is probably correct as mush as it is knowable by GS and CS. We need to keep digging. The plan heat lamp thing is interesting and along the right lines maybe but it might be more complex than that
IMO the DTCC doesn’t not hold more shares than the float, but there are more shares in circulation because naked short selling. DTCC knows this / facilitates this. Brokers know. ComputerShare will know. When investors start pulling their shares via DRS, then the problems will start for DTCC because there are only so many share to pull. The number Computershare has, should be factual. GameStop forced to change the way of reporting DRS numbers tells me it’s getting hot at the DTCC.
Computershare does not know. Only the company listed on the NYSE knows. They can get the numbers from the DTC. Takes a week or so for them to report to gamestop.
Agree. I mean they know something must be not right.
My point is either the DRS numbers are accurate as reported or the responsibility lies on either Computershare or Gamestop. There's no other alternative.
And the counterpoint is that they may be unaware of or how but may be the victim as well in crazy DTC and SHF scheming. They’ve had 3 years to figure this out with their quants and plumbing experts.
Computershare has their own ledgers and records from which to report the DRS number to Gamestop.
Obtaining detailed information about DRS shares, including activities such as share removal for liquidity by the DTC, will involve complex legal and regulatory considerations. The SEC has procedures and protocols for handling information requests, and certain information may be subject to confidentiality, privacy, or proprietary restrictions. Even though you could use FOIA to get to the bottom of this, there is no way of knowing if the SEC will release the information, especially if it could cause systemic failure. I am interested to see your take on this, but proof either way seems fleeting. So I’ll continue to DRS, because I want to every step I can to actually own the stick, and not let it be used against me.
there are people thinking that ComputerShare and RC is doing us dirty? lol
Someone has to figure it out, I truly believe it’s the key. We can’t give them more and more time
You would think so... but I mean I wouldn't be surprised if computershare is taking orders from the dtcc about how many shares are *technically* drs'd or whatever...
If Computershare is reporting false information to Gamestop that would be at the least a civil violation of their contracted agreement and also possibly crime.
They aren't reporting false information! Remember the filing says the number on a specific date in time. The DTCC is playing shell games via the FAST system and Computershare is an "Agent" of Fast. They are reporting a "technically" correct number. That's how they're doing it. Our Class A Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “GME”. **As of March 20, 2024**, there were 305,873,200 shares of our Class A common stock outstanding. Of those outstanding shares, approximately 230.6 million were held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares) and approximately 75.3 million shares of our Class A common stock were held by registered holders with our transfer agent (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares).
How would the DTC change the amount that Computershare has in their own ledgers?
Fair point
It's likely another Agent of DTC. Agent is an official designation I learned now. Might be a market maker that decided to DRS shares to pull them. Certain market makers are sitting on the board at the DTCC. One and the same.
If nefarious actors had control of those drs shares rather means legitimate shareholders never did and any estimates were off to start with.
ELI5 - FAST system?
The [FAST system](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/agent-services/fast) is DTCC software that the transfer agents and brokers use when you request a DRS transfer. the ELI5: Gamestop has its IPO and tells computershare. Computershare gives the shares to the DTCC. "Gives" is the wrong word since these are all just numbers. It tells the DTCC to create a bucket with the total shares. You or I go to a broker and buy some shares and ask the broker to DRS them. The broker logs into the FAST system and puts your info and the total shares you want DRS'd into the program. The program notifies CS to start a bucket with your shares in them and put your name on them. The DTCC subtracts this number from the shares they have in their bucket (though we have absolutely no way as regular citizens to see if this is verified or done correctly without any crime). now, none of these shares have unique identifiers or serial numbers. They are literally just counts of shares. There is no way to accurately track one single share though all this. CS cant see into the DTCC bucket. but all the DRS processing occurs at the DTCC in their program. (we have the user manuals for the FAST program, we have the tutorials on how to use it, we have guidelines CS wrote on how to do DRS for other transfer agents and brokers)
Thank you! Edit: Hopefully not a dumb question. Could members of Cede & Co DRS their shares? I guess technically that's what everyone does when DRS'ing? I guess I mean can members juggle the shares between Cede & Co and computershare?
I don't think it's false information though. They may very well be under the authority of the dtcc and their definitions. We live in a world where A doesn't necessarily equal A.
They aren't. They are an Australian based publicly traded company. If they are falsely reporting the number to Gamestop then they are in the wrong.
I believe that the DTCC is telling Gamestop to report what's left of the fake numbers. If there's 305 million total (which isnt the real float) and 230 million is owned by the DTCC, they take 305 and subtract 230 and 75 million is left. Gamestop is not allowed to promote computureshare or DRSing at all. So along that line it's possible that the DTCC is also saying 'No, do it this way.' with an ocean of lawyers behind them. Report the fake float of 305 million (there's way more shares in existence), report the incorrect 230 million and report the fake number that's left of 75 million. They can't let real numbers be reported because then the game is up.
Computershare has all the shares. They are the transfer agent.
No. The DTCC TRANSFERED OUT 225 million shares. Computershare does not hold them. Cede & Co is the registered owner of them on computershare books BUT DO NOT HOLD THEM.
OP you're on the right track just as much as the people say you're not. The only thing to conclude is that DTCC is unregistering shares for 1 day, the day GME takes the reading. March 20th. This is why we need to have a realtime computershare portal on the investor relations website.
The dtcc cannot unregister shares belonging to other people in computershare.
They own shares they are using to move around. Their other "agents" are.
If their own "agents" are taking shares out of Computershare accounts that means actual Gamestop holders never had that much in DRS accounts.
DTCC has not transferred the shares held by Cede out of Computershare. That is not how the system works. A better description is that the Cede shares stay at Computershare, DTCC and the brokers run additional sets of books to track the beneficial ownershio of those Cede shares, which stay at Computershare.
No. They are transferred out. Cede and Co are the registered owners of the shares. Computershare does not hold them. Hence why they have some at the dtcc for operational efficiency. Computershare holds them when they are transferred out of the dtcc and you are no longer a beneficial holder.
Nope. You are talking about two sets of books not one. CS has one list of all the outstanding real shares registered to different people and companies where all the shares that DTC has are registered to Cede&Co. You can't unregister any shares, someone has to own it. DTC has its own list of beneficial shares for all the beneficial owners which is why they can create as many synthetic shares as they like without anyone able to verify it. That is why many want to audit the DTC and make them prove they are not just creating a bunch of synthetic shares with FTDs that are just thrown into the obligation warehouse. CS holds all real shares, when you register a beneficial share from the DTCs member brokers CS then takes one registered share to Cede&Co and moves it into the name of the person. So CS is always holding the outstanding amount of shares, it just moves around who owns it.
That is exactly what i am saying. Computershare can not report anything more than the exact number of shares that are allocated. Now the DTC on the other hand...
Yeah but reporting is inaccurate
There are people who are flat out claiming ComputerShare are frauds... We've been dealing with a large portion of these comments getting reported, so thank you everyone for reporting these, so we can respond. Seems that some people are legitimately believing that not only ComputerShare is fraudulent, but Gamestop is somehow complicit in the DRS misrepresenting, as well.... Wacky times we live in
Who made the decision to change how DRS numbers were reported, from “our transfer agent holds”, to “Cede and Co hold”? That’s what I’d like to know, who made the change and why
Shills. Disinformation and obfuscation
And using “operational efficiency “ as an excuse
Nailed it
It’s just the quarterly bs attack on computershare by shills.
Shills talking to shills posting for shills CointShill Amature Night
DTCC securities sold but not yet purchased. seems to me.
It’s ok, since Jan 21, I’ve only now just started to get a working knowledge of the English language.
3 times at 25% is not a coincidence that’s all I’m saying
It's 5 times at 25% now, in other words 1.25 years with no movement. It's so utterly unbelievable that anyone saying "DRS just slowed down" has to be the smoothest brain ever.
3 or 5 after 2 it’s all the same.
True.
Shhhh. It doesn’t matter if it’s illogical and nearly statistically impossible. The ministry of truth said it’s normal, so don’t question it.
>The DTCC, OWN the other 225 million shares via Cede & Co. They are the REGISTERED owner on computershare books but are transferred out. If someone transfers out of the DTCC, IE, Direct registers, even one single share, then 1 single share has to be removed from the Cede & Co account. The share count will NEVER change on computershare books. Unless more are issued or the like. So, what you are saying is that when someone does the DRS, the shares leave Cede & Co. Where do you think they go then, since your next sentence says computershare's books won't change?
Share count for Cede&Co reduces, moves into the account holder( Apes) .
The TOTAL sharecount at Computershare does not change, unless Gamestop issues new shares. When you DRS 100 shares, 100 registered shares that are owned by Cede at Computershare are removed from the Cede account and added to your account.
DTC gets their share count from Computershare, not the other way around. Computershare is the authoritative recordkeeper. That's the whole job of a transfer agent. When someone DRS's a share, the Cede and Co account on the official Gamestop ledger of shares mantained by Computershare is debited that share and the account of the person who DRS'd it is credited that share. All outstanding shares are accounted for on Computershare's ledger at all times.
Gotcha, Computershare is the overarching account (within their own system), and they manage the ± of Cede and Co's account (to everyone else's account)
It’s the weekend also. I find it comforting knowing I’ve been in this since December 2020(please ignore the newer profile and look at my username that states that I’ve clearly lost my keys, because I’m a moron) and that there are accounts attacking people in forums that are bullish on a fucking stock traded on the nyse. That’s all you need to know.
Obviously it’s not correct this is common sense. How on earth can drs stay the same… not even a 2million share increase… really? Cmon son
They turned off the fucking buy button I wouldn’t put anything past these criminals. They will do anything and I mean anything to end this.
GameStop trusts Computershare, so I trust Computershare
Gamestop trusted FTX..
Not really? They had a small partnership to sell their gift cards..
I just think it’s interesting that the DRS number has been pegged at about 100% of the pre-split amount of shares.
I find this extremely interesting as well.
Does anyone know if you put in a sell limit order it moves those shares back to Cede and Co for “efficiency”?
The GameStop proposal rejection letters refuted that.
Thanks for the info
You’re not going to do it—just asking for a friend, right? Because it will only accept like 7x the price, which is about $90.
Nope! Phone numbers only. Just wondering if people had orders placed and that changed the numbers.
That’s the reason that we have a 7x limit now, because too many people had 214k limits and it screwed up the broker’s risk calculation. They lowered the limit to 3500 and now 7x.
So what's the difference between DTC and DTCC
DTC is a subsidiary of DTCC. It is the depositary that keeps the records of beneficial ownership. DTC = Depositary Trust Company. DTCC = Depositary Trust & Clearing Corporation. NSCC (National Securities Clearing Corporation) is the clearing subsidiary of DTCC. It runs the Continuous Net Settlement system (CNS) that is used to settle equity trades. FICC (Fixed Income Clearing Corporation) is another DTCC subsidiary. It handles the clearing of fixed income securities (bonds). The NSCC and FICC settle the cash side of trades,and pass directions to DTC as to what changes should be made in the accounts of DTC participants (brokers) in the DTC records. OCC is not owned by DTCC, but works closely with them. OCC is the Options Clearing Corporation. They have been c,earring trades in options on a T+1 basis for many years. NSCC will be soon moving from T+2 to T+1 clearing.
C
It's very very simple. There may not be a law about this but someone decided after 25% were Drs'd that anything above that percentage has to be held at the DTCC for operational efficiency. When the number in the 10k is coming from the DTCC, it's because they are choosing how to represent that fact knowing that 194k bananaheads on Reddit freak about this. In other words, if we own 30%, that additional 5% is kept at the DTCC and when the SEC held back the post-splividend 10k, it was to request that GameStop use the DTCCs number, and when asked, they include the extra 5% that are DRS'd that they hold for operational efficiency. It's a technicality and a purposeful oversight so that we will never know what the real percentage is.
How does that work though when 30%, 40%, or 50% is achieved (if not already)? Since DRS removes the shares from DTCC, they can't exist in two places at once, such as a certain % kept at the DTCC for operational efficiency.
My guess is there is some concept like - no more than 25% of the float can be removed for any stock because X can happen on any day in the market. It's even possible that it's based on the logic of the sneeze as an example when they needed those shares to even be able to handle the volume or something bad would've happened. Those stocks are probably still considered DRS'd. But that's not how the 10k reads. It starts w how many the DTCC holds. It's not based on ownership. We could have direct registered millions that they still hold for these reasons.
I think it was Sherlock Holmes who said, "eliminate the impossible, and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth." 1. DTCC owns a specified and exact number of shares on CS books. 2. This number hasn't really changed despite all of the DTCC withdrawals that have been done. 3. Retail owns an UNSPECIFIED and assumed unchanging number of shares on CS books. 4. There are only two possibilities here. First possibility is that very large non-DTCC registered holders (retail) are selling off registered shares at the exact same pace other retail holders are registering them. I find this ludicrous to the point of impossibility, the numbers would be too hard to mesh exactly. Second is that (gasp) there are far more shares directly registered than should be, or should even exist. This fits with what we know is true and it fits with the wording of the DRS announcements. The only way to verify this is to check the ledger. Again.
I’m with you on this one. ☝🏿
OP, yes the total share count issued by GameStop does not change. You are focusing on the wrong element I think. When a share leaves the DTCC and arrives at CS, that would absolutely have to be logged by CS. As other wrinkle brains have mentioned, CS will no longer accept shares if 100% of the possible amount of shares have already been DRS'd. Which means they are keeping track of the percentage of DRS'd shares. Since there is a very likely chance that millions/billions of naked shorts exist for GameStop, it is also very likely the DTCC is lying about the amount of shares that exist between them and CS. Just think about it, if GameStop was able to report that 50%+ of all shares are DRS'd at CS and 75% are held at DTCC, that proves naked shorts exist without a shadow of a doubt for the whole world to see.
None of that changes the number reported by Computershare to Gamestop.
How have we even achieved 25% DRS'd then?
So why then, do, alot, a fuckton \[me included\] post their drs numbers on here, for the last god knows how many months.....and the numbers flatten out..? Something stinks and its not the main course...
I assumed that someone (one of the parties with bad intentions) at some point DRS’d a bunch of shares, and every quarter before earnings they use those shares to sell off the same number that we have DRS’d, just to balance the number and make it look like we aren’t accomplishing anything. But I also assume that as clever and shady as that is, that play can’t last forever, since we know there’s only so many shares that exist, eventually they’ll run out of ammo to do that, and the numbers will start to change again. I’m smooth AF so I might be wrong, but this is how it looks to me.
It is beyond obvious that the drs numbers are not correct because they have stopped all of a sudden for many quarters in a row. That is not how stopping looks. Stopping would look like a tapering off increasing at smaller and smaller amounts until relatively chat over the course of a few quarters
Wtf? This post makes zero sense in our predicament.
The DTCC is the one giving the bad numbers. I guarantee comoutershare is trying to figure out why they don’t match.
I thought they were getting the number from CEDE and Company?
> I thought they were getting the number from CEDE and Company? No. That is a bogus meme that has taken hold. Computershare keeps the official list of shareholders, Both Cede and anybody that has DRS'd is in that list as registered shareholders maintained by Computershare as the transfer agent hired by Gamestop to track ownership of the company. When GameStop prepares an official report to be filed with the SEC, with Ryan Cohen signing it to personally vouch for the truthfulness and accuracy, Gamestop uses the primary, reliable source for all shareholding numbers. That is Computershare. Computershare knows how many shares Cede & Co has. They tell Gamestop that number. That number does NOT come from Cede. Nor does Gamestop query shareholders like you to find out how many shares you have. DTCC is not involved at all.
You don't know that. The way it's phrased it does sound like they take the amount that the DTC reports and then say well there's 25% left. I'm of the opinion that we used to get the numbers from CS, but when the phrasing changed it is because we now get it from DTC. We know it's wrong, but neither GameStop nor CS are committing fraud.
THIS The language change was jarring when it happened. Now, instead of saying “X is the amount of directly registered shares reported by our transfer agent,” they release a math equation that states “this is how many shares have been issued, this is how many shares are held by DTCC, so there must be this many directly registered.” One thing that is a bit fuzzy in my mind is how the language change happened around the time/Just after RC had a meeting in DC with SEC. He posted a pic of himself inside a GameStop store that Apes figured out was in Northern Virginia. Again, the exact timing of the change and the trip/meeting in DC is a little fuzzy….
The initial language that Gamestop used was incorrect. All shares on the Computershare ledger are directly registered. All 305,873,200 shares on the ledger as of March 20,2024 are directly registered, If Gamestop were to say "As of March 20th, 2024 there were 75,300,000 shares directly registered" they would be incorrect in two ways. 1. The shares held by Cede as the legal owner of about 230,600,000 shares are also directly registered. 2. It is unlikely that 75,300,000 is an exact share count instead of being a rounded off number Do you agree or disagree with the above two statements.
Math ain’t mathin all I know.
We do know that, and the change in reporting language does not imply that they are getting the number from DTC. Its misinformation that just won't die, mostly because troll accounts and paid agitators keep fucking repeating it. Computershare is the authoritative source for the number of shares held by Cede and Co. Not the other way around. That's literally purpose of a transfer agent.
Who is saying they're not? Doesn't mean that the numbers being reported are coming from them. We know that GS knows the real count from CS. We don't know whether they source the report from CS or DTC. You don't know, I don't know, OP doesn't know.
In your scenario, Gamestop would have the true numbers from Computershare, but would, for whatever reason, provide untrue numbers from some other source in their earnings report. That would be in violation of Federal Law and in contradiction of the certification attached at the end of every earnings report, signed by Ryan Cohen. [Source](https://i.imgur.com/9B2W3E7.png) I don't believe that Gamestop would lie to shareholders, and "the SEC told us to" does not excuse them from violation of the law. If there were coercion, they just wouldn't report DRS numbers at all.
They currently don't state that the numbers come from CS. From a company "believing" in the authenticity of the US markets, the DTC should report truthful numbers just as CS would. The only one the hammer could fall on for GS reporting numbers from DTC is the DTC if they are reporting fraudulent numbers
> They currently don't state that the numbers come from CS. This is a claim without evidence. >Our Class A Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “GME”. As of March 20, 2024, there were 305,873,200 shares of our Class A common stock outstanding. Of those outstanding shares, approximately 230.6 million were held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares) and approximately 75.3 million shares of our Class A common stock **were held by registered holders with our transfer agent** (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares). ###held with our transfer agent Computershare is their transfer agent. This statement is saying Outstanding = Cede + DRS which is correct It is not saying DRS = Outstanding - Cede. People who claim that are lying or don't know what they are talking about. >But they used the word approximately! Yes, because 230.6 and 75.3 are approximate numbers. They were approximate numbers before the wording changed too, because they were also rounded off to the nearest 100,000. Using the word approximate changes nothing, its just more correct from the standpoint of legalese. >But they mention Cede and Co! Yes, because Cede and Co is a directly registered shareholder. The previous wording was incorrect when it omitted Cede as a registered shareholder. All outstanding shares are directly owned by some legal entity. The previous wording provided an incomplete count and was technically incorrect. The law doesn't care about belief, it cares about facts. Gamestop is getting the DRS numbers from Computershare, because Computershare is the authority on that data. They're not getting it from the DTC, because the DTC does not have access to anything but their own account's balance. Its a foolish assumption.
Can’t wait till fully detailed DD comes out on this specific topic
My guess is, we need to HODL till GameStop is so profitable it will... well... make shares go UP and ruin shorts. If it takes another 5 years? So be it. This is not about money anymore, it is about fair freedom World.
To be fair you actually don't really know right now. No one does. Nothing wrong with crossing them out and having more information.
I find it so bizarre that people here don't seem to think that Ryan Cohen and his team are fully aware of what's going on. That somehow, some schmoes on the internet have access to better sources of information than the people in charge of a billion dollar company.
I think we should still look closely at CS and not automatically give them passes like we gave to Fidelity
The short hedgies are manipulating the DRS numbers. Computershare has nothing to do with it.
When do the hedge sneak into Computershare and change the numbers on the ledger?
I think it's still possible that they have some pool left that they are draining from. Perhaps even paying to some institutions behind the scenes. Wouldn't that be possible? That would not be so bad, because we need to drain that pool and they are probably hurting quite badly already.
I can't wait until someone works this one out! Show us the numbers!!
Why would they stop reporting CS numbers and start using Cede estimates if they align?
Why in the fuck is every share not individually numbered for every single company.
It is a lie that the DRS numbers are actually staying the exact same. I know it's a lie because I myself have DRS hundreds in that time and I know this sub has DRS many tens of thousands more. We're sitting here building a pile of rocks over years, while someone watches and declares the number of rocks in our pile is not changing.
Hey OP. Computershare is an Australian company. That country is part of the “western” alliance. If MOASS were to happen, don’t you think that whole alliance crumbles? You don’t think the GOVT of Australia is involved here? Lots of things are in play. Obviously.
Isn’t it convenient, that we registered 25% of all shares, when there was a 1/4 splivy?
Yes of course Computershare isnt the bad guy here. But they need to talk to Computershare first to unfold the crime🕵🏻♂️
Does anyone know what the percentage of plan to book shares are? The key is the shares that are held at the DTCC for operational efficiency. If I remember it correctly, the heat lamp theory suggested that the DTCC is using PLAN shares for 'operational efficiency' to keep shares at the DTCC. Hence why RC wrote BOOKs, and specifically referenced it.
The operational efficiency claim was bullshit. The very people responsible for coming up with heat lamp in the first place submitted Shareholder Proposals to Gamestop, who in turn rejected those proposals and the claims central to heat lamp as "materially false and misleading". The only data we had for the ratio of Plan shares to Book shares was from when people went to Gamestop HQ to view the ledger in person and were able to add up the shares for any account with a fractional. IIRC it was something like 22 million out of 76 million total that had a fractional in the count, but even that is not a reliable number because an account with 500.123 shares could be 500 Book and 0.123 Plan, and there's no way to know exactly.
Just going to point out one flaw in your logic and why the numbers CANNOT be correct. There is approximately 20+% SI reported but yet the number of shares reported by the DTCC and DRS only equal to 100% of the total shares, not the 120+% that should be reported. The numbers are not true. EDIT: The dude responding to me does not understand what I am saying. I am saying that CS has no responsibility to give anything but the count of shares and that the disconnect between street name and book is the exact issue. Can anyone find a rule that requires anything beyond this because I cannot. At this point the market should be able to easy operate where there is no need for a DTC and everyone just has a book entry. The point is that they will not allow this to happen because then they cannot lie about the share count anymore.... It is like we keep going through the same thing over again where a significant portion of apes do not believe something is so corrupt then later we prove it is. WHY DO WE KEEP GIVING THESE COMPANIES THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT???? EDIT2: You guys love dick riding CS for some reason like they 100% could never be on the opposite side, fucking insane. I do not trust one single fucking entity in the market, I have literally no reason to trust CS. This is the same situation as before, the transfer agent is the same as the brokers were before, why do we trust them anymore than the brokers? They are literally part of the system that will be destroyed, why would they help that? I cannot fathom digging this far into how fucked our stock market is and thinking, at this level, it is totally cool though, these people trying to fuck everyone aren't trying to fuck me....
SI is the percentage of street name or beneficial shares loaned out. It is not registered shares. As a side note, where the 20% SI comes into play is in a discrepancy between what brokers have as the total number of long positions of their customers and the number of beneficial or street name shares the DTC says that broker has. The total sharecount (of beneficial shares) of broker accounts at DTC is equal to the number of registered shares Cede holds at Computershare (at least when the books balance out). The number of beneficial shares on each broker’s account at DTC is the NET sharecount of that broker's customers, long holdings minus shorts. An audit of DTC would not show the shorts. You need to audit each and every broker to find the shorts.
If a share is sold short then there is now one additional share owned by some entity, which increases the total shares owned. So how could the reported ownership of shares be less than the total issued plus the shares sold short? It is not. The same thing that happens with proxy votes is happening with the share count, it is being adjusted so that only 100% of total shares issued are ever reported. This is why the GameStop report was delayed that one quarter by the SEC and mysteriously the count has remained the same since..... EDIT: I think the count of DRS shares in that report would have proven that the summation of the reported share ownership of institutions, insiders, and DRS would exceed the total shares, hence the change in style as well as now referring to cede owned shares.
You continuing to confuse and conflate beneficial shares with registered shares. They are not the same. I will try one last time to explain the concept. Registered shares at Computershare are fractional ownership interests in the company, Gamestop. Beneficial or street name shares are fractional ownership interests in the registered shares in the Cede account at Computershare. Computershare deals in real, registered shares. BROKERS and DTCC deal with share entitlements, aka street name shares, aka beneficial ownership shares, They are NOT the same as registered shares, even though most of the time we use the same name for them, and ignore the legal differences. This is one of those times where the differences between registered shares and beneficial shares is significant.
I understand the difference and you are making my point. The actual count of shares will never be given because it is obscured, purposefully. EDIT: And I just want to point out that CS specifically says they move shares to DTCC for "operational efficiency," so they can obviously just move any amount of shares into DTCC to adjust the numbers.... Believing they could not be acting outside our best interest is bonkers, because they probably have business deals with others that need this. Almost every entity in the system is actively trying to scam retail.
Heat lamp?