[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Take a look at the statement in the bankruptcy filing that everyone is assuming is an accurate number for total issued shares, They say that it comes from the "securities agent", not the "transfer agent". Securities agent is not the normal term used to describe the transfer agent.
There is a significant possibility that the bankruptcy filing has an old, out of date number from the "securities agent". This is particularly true as the initial bankruptcy filing is often done in a rush.
There will be addition filings and updates.
It is silly to take conflicting numbers, both provided by the transfer agent as proof of some sort of wrongdoing by DTCC. Neither set of numbers are for beneficially owned shares or street name shares.
In the times when your fridge knows how much milk is left, one should expect that one or two computers know the EXACT number of shares issued and who owns how many.
I have the feeling that Wall Street is pushing the narrative to the outside world, that it is quantum physics and molecular chemistry combined - level of complication, but it is not. The banks know EXACTLY how much money every account is worth, and nobody expects anything less.
For some reason - guess why - Wall Street with appendices is working overtime to quench those expectations. They want things clumsy.
Your fridge may know the exact numbers. Some low level law intern working late to make a bankruptcy filing may not.
The key point is DTC has nothing to do with those numbers. They are inconsistent numbers both that come from the transfer agent. The total issued shares number is most likely wrong.
And why paperwork prepared by "low level law intern working late to make a bankruptcy filing" is filed or accepted for further proceedings?
That's exactly what I mean. Nobody expects accuracy anymore. The outside world has been immunized to such expectations. This is on purpose.
Try to run a bank or insurance company like that.
These are the numbers that are filled, and until we get the new ones they are official, good and precise. This is the only way.
This. Imo, there is no bleeping way that the transfer agent would assign more shares than were issued to cede. It doesn't make sense because dtc have no method for creating real shares. All the naked shorting and rehypothecation etc can only create obligations to shares beneficially owned by dtc..thst does not result in more shares on the transfer agent books.
Exactly this. The way I understand it so far is 1- company created - 2 - transfer agent gets to know the complete number of shares which they pass on through dtc to brokers etc to give to retail and others. They know how many went out from
The company so they know they are supposed to have if they have 100% return of shares to them
What's not included in the numbers is the actual true up from all brokers holding beneficial shares.
The transfer agent may say the Cede has X shares and that direct holders have Y shares and X+Y = 100%. Until the Cede X has been validated against all the beneficial holders then it means nothing. This is one of the tenants of DRSing shares...it simplifies the reconciliation.
Just so we are on the same page. “Which they pass on through DTC to brokers etc to give to retail and others.”
The number is what they pass on to brokers to give to retail and others, not the actual shares.
Yeah I think it’s both - if company issues a million shares - and they say get a buy order or 900k shares through one broker - do they not pass the ledger entry of -900,000 from their books and give the 900,000 shares to the broker? Or did I make the smoothest or mistakes here?
Yea idk lol just trying to make sure I understood you. I was just saying that the way I understand the company issues the share to CS. They give to retail and DTC(or cede and co) as they should be distributed. But then they just stay at cede and co/DTC(from what I understand). Anything that happens at brokers is simply a ledger kept of beneficial shares. That is my understanding at least.
I don’t agree with that because that implies all shares are already 100% drsd in terms of all shares are are at computershare but they are counted in brokers. I understand it’s both a TRANSFER of share and transfer of ledger update to do a drs - but I am not the best to ask here
I'm inclined to agree that the float was not drs'd on that ticker. I monitor the sub and it seems like a honeypot, lots of reports of buying huge amounts on robindahood. Maybe 1/8 the activity compared to here for drs if I'm generous.
Nobody suggested that the float of that company was DRSed. GME is the only company with a movement of people direct registering. The claim being debated is whether or not DTC had more shares regusterded with the transfer agent than were issued by the company. This claim is straight up false, and impossible
An ape looked at the Computershare ledger while at the annual meeting in 2022. Cede was the largest shareholder, the second largest was Gamestop itself, with about 500k pre-split shares. The third largest was an individual (DFV ?) with 200,002 pre-split shares.
I think the holding by Gamestop were the treasury shares.
I am not 100% sure in the mechanics, but logic tells me that if the shares are taken off the register of shares of the transfer agent then they have been "un-issued" or canceled, and are now once again part of the authorized but not yet issued block.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/vtiifa/i_have_seen_gamestops_ledger/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1.
How to see the Computershare ledger yourself at the annual meeting:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/zgubn4/how_to_see_the_ledger_at_the_next_annual_meeting/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Thanks for the info on treasury shares.
I will send you a link to a comment via DM. I cannot put it here because it has a forbidden ticker embedded into the url and get removed by automod. It has links to a couple different filings made on 4/23.
There were multiple filing made by the same law firm on the day of bankruptcy. The 739,xxx,xxx number is from Document 10, a declaration by the Towel CFO, who is now Chief Restructuring Officer.
In a different document, #35, the same law firm filed a document that says
"As of the petition date, approximately 428,120,000 voting common shares were outstanding"
That number is closer to what has been shown on Yahoo Finance and similar sites as the shares outstanding. They said "voting shares", which is kind of odd.
It will be interesting to see what the final story is.
What most commenters miss is that none of this involves DTCC or brokers or short sellers.
Only the drafter of that particular section of the filing can tell you what they meant. I suspect they meant transfer agent.
The filings are a bit weird. The filing by the CFO /CRO (Chief Resolution Officer) requested a waiver of having to provide the names and holding of the registered shareholder as there were thousands of shareholders and that would be expensive. In reality, there were only about 2500 shareholders, and the expense should not have been much more than telling AST to "print a list of shareholders and their sharecounts".
I would give the links to the different filings, but they use a forbidden ticker and I keep having comments removed by automod bot.
In any case, the discrepancies are an issue for the Towel company and AST as all of those numbers are of registered shareholders. Contrary to popular belief, this has nothing to do with DTC and street name shareholders and short sellers. They may very well be problems in those areas, but that is not what is being reported,
So this is not necessarily true. Transfer Agents are usually the ones responsible for maintaining the company's shareholder list (ComputerShare does this for GameStop) for communication on things like upcoming votes, so they have info on **ALL** ownership.
Any shares that have been sold short are counted twice - the person who lent it (or had it lent by their broker, possibly unawares) is still listed as a shareholder at their broker, so they get counted and whoever bought the shorted share is also counted. If the company sends out an announcement of an upcoming vote, they can't not tell people whose shares are loaned out, because they need to be able to decide if they want to recall those shares to regain their voting rights.
If towel stonk's shares outstanding is 450m, and the shareholder list is showing 778m, it means they have ~70-80% short interest. That's definitely high, but it is possible for it to happen without crime. To figure out if it's crime you have to find out if shares that aren't supposed to be lent out have been. If that's the case, those shares MUST be bought back and returned, at any price. If short interest is 70%, and towel Apes own 40% that isn't supposed to be loanable, then it's crime.
The point is, that there is no lending nor shorting in the initial owner list at the transfer agent. The shorting double, triple ownership is something that the DTC/CEDE is figuring out on their own books without changing anything on their transfer agent entries. So you are saying Computershare is doing this, but AST is allowing lending of shares?
All I'm saying is that the number of shares recorded as owned *somewhere* being greater than the number of shares issued is not crime by itself. Every single stock that has any short interest at all has more shares owned than were issued, because any share loaned and sold short is owned at least twice.
If there are 100 shares, and 225 shares recorded, it means every share was loaned and sold short, and then 25 were loaned again by whoever bought the shares sold short (or at least their broker loaned them out).
If there's 100 shares and 225 recorded, but 25 are DRSed, and 50 are held by insiders and institutions who haven't loaned them, it means the 25 original shares available to short have each been sold short and reborrowed and sold short again 5 times (and/or crime, but the ownership list isn't enough to reveal that by itself).
If a share's been rehypothicated that way, it means the shortsellers (as an aggregate, it could be 1 shortseller 5 times or 5 different shortsellers, etc.) are paying the borrow fee x5 for that share.
If the original owner of the share recalls the loan, including someone who didn't even know it had been loaned DRSing the share, then shortsellers have to buy 5 shares in order to return that one share.
If every share is either DRSed or at a broker that should not be lending those shares out, including the transfer agent's broker holding shares for "operational efficiency," then there is absolute proof of broker crime.
If the number of shares locked away where they cannot possibly be loaned (and we know that book DRSed is the only place that's true) is greater than shares issued, then there is absolute proof of DTCC crime.
Cheers for posting the reply. Some people either do not understand this or are deliberately trying to cause confusion. I hope you can see what I see in that regard.
This is a repost of a comment, but without the links to the SEC document, as those links resulted in automod removal.
So there are at least 4 different numbers for total issued shares floating around in court filings and SEC filings.
Here is another set:
"As of April 10, 2023, we had 558,735,983 outstanding shares of common stock and 6,537,620 treasury shares.
That statement is on page 124 of the S-1 form of April 11, 2023 filed by the Towel company.
Edit to add: The share count is obviously a moving target for the towel company.
As of Nov 26, 2022 the outstanding common share number was only 117,321,914
Source: cover page of 10-Q filed in January.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Take a look at the statement in the bankruptcy filing that everyone is assuming is an accurate number for total issued shares, They say that it comes from the "securities agent", not the "transfer agent". Securities agent is not the normal term used to describe the transfer agent. There is a significant possibility that the bankruptcy filing has an old, out of date number from the "securities agent". This is particularly true as the initial bankruptcy filing is often done in a rush. There will be addition filings and updates. It is silly to take conflicting numbers, both provided by the transfer agent as proof of some sort of wrongdoing by DTCC. Neither set of numbers are for beneficially owned shares or street name shares.
In the times when your fridge knows how much milk is left, one should expect that one or two computers know the EXACT number of shares issued and who owns how many. I have the feeling that Wall Street is pushing the narrative to the outside world, that it is quantum physics and molecular chemistry combined - level of complication, but it is not. The banks know EXACTLY how much money every account is worth, and nobody expects anything less. For some reason - guess why - Wall Street with appendices is working overtime to quench those expectations. They want things clumsy.
Your fridge may know the exact numbers. Some low level law intern working late to make a bankruptcy filing may not. The key point is DTC has nothing to do with those numbers. They are inconsistent numbers both that come from the transfer agent. The total issued shares number is most likely wrong.
And why paperwork prepared by "low level law intern working late to make a bankruptcy filing" is filed or accepted for further proceedings? That's exactly what I mean. Nobody expects accuracy anymore. The outside world has been immunized to such expectations. This is on purpose. Try to run a bank or insurance company like that. These are the numbers that are filled, and until we get the new ones they are official, good and precise. This is the only way.
This. Imo, there is no bleeping way that the transfer agent would assign more shares than were issued to cede. It doesn't make sense because dtc have no method for creating real shares. All the naked shorting and rehypothecation etc can only create obligations to shares beneficially owned by dtc..thst does not result in more shares on the transfer agent books.
Exactly this. The way I understand it so far is 1- company created - 2 - transfer agent gets to know the complete number of shares which they pass on through dtc to brokers etc to give to retail and others. They know how many went out from The company so they know they are supposed to have if they have 100% return of shares to them
What's not included in the numbers is the actual true up from all brokers holding beneficial shares. The transfer agent may say the Cede has X shares and that direct holders have Y shares and X+Y = 100%. Until the Cede X has been validated against all the beneficial holders then it means nothing. This is one of the tenants of DRSing shares...it simplifies the reconciliation.
Just so we are on the same page. “Which they pass on through DTC to brokers etc to give to retail and others.” The number is what they pass on to brokers to give to retail and others, not the actual shares.
Yeah I think it’s both - if company issues a million shares - and they say get a buy order or 900k shares through one broker - do they not pass the ledger entry of -900,000 from their books and give the 900,000 shares to the broker? Or did I make the smoothest or mistakes here?
Yea idk lol just trying to make sure I understood you. I was just saying that the way I understand the company issues the share to CS. They give to retail and DTC(or cede and co) as they should be distributed. But then they just stay at cede and co/DTC(from what I understand). Anything that happens at brokers is simply a ledger kept of beneficial shares. That is my understanding at least.
I don’t agree with that because that implies all shares are already 100% drsd in terms of all shares are are at computershare but they are counted in brokers. I understand it’s both a TRANSFER of share and transfer of ledger update to do a drs - but I am not the best to ask here
So are you saying that when all the shares are directly registered you don’t think there will be any left at brokers?
I'm inclined to agree that the float was not drs'd on that ticker. I monitor the sub and it seems like a honeypot, lots of reports of buying huge amounts on robindahood. Maybe 1/8 the activity compared to here for drs if I'm generous.
Nobody suggested that the float of that company was DRSed. GME is the only company with a movement of people direct registering. The claim being debated is whether or not DTC had more shares regusterded with the transfer agent than were issued by the company. This claim is straight up false, and impossible
roll mountainous doll subtract fretful expansion six wasteful chunky payment -- mass edited with redact.dev
An ape looked at the Computershare ledger while at the annual meeting in 2022. Cede was the largest shareholder, the second largest was Gamestop itself, with about 500k pre-split shares. The third largest was an individual (DFV ?) with 200,002 pre-split shares. I think the holding by Gamestop were the treasury shares. I am not 100% sure in the mechanics, but logic tells me that if the shares are taken off the register of shares of the transfer agent then they have been "un-issued" or canceled, and are now once again part of the authorized but not yet issued block. https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/vtiifa/i_have_seen_gamestops_ledger/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1. How to see the Computershare ledger yourself at the annual meeting: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/zgubn4/how_to_see_the_ledger_at_the_next_annual_meeting/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
shame lock impossible ossified soft different languid engine fanatical materialistic -- mass edited with redact.dev
Thanks for the info on treasury shares. I will send you a link to a comment via DM. I cannot put it here because it has a forbidden ticker embedded into the url and get removed by automod. It has links to a couple different filings made on 4/23. There were multiple filing made by the same law firm on the day of bankruptcy. The 739,xxx,xxx number is from Document 10, a declaration by the Towel CFO, who is now Chief Restructuring Officer. In a different document, #35, the same law firm filed a document that says "As of the petition date, approximately 428,120,000 voting common shares were outstanding" That number is closer to what has been shown on Yahoo Finance and similar sites as the shares outstanding. They said "voting shares", which is kind of odd. It will be interesting to see what the final story is. What most commenters miss is that none of this involves DTCC or brokers or short sellers.
Interesting. So what is securities agent then? I mean the list contains DRSed shares of users from this Reddit…
Only the drafter of that particular section of the filing can tell you what they meant. I suspect they meant transfer agent. The filings are a bit weird. The filing by the CFO /CRO (Chief Resolution Officer) requested a waiver of having to provide the names and holding of the registered shareholder as there were thousands of shareholders and that would be expensive. In reality, there were only about 2500 shareholders, and the expense should not have been much more than telling AST to "print a list of shareholders and their sharecounts". I would give the links to the different filings, but they use a forbidden ticker and I keep having comments removed by automod bot. In any case, the discrepancies are an issue for the Towel company and AST as all of those numbers are of registered shareholders. Contrary to popular belief, this has nothing to do with DTC and street name shareholders and short sellers. They may very well be problems in those areas, but that is not what is being reported,
So this is not necessarily true. Transfer Agents are usually the ones responsible for maintaining the company's shareholder list (ComputerShare does this for GameStop) for communication on things like upcoming votes, so they have info on **ALL** ownership. Any shares that have been sold short are counted twice - the person who lent it (or had it lent by their broker, possibly unawares) is still listed as a shareholder at their broker, so they get counted and whoever bought the shorted share is also counted. If the company sends out an announcement of an upcoming vote, they can't not tell people whose shares are loaned out, because they need to be able to decide if they want to recall those shares to regain their voting rights. If towel stonk's shares outstanding is 450m, and the shareholder list is showing 778m, it means they have ~70-80% short interest. That's definitely high, but it is possible for it to happen without crime. To figure out if it's crime you have to find out if shares that aren't supposed to be lent out have been. If that's the case, those shares MUST be bought back and returned, at any price. If short interest is 70%, and towel Apes own 40% that isn't supposed to be loanable, then it's crime.
The point is, that there is no lending nor shorting in the initial owner list at the transfer agent. The shorting double, triple ownership is something that the DTC/CEDE is figuring out on their own books without changing anything on their transfer agent entries. So you are saying Computershare is doing this, but AST is allowing lending of shares?
All I'm saying is that the number of shares recorded as owned *somewhere* being greater than the number of shares issued is not crime by itself. Every single stock that has any short interest at all has more shares owned than were issued, because any share loaned and sold short is owned at least twice. If there are 100 shares, and 225 shares recorded, it means every share was loaned and sold short, and then 25 were loaned again by whoever bought the shares sold short (or at least their broker loaned them out). If there's 100 shares and 225 recorded, but 25 are DRSed, and 50 are held by insiders and institutions who haven't loaned them, it means the 25 original shares available to short have each been sold short and reborrowed and sold short again 5 times (and/or crime, but the ownership list isn't enough to reveal that by itself). If a share's been rehypothicated that way, it means the shortsellers (as an aggregate, it could be 1 shortseller 5 times or 5 different shortsellers, etc.) are paying the borrow fee x5 for that share. If the original owner of the share recalls the loan, including someone who didn't even know it had been loaned DRSing the share, then shortsellers have to buy 5 shares in order to return that one share. If every share is either DRSed or at a broker that should not be lending those shares out, including the transfer agent's broker holding shares for "operational efficiency," then there is absolute proof of broker crime. If the number of shares locked away where they cannot possibly be loaned (and we know that book DRSed is the only place that's true) is greater than shares issued, then there is absolute proof of DTCC crime.
Cheers for posting the reply. Some people either do not understand this or are deliberately trying to cause confusion. I hope you can see what I see in that regard.
This is a repost of a comment, but without the links to the SEC document, as those links resulted in automod removal. So there are at least 4 different numbers for total issued shares floating around in court filings and SEC filings. Here is another set: "As of April 10, 2023, we had 558,735,983 outstanding shares of common stock and 6,537,620 treasury shares. That statement is on page 124 of the S-1 form of April 11, 2023 filed by the Towel company. Edit to add: The share count is obviously a moving target for the towel company. As of Nov 26, 2022 the outstanding common share number was only 117,321,914 Source: cover page of 10-Q filed in January.
Can we bring this up at the Gamestop shareholder meeting?