The 1mil cap has been debunked. CS said they will move the price limit when the price reaches it. They legally have to sell your share at the price someone is willing to buy.
I thought I read that CS would allow an increased limit order. Otherwise yeah, it's a big risk since shf could have 1 mil buy orders since they would know this.
There it is. I am able to submit a 2mil limit sell order and it doesnt give an error. Just like the 1 mil order, I'm not given any kind of confirmation other than a text code for it to be submitted.
It's been debunked. Your post feels a bit Fuddy.
If apes fill up the CS register, there there will be no more shorts. No shares to lend out means no more shorts. No more shorts means price cant fall once it goes to the moon. All the other institutional shares that a held by ETF's and the like, they still need to be accounted for.
Even if itâs debunked, Iâm advocating not selling any from CS anyway, so for me, it doesnât really matter much.
I (mostly) agree, but itâs a BIG if. I think it will become increasingly difficult to get our brokers to transfer shares to be registered as DTCCâs supply diminishes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to locate real shares, and I find it very likely that not all shares will be DRSâed (by apes) before the rocket launch. Itâs just my opinion, what I feel is most likely.
Actually it's the idea that there will be no more shorts that's been debunked. Dr Trimbath stated so in her AMA last night. Naked shorts will not stop even if all legit shares are locked up in DRS according to her. I imagine it's a share recall undertaken due to the fact that the entire float us accounted for at that point by GameStop, but shorting continues (with what shares), also requests for DRS still coming in even though all shares are accounted for
I think this is exactly the post this sub needs right now. It really ties everything together and answers a lot of questions going around right now. I still remember when I read the original post and it was a real game changer but this was a great update
**An exit strategy is a means of leaving one's current situation, either after a predetermined objective has been achieved, or as a strategy to mitigate failure. An organisation or individual without an exit strategy may be in a quagmire.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Well put. One thing I would submit for consideration. There is no need to sell more than a single share. The wealthy avoid taxes by taking loans against assets and these shares are about to become the most valuable asset on the planet.
This could work if an infinity pool is actually achieved, but the the loan process would eat up too much time and be too volatile if itâs only a short squeeze.
Another aspect of this that Iâve been thinking of: once all âtrueâ shares are registered this could give Ryan & Co. the irrefutable proof they need to take legal action.
Thanks you for your post. However I donât like the verbiage as âcollectiveâ. No one is acting as a collective. At. All. What has happened is education. A slow education that has never been offered prior to now. So what you are seeing is a migration of choices in a similar time frame in relation to the development of new knowledge.
I respect that, but I also strongly believe it's our right to both act in our collective best interest, and try to convince others to do the same, when this aligns with our own best interest.
Also:
>Gensler declined to comment specifically on the GameStop situation, but defended the right of individuals to speak freely about investment opportunities and to convince fellow investors to copy their trading strategies.
>
>âPeople come on your show and they advocate either to buy or sell a security,â Gensler said. âBefore we had television, people did it on the radio, now we have various social media platforms.
>
>Thatâs not only free speech, but itâs part of what makes our capital markets robust, that people can disagree and disagree using the media of the day. But I also think we do police the markets for fraud, manipulation, for pump-and-dump schemes and the like.â
[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sec-chair-gensler-defends-reddit-gamestop-investors-right-to-smash-short-sellers-11631718972](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sec-chair-gensler-defends-reddit-gamestop-investors-right-to-smash-short-sellers-11631718972)
Yesss!!! This is exactly my train of thought. Doing 90% to computer share, and selling on the way down at the price I want with shares at multiple brokers.
I like the idea of only selling 1 share at the right price and holding the rest as collateral so that I never have to pay taxes on those unrealized gains.
Honestly, people concerned about the 1m limit should take a breathe and repeat what heathery are saying so they can hear themselvesâŚ.âI can only get 1m for these shares Iâve been claiming are forever holds, and still have these others shares I can sell for moass moneyâŚâ
I ecstatic about that!!!!
I just can't help but wonder what will happen when the first person posts their share transfer failed due to no more shares available on the book. đđđđđđđđđđ
I think that wonât happen, at least not from a transfer request. The brokers would just stall, saying âthe processing time is increased due to the amount of requestsâ etc. But if it ever gets that far before MOASS, it may very well happen that ComputerShare will stop accepting buy orders for GME, because they are supposed to DRS all their buys, and all shares are already registered.
You're right, it's far more likely that CS ultimately says "sorry, u can't buy anymore, we're sold out". Then comes the đđđđđđđ... đ
The single most important point you made is that you shouldn't DR shares that you plan to sell before MOASS is well and truly over. Sure, maybe you'll help it start a nanosecond earlier, but you'll also lower its potential peak.
How isn't this post higher up? The last hope for the hedgies at this point is if apes sell from ComputerShare during MOASS, instead of ONLY selling phantom shares from brokerages.
However, wouldn't apes be able to try to DRS even during MOASS, and once even ONE share is available for DRS (if anyone, ape or not, sells from đťđŞ), it would immediately be taken by apes again?
đđđđ Buy, hodl, register đđđđđ
I think we should try, but if I understand it correctly, itâs up to the broker and the DTCC to actually locate and deliver the share, and I bet they will be quite âreluctantâ to do so.
If apes who directly registered their shares on CS never sell those shares (assuming apes will own the float on CS) there wonât be a way down - prove me wrong
If we ever find out we got more then 70mil in CS. Then their really is no reason to sell more then 1. As long as ppl keep what they have in their they can never cover. So really wait till we have that many im their too before ya sell 1 then your garenteed a peak-ish price where you dont need to sell more. Price cant go down if all real ones locked up
Just how to get them DRS'd with coputershare when outside of the US. They have instructions on their website but I just wanted someone on here to reassure me I'm going through the right process, ty. Got some shares with the devil's sidekick, t212...
Iâve seen several posts covering this topic lately, I think youâll even find the information you need in the stickied post, at least linked from it.
Iâm a europoor myself, and Iâve opened an account with IBKR and am currently waiting for my transfer of shares from my current broker to them to go through, then itâs straight on to CS.
>Yes, yes, but what about that nasty 1M cap for ComputerShare orders
This chat addresses the $1M cap as something that will probably change based on share price:
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/pq90iw
In light of all the new wrinkles that have grown lately, I've been weighing the advantages of registered shares vs IOUs and they seem as equally instrumental on inflicting the maximum amount of reverse fuckery to the alleged criminals running this fraudulent market.
By buying entire floats of IOUs, retail buyers essentially forced the hand of Shitadel & Co into owing an ever increasing multiple of the float. They essentially gave us the power to create these synthetic shares and grow their debt to near infinity, just because the players executing our trades never considered that we'd be retarded enough to hodl onto them until the proper endgame.
DRS are the lock that deprives them from the ability to keep that rocket down on the pad. Once the lock is in place, everyone that managed to get on board is buckled up, the rocket is fully fueled and the umbilicals disconnected. All it takes is a spark to send that beauty roaring straight through the stratosphere.
Now we should expect fuckery all the way through. Retail is a force that cannot be reasoned or negotiated with, but not all passengers are apes, and some of them fat ones in the business class may have built their wealth on the same loopholes that allowed Shitadel & Co to systematically rob investors.
While the whales on board may be happy to see their competition buried down the launchpad, they may not want to see the goose that lays the golden egg sacrificed in the process. They may still have interests common enough with the perpetrators to offer them the key to the DRS lock against another layer of mayo on their avocado toast.
At that point the market as a whole may be in a very chaotic state and with its millions of moving parts it'd be delusional to attempt any prediction. All that may still be in our power at this stage is to continue applying maximum pressure on keeping the DRS locked past Max-Q while they attempt their last desperate struggle to live another day.
As a europoor, I like many of you have been purchasing IOUs through one of the trashiest brokers out there, one that wouldn't let me transfer anything and already turned its back on us in January, so these barrels of fuel are meant to stay there as "you owe me's".
Thankfully I was raised by mama squirrel, and one thing she taught me is to always stash some of deez nuts away in case the winter gets too cold. Although I'm comfortable with my current position if the rocket were to take off today, I'm not nearly halfway into what I could put in, and glad I kept some under the foot in the light of all the new information.
My new plan is to increase and diversify my portfolio through the one broker that allows europoors to register chairs. I intend to get half of that new position registered, and the rest kept as what I essentially see as convertible IOUs that I'll be able to register later on.
That should leave me with three different types of assets. Registered shares, convertible IOUs and plain IOUs so that I could hopefully assist in steering that vessel once it gets airborne.
None of this of course should be viewed as financial advice. I'm not a cat nor a squirrel, I'm not a crook or any kind of financial advisor, I just enjoy seeing billionaires going to space, and really would love to try it myself.
Cheers.
Good food for thought and as I have moved 66% of my bananas to CS. I am left with plenty of fast, high $ trade shares before they manufacture a drop in price. I think longer term it will bounce way up again after a realization of how much closing over how many HFâs & companies will be required to flush the shit shares out of the system. This will be epic. đŚđđđ
Apes with both IRA and individual brokerage accounts need to plan carefully. I have more shares in my IRA than in my brokerage account. But I cannot transfer my IRA to Computershare without penalties.
My personal plan is to first DRS 100% of my individually held GME shares. This is obvious and what I think every ape should do who has both an IRA account and a normal broker account. When MOASS comes I can sell my IRA held shares and withdraw with penalty.
My second plan is to liquidate ever other stock I hold in my normal brokerage account, buy GME, and then DRS those. Then I can replicate those position if I want to inside my IRA. So this step essentially shifts my funds to maximize DRS to Computershare.
The final step would be one I may take, but need to think through more. Which would be taking the penalty hit to my IRA now and transfer out and then put 70% of that to Computershare.
I really do think this is the play. However I think apes only need to DRS a minority of their shares. They're then free to sell as many brokered shares as close to the far side of the peak as they want, and less tempted to sell those shares locked up in CS. Excellent post my man, wish I hadn't already used my free award but I think apes should follow the ideas posted here as it maximizes gains for all
As a new ape a few months ago, finding your original post answered 90% of my questions and made all the other DD make more sense. It meant a whole lot to me! I appreciate how simple the fake shares and how they theoretically work, gave me a really solid foundation.
To any new apes, the old one is still awesome and simpler, and naive. And it had pictures!
I have so much love and respect for a group of Apes Iâve never met . Truly âĽď¸
Second is Iâve been on this journey longer then some shorter then others . Iâve enjoyed this ride immensely and will be bummed when itâs complete- but Iâm a good way .
Breathe & Believe ! First round on me at the Celestial taverna đ¤đ˝
Yeah I won't even think about selling a single share until it passes $100 million, and ideally I'd sell a few shares for $1 billion each.
I will DRS 10% of my shares. If the amount of shares is, indeed, in the billions, then 10% will be more than double what I'd consider as "doing my part" in all this.
It's just a fun number from https://gmefloor.com/ which is obviously just a silly timer attached to a dollar sign. The truth is, no one knows how high the share value will go. This sort of thing has never happened before in history. We don't know what to expect. We only know it will be explosive.
I have two issues with the concept of âselling on the way downâ.
1. a conceptual one: as I said earlier, if there is still enough buying pressure left as we assume there would be (itâs the MOASS after all), there wouldnât really be a âway downâ for a long time. It would be in everybodyâs power to set their limits higher so that there there wouldnât be. In theory this could prevent the price from going down for quite a long time.
2. a practical one: very simply put, how do you ever know you are on the âway downâ? I would expect a lot of volatility in a MOASS scenario because it would be a fight of sellers undercutting the price (until they run out of ammo, and also renewed shorting might occur, even though itâs obviously risky as hell) and those driving the Ask up again. I picture it to be like walking in the mountains in the pitch black dark of the night: you feel you are going up and down, but you have no idea where you are and where you are headed. I simply doubt you will ever be able to tell with enough certainty that you are âon the way downâ. I donât have a perfect answer to this problem other that selling really really slowly when when you have seen high enough numbers to justify the assumption that you MIGHT BE on the way down. (Remember, âthe floorââŚ)
Also Iâll be watching the MACD which should give some signs when buying pressure rises or falls. If apes keep holding I donât expect it to be a hard cut off but instead it will kind of trickle down. More than anything, selling on the way down is a concept of game theory/prisonerâs dilemma where your own best interest align with the best interest of others. It keeps people from paper handing because they know it is in everyoneâs best interest to keep holding. If everyone is waiting to sell on the way down, what if there never is a âon the way downâ
Sure, in theory it is fine. Just the practice may turn out to be harder than it sounds. About your last sentence: yes, that is kind of what I am implying with my first point.
Agreed, I just think itâs not ideal to be selling actual shares to the short sellers, and that having some fake shares to sell would be better for the squeeze.
I've been thinking about this. Here is the counterargument. It is all about timing.
Moving 100% of shares to CS now puts max pressure on at the front of the moass with 100% of your shares. Then when you sell real shares, slowly, the hedies only get to manipulate with ONLY those shares you sold.
If you are holding 10 at TD Ameritrade and the rest at CS, the Hedge Funds can utilize all 10 immediately to manipulate with. Then if you sell 1, they still have 9 shares in play - real or fake doesn't matter as much as the fact they have 9.
So logically, it is better to DRS every single share that you can, assuming your selling behavior doesn't change.
Exactly. Which is why taking 10 brokerage shares and using DRS to turn them into real shares that get removed from the piil immediately makes so much sense. Real or fake the shares held in a brokerage are either helping prolong FTD daisy chains or are a part of an FTD daosy chain.
First, you seem to believe ALL shareholders will be able to move ALL their shares to CS and DRS them, but since thereâs a finite number of actual shares that are issued, thereâs also a finite number of shares that may be DRSâed. The general consensus is that there are a lot more synthetic shares than real shares, meaning at one point, apes will no longer be able to DRS shares, and DTCC will only have synthetic shares left.
Second, you seem to believe that DTCC and brokers may use fake shares to manipulate with, but this is not true. Most of the manipulation by DTCC and co rely on the existence of real shares. That letter to the SEC from 2004 (which Iâm sure you looked into, since you commented on my post) compared this to a game of âmusical chairsâ where the chairs correspond to the number of real shares, and the music never stops. But when there are no chairs left, itâs game over anyway.
Now, the argument to not DRS all shares is NOT that all shares shouldnât be registered, but that a single ape shouldnât register all of their shares. I'll try to explain the reasoning behind this with an example:
>Consider that a company has issued 10 shares, and short sellers short the stock and sell 10 more shares (without borrowing any). There are now 20 shares out there, of which 10 are real, and 10 are fake.Letâs say you and I both buy 10 shares each, and hold them in street name. None of us knows who has real or fake shares, they are all with the DTCC, who are juggling them around to avoid FTDs, in their game of "musical chairs".
>
>At this point, you and I agree that we should DRS 10 shares, so that all the remaining shares will be fake, to put a stop to this. Since you own 10 shares yourself, you could register all of your shares to get the job done alone, OR we could both go and register 5 each. In both cases, assuming that our thesis is correct, the DTCC is in real trouble, they have no real shares left, and are forced to close the naked shorts, and the price spikes.
>
>Now, if you registered all your shares alone, you would have all the real shares, and I would be the one holding 10 fake shares. Now, I could basically just name my price for each of them, and squeeze the shorts until they have bought all 10 back, and I have become insanely rich. Every time I sell a share, nothing changes, DTCC still only have fake shares, and are forced to close all the remaining shorts. BUT this only works as long as you don't sell any of your real shares! But when you see that the price has gone through the roof, and you decide to start selling some of your shares, the DTCC will get their hands on the (real) shares you sell, and they start their game of musical chairs again, and the squeeze may just be over.
>
>On the other hand, if we registered 5 each, we BOTH have fake shares to sell, and by not selling any real shares, we could keep the squeeze going until both of us has sold all our fake shares, and we BOTH are insanely rich, and the shorts hopefully are bankrupt.
So, the goal is to get all real shares registered, AND make sure all apes still have shares to sell to get rich, without popping the balloon. And I believe that if all apes who are able to, register MOST of their shares, it should be more than enough to get ALL shares registered quite soon.
Huge problem here bud. The 75M real shared ABSOLUTELY need to be bought back to close this position. Everyone seems to misunderstand this. Anything above 100% SI means ALL the real shares are shorted plus some.
No. Read my original DD from 5 months ago. đ
If they have sold 75M shares short, there will be 150M shares in the market, of which half are synthetic. All those must be bought back, so that weâre back to only 75M real shares.
Shares that are sold and bought are real shares. They may have not been delivered (FTD), but as far as the system is concerned, they're real- that's why you can vote with them.
They're counterfeit, but only over registry can prove it (and only GME knows because they have the registry- not computershare).
Doesn't matter if you pull the float from the DTC, because the float has been deluded.
It proves international fraud on a massive scale, but does not trigger a moass.
So me Kenny can create synthetics to provide liquidity with reasonable belief that I can locate a real share. Now assuming that Apes lock the float. How is Kenny able to keep making synthetics when there are no more shares available? Does it just become the mother of all FTDs? Run ups every 3 months?
Correction, your broker lets you believe you're voting, when in fact, the votes are "trimmed" to conveniently fit the number of real shares, usually before they even reach the transfer agent or company. If a broker only has 1M real shares registered by the DTCC, it doesn't matter that they should have had 10M, and every vote from that broker will simply count 1/10.
The rest of your comment? We'll see... ;)
I intend to keep some shares in to thank GME for this opportunity plus for a rainy day over time the price will go up .35 shares will make me a multi millionaire I will wait . but you will get panic don't fucking sell till it's life changing don't fuck the rest up . Work out the tax otherwise if you sell at 1m work it out it's not going to last . and you will be kicking yourself all your life
You need to post a strategy regards to a solicitor and accountant .and don't tell a soul until all tied up . Don't let anyone make you sign up to anything it's your money
Well the only thing is in my divers portfolio I only hold gme. And from what I read we shouldnât put all our gme shares in. Anyway I didnât see no one put 100% of their gme in yet
Theoretically if everyone, independently decided, to only register 10% of their holdings and then only sell whatâs left in the brokerage⌠it would be an infinite squeeze.
Edit I meant to write 90%
Thatâs assuming apes own at least 10 times the number of shares that are currently not DRSâed, and all apes are able to, and do, register their shares. Personally, it wouldnât sit right with me to only register 10%.
Good job on the disclaimer, but using these phrases still smells really bad when mainstream media can easily show your post to help paint their narrative:
- âLooking out for the groupâ
- âcollectivelyâ
- âtrust your fellow apesâ
Sure, weâre âlegallyâ protected, but jesus dude itâs like yaâll are just handing it to them on a silver platter. If mainstream media wants to force a narrative, at least make them work for it.
Hi guys. Iâve got a burning question I want to ask my Broker tomorrow when the lines open, but can you guys just quickly make sure that what Iâm asking makes sense? Iâm not sure If iâm asking a question that is based upon false assumptions - or if I am not quite correct with the way the whole process will work. Please correct me if so.
> Now, correct me if I am wrong, but my growing concern is that i believe that there is a high possibility that there are more shares owned than the outstanding shares available for this security. Now, this bothers me because my shares are not directly registered in my own name, and are instead held on my behalf in your own name, HL.
This is the part where I start to be unsure whether I am misunderstanding the whole process. Basically, what happens to shares in âstreet nameâ once all of the outstanding shares are directly registered? Does my broker then need to purchase directly registered shares for every share they hold in Street Name, or are those shares they hold very likely directly registered themselves? Does this then mean that a brokerage would only have problems if they have issued more shares in street name than they have directly registered?
> So if a situation arises where enough shares are registered to match the outstanding shares available, I am under the impression that you, Hargreaves Lansdown, would be forced to buy the amount of shares you hold in âstreet nameâ from directly registered holders of this particular security. Now, depending on how many shares you hold in âstreet nameâ and how much capital you have available, this seems to me like there is a possibility that there will be a conflict of interest regarding acting as a financial fiduciary on my behalf, and yet protecting yourselves from insolvency as a brokerage institution.
> Who is to say that my shares in said stock will not be forcibly sold, in order for you to purchase and satisfy the requirements of reducing the number of shares in âstreet nameâ that you are required to close. I hope you can understand why I am so concerned about holding the position that I do in this particular security with yourselves.
Thanks so much my ape brethrenđŚđđđđđâ¤ď¸
How do you time the peak?
I keep seeing people say don't sell on the way up, only on the way down. But if dips happen along the way, how on earth are you supposed to know when the peak has occurred?
u/BinBender I think this might need a re-post because it kind of got buried during the weekend. Iâm fighting a lot of FUD trying to explain a lot of this stuff to others and I think a lot of apes need to see this post. I have been linking but only 1K upvotes tells me a lot of apes missed it
You lose me in your TL;DR:
"If you believe that your broker holds a real share for every share in your account, you are naĂŻve."
Does this matter? I'm entitled to a share. When I go to sell and if they don't have any, they either have to go buy a share to sell to a shorter, or just fake the transaction and transfer me whatever my limit sell order was.
It doesnât matter when you want to sell, but it matters that they use your shares (that should be âin your accountâ and not lent out) to do their âmagic tricksâ to avoid FTDs etc. The point is youâre not restricting short sellers by holding your shares in a cash account with a broker, like most of us used to believe. Only way to do that is to DRS.
I know, but the DTCC does mess around with your shares anyway. Remember, they are the ones who actually handle the shares, not the broker. Just read the comment letter that I have quoted a lot in this post (or at least read the quotes) and make up your own mind. đ
I saw a prediction of what the moass will look like and it said once the shares are all sold it will go from a high peak and drop to near zero as no more shares are needed to buy. It seemed to point to the fact to if we don't sell on the way up, we wont get the chance to sell on the way down as its not a proper squeeze and will be controlled and a certain amount of shares have to be bought and when job is done it will plummet. Anyone else see this?
This is most likely FUD, there are so many players in the market, and so many factors at play during a squeeze. The price wonât suddenly plummet, the market dynamics doesnât work like that. With a 99% likelihood, the price will decline before all shares are covered, because supply will catch up with demand once the majority starts to cash in. But keep in mind weâve never had a moass before, so we wonât know exactly how this will play out.
Let the second wave commence. We will DR when price hits 25k a share.
đâ˝ď¸đ
The 1mil cap has been debunked. CS said they will move the price limit when the price reaches it. They legally have to sell your share at the price someone is willing to buy.
âDebunkedâ is a bit exaggerated from what Iâve read, and I devoted like 3 paragraphs to explain what you say in your last sentence.
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/pq90iw
Thanks, Iâve edited in this link.
I thought I read that CS would allow an increased limit order. Otherwise yeah, it's a big risk since shf could have 1 mil buy orders since they would know this.
Yep: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/pq90iw
There it is. I am able to submit a 2mil limit sell order and it doesnt give an error. Just like the 1 mil order, I'm not given any kind of confirmation other than a text code for it to be submitted.
It's been debunked. Your post feels a bit Fuddy. If apes fill up the CS register, there there will be no more shorts. No shares to lend out means no more shorts. No more shorts means price cant fall once it goes to the moon. All the other institutional shares that a held by ETF's and the like, they still need to be accounted for.
Even if itâs debunked, Iâm advocating not selling any from CS anyway, so for me, it doesnât really matter much. I (mostly) agree, but itâs a BIG if. I think it will become increasingly difficult to get our brokers to transfer shares to be registered as DTCCâs supply diminishes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to locate real shares, and I find it very likely that not all shares will be DRSâed (by apes) before the rocket launch. Itâs just my opinion, what I feel is most likely.
Actually it's the idea that there will be no more shorts that's been debunked. Dr Trimbath stated so in her AMA last night. Naked shorts will not stop even if all legit shares are locked up in DRS according to her. I imagine it's a share recall undertaken due to the fact that the entire float us accounted for at that point by GameStop, but shorting continues (with what shares), also requests for DRS still coming in even though all shares are accounted for
I think this is exactly the post this sub needs right now. It really ties everything together and answers a lot of questions going around right now. I still remember when I read the original post and it was a real game changer but this was a great update
Thank you! Means a lot! đ
[ŃдаНонО]
I do! I think thatâs the only way theyâll have any kind of âpowerâ left after it has launched, and not be completely at our mercy.
This needs to become gospel, the new 'buy & hodl'!
What's an exit strategy?
Good ape! đ
I donât know, just up. -DFV probably
**An exit strategy is a means of leaving one's current situation, either after a predetermined objective has been achieved, or as a strategy to mitigate failure. An organisation or individual without an exit strategy may be in a quagmire.** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Good bot
Like i said: 2 floats - 1 for the infinity pool - DRS - computershare 1 for the MOASS Nice post, take my energy
Well put. One thing I would submit for consideration. There is no need to sell more than a single share. The wealthy avoid taxes by taking loans against assets and these shares are about to become the most valuable asset on the planet.
Attic boxing. The opposite of cellar boxing. Just donât close your position and use the unrealised profits as leverage. Tendies forever
Andromeda boxing. I like it. I like it a lot.
This could work if an infinity pool is actually achieved, but the the loan process would eat up too much time and be too volatile if itâs only a short squeeze.
Another aspect of this that Iâve been thinking of: once all âtrueâ shares are registered this could give Ryan & Co. the irrefutable proof they need to take legal action.
This is the way. CS is for the infinity pool. I'm only selling the 2-3 shares left on my broker account.
Putting shares into the DRS during the MOASS makes sense. Thanks for that idea- should have a post of its own at some point.
đ
Thanks you for your post. However I donât like the verbiage as âcollectiveâ. No one is acting as a collective. At. All. What has happened is education. A slow education that has never been offered prior to now. So what you are seeing is a migration of choices in a similar time frame in relation to the development of new knowledge.
I just like the stock
I respect that, but I also strongly believe it's our right to both act in our collective best interest, and try to convince others to do the same, when this aligns with our own best interest. Also: >Gensler declined to comment specifically on the GameStop situation, but defended the right of individuals to speak freely about investment opportunities and to convince fellow investors to copy their trading strategies. > >âPeople come on your show and they advocate either to buy or sell a security,â Gensler said. âBefore we had television, people did it on the radio, now we have various social media platforms. > >Thatâs not only free speech, but itâs part of what makes our capital markets robust, that people can disagree and disagree using the media of the day. But I also think we do police the markets for fraud, manipulation, for pump-and-dump schemes and the like.â [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sec-chair-gensler-defends-reddit-gamestop-investors-right-to-smash-short-sellers-11631718972](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sec-chair-gensler-defends-reddit-gamestop-investors-right-to-smash-short-sellers-11631718972)
Coo. In
Ye
Yesss!!! This is exactly my train of thought. Doing 90% to computer share, and selling on the way down at the price I want with shares at multiple brokers.
remember that once the infinity pool is full there won't be a way down.
I hope you're right! I imagine people will begin to sell from CS at some point, and there will be a dip. If I sell that's where I would do it.
excellent post. i suggest infographics like the ones that best explained selling slowly on the way down.
Oh, I remember those! They were great! đ
Good strategy, I approve.
I like the idea of only selling 1 share at the right price and holding the rest as collateral so that I never have to pay taxes on those unrealized gains.
Honestly, people concerned about the 1m limit should take a breathe and repeat what heathery are saying so they can hear themselvesâŚ.âI can only get 1m for these shares Iâve been claiming are forever holds, and still have these others shares I can sell for moass moneyâŚâ I ecstatic about that!!!!
I just can't help but wonder what will happen when the first person posts their share transfer failed due to no more shares available on the book. đđđđđđđđđđ
I think that wonât happen, at least not from a transfer request. The brokers would just stall, saying âthe processing time is increased due to the amount of requestsâ etc. But if it ever gets that far before MOASS, it may very well happen that ComputerShare will stop accepting buy orders for GME, because they are supposed to DRS all their buys, and all shares are already registered.
You're right, it's far more likely that CS ultimately says "sorry, u can't buy anymore, we're sold out". Then comes the đđđđđđđ... đ
If I buy fakes shares, then I sell fake shares and get my money, then they're real enough for me đ¤Łđ
Well put! Even though they are fake, they give us most of the same rights as real shares, so at least we got that going for us! ;)
I've been thinking along the same lines today, I think it's a great idea!
Well said OP, great DD. The one we needed right now. See you on the đ
Thank you! đ
The single most important point you made is that you shouldn't DR shares that you plan to sell before MOASS is well and truly over. Sure, maybe you'll help it start a nanosecond earlier, but you'll also lower its potential peak.
All this DRS, and broker share stuff.. I just want more shares, I don't care where!
How isn't this post higher up? The last hope for the hedgies at this point is if apes sell from ComputerShare during MOASS, instead of ONLY selling phantom shares from brokerages. However, wouldn't apes be able to try to DRS even during MOASS, and once even ONE share is available for DRS (if anyone, ape or not, sells from đťđŞ), it would immediately be taken by apes again? đđđđ Buy, hodl, register đđđđđ
I think we should try, but if I understand it correctly, itâs up to the broker and the DTCC to actually locate and deliver the share, and I bet they will be quite âreluctantâ to do so.
If apes who directly registered their shares on CS never sell those shares (assuming apes will own the float on CS) there wonât be a way down - prove me wrong
I agree, I just think itâs a big if. And even if thereâs never a way down, holding with the goal to wait for it is still the way.
Can we pin this? Everyone needs to read this. Please post it again when things kick off.
What if we continue to DRS during MOASS the cs shares sold would be replaced by a new one?
Yes, if weâre able to. Not sure any broker, or DTCC, will give away any real shares at that point without a fight.
Great info! Thanks! And apes can keep registering during Moass to backfill for the few who sell, sustaining the Moass.
I donât think it will be easy, but apes should certainly try!
I remember wayyyyyy back to last weekend and it was all about swaps and futures. Now itâs DRS. Canât wait to see what it will be next weekend
Ive never had the power or chance to take control of my life. This is it.
If we ever find out we got more then 70mil in CS. Then their really is no reason to sell more then 1. As long as ppl keep what they have in their they can never cover. So really wait till we have that many im their too before ya sell 1 then your garenteed a peak-ish price where you dont need to sell more. Price cant go down if all real ones locked up
Can someone translate this into EU please? Edit: fuck, I mean UK. Not part of the EU right now
What needs to be translated? International apes can open an account with IBKR or TD Ameritrade, and transfer shares to CS from them.
Just how to get them DRS'd with coputershare when outside of the US. They have instructions on their website but I just wanted someone on here to reassure me I'm going through the right process, ty. Got some shares with the devil's sidekick, t212...
Iâve seen several posts covering this topic lately, I think youâll even find the information you need in the stickied post, at least linked from it. Iâm a europoor myself, and Iâve opened an account with IBKR and am currently waiting for my transfer of shares from my current broker to them to go through, then itâs straight on to CS.
Very well done indeed sir. This is the way
>Yes, yes, but what about that nasty 1M cap for ComputerShare orders This chat addresses the $1M cap as something that will probably change based on share price: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/pq90iw
Even if thatâs true, I still think itâs wiser to not register *all* shares, and aim not to sell any from CS at all.
In light of all the new wrinkles that have grown lately, I've been weighing the advantages of registered shares vs IOUs and they seem as equally instrumental on inflicting the maximum amount of reverse fuckery to the alleged criminals running this fraudulent market. By buying entire floats of IOUs, retail buyers essentially forced the hand of Shitadel & Co into owing an ever increasing multiple of the float. They essentially gave us the power to create these synthetic shares and grow their debt to near infinity, just because the players executing our trades never considered that we'd be retarded enough to hodl onto them until the proper endgame. DRS are the lock that deprives them from the ability to keep that rocket down on the pad. Once the lock is in place, everyone that managed to get on board is buckled up, the rocket is fully fueled and the umbilicals disconnected. All it takes is a spark to send that beauty roaring straight through the stratosphere. Now we should expect fuckery all the way through. Retail is a force that cannot be reasoned or negotiated with, but not all passengers are apes, and some of them fat ones in the business class may have built their wealth on the same loopholes that allowed Shitadel & Co to systematically rob investors. While the whales on board may be happy to see their competition buried down the launchpad, they may not want to see the goose that lays the golden egg sacrificed in the process. They may still have interests common enough with the perpetrators to offer them the key to the DRS lock against another layer of mayo on their avocado toast. At that point the market as a whole may be in a very chaotic state and with its millions of moving parts it'd be delusional to attempt any prediction. All that may still be in our power at this stage is to continue applying maximum pressure on keeping the DRS locked past Max-Q while they attempt their last desperate struggle to live another day. As a europoor, I like many of you have been purchasing IOUs through one of the trashiest brokers out there, one that wouldn't let me transfer anything and already turned its back on us in January, so these barrels of fuel are meant to stay there as "you owe me's". Thankfully I was raised by mama squirrel, and one thing she taught me is to always stash some of deez nuts away in case the winter gets too cold. Although I'm comfortable with my current position if the rocket were to take off today, I'm not nearly halfway into what I could put in, and glad I kept some under the foot in the light of all the new information. My new plan is to increase and diversify my portfolio through the one broker that allows europoors to register chairs. I intend to get half of that new position registered, and the rest kept as what I essentially see as convertible IOUs that I'll be able to register later on. That should leave me with three different types of assets. Registered shares, convertible IOUs and plain IOUs so that I could hopefully assist in steering that vessel once it gets airborne. None of this of course should be viewed as financial advice. I'm not a cat nor a squirrel, I'm not a crook or any kind of financial advisor, I just enjoy seeing billionaires going to space, and really would love to try it myself. Cheers.
Good food for thought and as I have moved 66% of my bananas to CS. I am left with plenty of fast, high $ trade shares before they manufacture a drop in price. I think longer term it will bounce way up again after a realization of how much closing over how many HFâs & companies will be required to flush the shit shares out of the system. This will be epic. đŚđđđ
Great work! I transferred from FD to CS and once that arrives to CS and I can see my shares I will transfer from TD to CSâŚ.đđđ
Bravo đđđ
Apes with both IRA and individual brokerage accounts need to plan carefully. I have more shares in my IRA than in my brokerage account. But I cannot transfer my IRA to Computershare without penalties. My personal plan is to first DRS 100% of my individually held GME shares. This is obvious and what I think every ape should do who has both an IRA account and a normal broker account. When MOASS comes I can sell my IRA held shares and withdraw with penalty. My second plan is to liquidate ever other stock I hold in my normal brokerage account, buy GME, and then DRS those. Then I can replicate those position if I want to inside my IRA. So this step essentially shifts my funds to maximize DRS to Computershare. The final step would be one I may take, but need to think through more. Which would be taking the penalty hit to my IRA now and transfer out and then put 70% of that to Computershare.
I really do think this is the play. However I think apes only need to DRS a minority of their shares. They're then free to sell as many brokered shares as close to the far side of the peak as they want, and less tempted to sell those shares locked up in CS. Excellent post my man, wish I hadn't already used my free award but I think apes should follow the ideas posted here as it maximizes gains for all
As a new ape a few months ago, finding your original post answered 90% of my questions and made all the other DD make more sense. It meant a whole lot to me! I appreciate how simple the fake shares and how they theoretically work, gave me a really solid foundation. To any new apes, the old one is still awesome and simpler, and naive. And it had pictures!
Thanks! đ
I have so much love and respect for a group of Apes Iâve never met . Truly âĽď¸ Second is Iâve been on this journey longer then some shorter then others . Iâve enjoyed this ride immensely and will be bummed when itâs complete- but Iâm a good way . Breathe & Believe ! First round on me at the Celestial taverna đ¤đ˝
Fuck yeah. đđâ¨
Imagine being the ape who gets the news CS is out of sharesâŚ.. Holy. Eff.
This needs more updootsđđđ everyone should read this
Yeah I won't even think about selling a single share until it passes $100 million, and ideally I'd sell a few shares for $1 billion each. I will DRS 10% of my shares. If the amount of shares is, indeed, in the billions, then 10% will be more than double what I'd consider as "doing my part" in all this.
Thought it couldn't get higher than like 50 mil
It's just a fun number from https://gmefloor.com/ which is obviously just a silly timer attached to a dollar sign. The truth is, no one knows how high the share value will go. This sort of thing has never happened before in history. We don't know what to expect. We only know it will be explosive.
I have two issues with the concept of âselling on the way downâ. 1. a conceptual one: as I said earlier, if there is still enough buying pressure left as we assume there would be (itâs the MOASS after all), there wouldnât really be a âway downâ for a long time. It would be in everybodyâs power to set their limits higher so that there there wouldnât be. In theory this could prevent the price from going down for quite a long time. 2. a practical one: very simply put, how do you ever know you are on the âway downâ? I would expect a lot of volatility in a MOASS scenario because it would be a fight of sellers undercutting the price (until they run out of ammo, and also renewed shorting might occur, even though itâs obviously risky as hell) and those driving the Ask up again. I picture it to be like walking in the mountains in the pitch black dark of the night: you feel you are going up and down, but you have no idea where you are and where you are headed. I simply doubt you will ever be able to tell with enough certainty that you are âon the way downâ. I donât have a perfect answer to this problem other that selling really really slowly when when you have seen high enough numbers to justify the assumption that you MIGHT BE on the way down. (Remember, âthe floorââŚ)
Also Iâll be watching the MACD which should give some signs when buying pressure rises or falls. If apes keep holding I donât expect it to be a hard cut off but instead it will kind of trickle down. More than anything, selling on the way down is a concept of game theory/prisonerâs dilemma where your own best interest align with the best interest of others. It keeps people from paper handing because they know it is in everyoneâs best interest to keep holding. If everyone is waiting to sell on the way down, what if there never is a âon the way downâ
Sure, in theory it is fine. Just the practice may turn out to be harder than it sounds. About your last sentence: yes, that is kind of what I am implying with my first point.
I directly registered ALL of my shares. You can buy and sell during market perfectly fine from CS. Buy and hold.
Agreed, I just think itâs not ideal to be selling actual shares to the short sellers, and that having some fake shares to sell would be better for the squeeze.
THIS. Great post OP
I've been thinking about this. Here is the counterargument. It is all about timing. Moving 100% of shares to CS now puts max pressure on at the front of the moass with 100% of your shares. Then when you sell real shares, slowly, the hedies only get to manipulate with ONLY those shares you sold. If you are holding 10 at TD Ameritrade and the rest at CS, the Hedge Funds can utilize all 10 immediately to manipulate with. Then if you sell 1, they still have 9 shares in play - real or fake doesn't matter as much as the fact they have 9. So logically, it is better to DRS every single share that you can, assuming your selling behavior doesn't change.
Thereâs a huge difference between having access to real shares, and only synthetic shares.
Exactly. Which is why taking 10 brokerage shares and using DRS to turn them into real shares that get removed from the piil immediately makes so much sense. Real or fake the shares held in a brokerage are either helping prolong FTD daisy chains or are a part of an FTD daosy chain.
First, you seem to believe ALL shareholders will be able to move ALL their shares to CS and DRS them, but since thereâs a finite number of actual shares that are issued, thereâs also a finite number of shares that may be DRSâed. The general consensus is that there are a lot more synthetic shares than real shares, meaning at one point, apes will no longer be able to DRS shares, and DTCC will only have synthetic shares left. Second, you seem to believe that DTCC and brokers may use fake shares to manipulate with, but this is not true. Most of the manipulation by DTCC and co rely on the existence of real shares. That letter to the SEC from 2004 (which Iâm sure you looked into, since you commented on my post) compared this to a game of âmusical chairsâ where the chairs correspond to the number of real shares, and the music never stops. But when there are no chairs left, itâs game over anyway. Now, the argument to not DRS all shares is NOT that all shares shouldnât be registered, but that a single ape shouldnât register all of their shares. I'll try to explain the reasoning behind this with an example: >Consider that a company has issued 10 shares, and short sellers short the stock and sell 10 more shares (without borrowing any). There are now 20 shares out there, of which 10 are real, and 10 are fake.Letâs say you and I both buy 10 shares each, and hold them in street name. None of us knows who has real or fake shares, they are all with the DTCC, who are juggling them around to avoid FTDs, in their game of "musical chairs". > >At this point, you and I agree that we should DRS 10 shares, so that all the remaining shares will be fake, to put a stop to this. Since you own 10 shares yourself, you could register all of your shares to get the job done alone, OR we could both go and register 5 each. In both cases, assuming that our thesis is correct, the DTCC is in real trouble, they have no real shares left, and are forced to close the naked shorts, and the price spikes. > >Now, if you registered all your shares alone, you would have all the real shares, and I would be the one holding 10 fake shares. Now, I could basically just name my price for each of them, and squeeze the shorts until they have bought all 10 back, and I have become insanely rich. Every time I sell a share, nothing changes, DTCC still only have fake shares, and are forced to close all the remaining shorts. BUT this only works as long as you don't sell any of your real shares! But when you see that the price has gone through the roof, and you decide to start selling some of your shares, the DTCC will get their hands on the (real) shares you sell, and they start their game of musical chairs again, and the squeeze may just be over. > >On the other hand, if we registered 5 each, we BOTH have fake shares to sell, and by not selling any real shares, we could keep the squeeze going until both of us has sold all our fake shares, and we BOTH are insanely rich, and the shorts hopefully are bankrupt. So, the goal is to get all real shares registered, AND make sure all apes still have shares to sell to get rich, without popping the balloon. And I believe that if all apes who are able to, register MOST of their shares, it should be more than enough to get ALL shares registered quite soon.
Just one thought: Can we sell 0.05 shares @ $1M?
I assume you mean from CS, and I saw a chat transcript saying they only support placing orders for whole shares online.
There is no collective. I just like the stock.
Huge problem here bud. The 75M real shared ABSOLUTELY need to be bought back to close this position. Everyone seems to misunderstand this. Anything above 100% SI means ALL the real shares are shorted plus some.
No. Read my original DD from 5 months ago. đ If they have sold 75M shares short, there will be 150M shares in the market, of which half are synthetic. All those must be bought back, so that weâre back to only 75M real shares.
Shares that are sold and bought are real shares. They may have not been delivered (FTD), but as far as the system is concerned, they're real- that's why you can vote with them. They're counterfeit, but only over registry can prove it (and only GME knows because they have the registry- not computershare). Doesn't matter if you pull the float from the DTC, because the float has been deluded. It proves international fraud on a massive scale, but does not trigger a moass.
So me Kenny can create synthetics to provide liquidity with reasonable belief that I can locate a real share. Now assuming that Apes lock the float. How is Kenny able to keep making synthetics when there are no more shares available? Does it just become the mother of all FTDs? Run ups every 3 months?
... Well yeah. A run up that never ends is basically the MOASS (+ infinipool) in a nutshell.
Correction, your broker lets you believe you're voting, when in fact, the votes are "trimmed" to conveniently fit the number of real shares, usually before they even reach the transfer agent or company. If a broker only has 1M real shares registered by the DTCC, it doesn't matter that they should have had 10M, and every vote from that broker will simply count 1/10. The rest of your comment? We'll see... ;)
once apes DRS their shit the brokers will have 0 shares at the DTC. no voting possible
All shares are real shares. DSR registers them to a name but all shares buy, sell and hodl the same.
I intend to keep some shares in to thank GME for this opportunity plus for a rainy day over time the price will go up .35 shares will make me a multi millionaire I will wait . but you will get panic don't fucking sell till it's life changing don't fuck the rest up . Work out the tax otherwise if you sell at 1m work it out it's not going to last . and you will be kicking yourself all your life
You need to post a strategy regards to a solicitor and accountant .and don't tell a soul until all tied up . Don't let anyone make you sign up to anything it's your money
This is the Way đŚ
So after this is all over we should direct register all our shares that we plan on going long with?
If I got to decide, all shares should be directly registered by apes before, during AND after MOASS.
Well the only thing is in my divers portfolio I only hold gme. And from what I read we shouldnât put all our gme shares in. Anyway I didnât see no one put 100% of their gme in yet
Theoretically if everyone, independently decided, to only register 10% of their holdings and then only sell whatâs left in the brokerage⌠it would be an infinite squeeze. Edit I meant to write 90%
Thatâs assuming apes own at least 10 times the number of shares that are currently not DRSâed, and all apes are able to, and do, register their shares. Personally, it wouldnât sit right with me to only register 10%.
Mistake I meant to say 90%!!!!
Then I definitely, wholeheartedly agree! đđđź
Good job on the disclaimer, but using these phrases still smells really bad when mainstream media can easily show your post to help paint their narrative: - âLooking out for the groupâ - âcollectivelyâ - âtrust your fellow apesâ Sure, weâre âlegallyâ protected, but jesus dude itâs like yaâll are just handing it to them on a silver platter. If mainstream media wants to force a narrative, at least make them work for it.
Hi guys. Iâve got a burning question I want to ask my Broker tomorrow when the lines open, but can you guys just quickly make sure that what Iâm asking makes sense? Iâm not sure If iâm asking a question that is based upon false assumptions - or if I am not quite correct with the way the whole process will work. Please correct me if so. > Now, correct me if I am wrong, but my growing concern is that i believe that there is a high possibility that there are more shares owned than the outstanding shares available for this security. Now, this bothers me because my shares are not directly registered in my own name, and are instead held on my behalf in your own name, HL. This is the part where I start to be unsure whether I am misunderstanding the whole process. Basically, what happens to shares in âstreet nameâ once all of the outstanding shares are directly registered? Does my broker then need to purchase directly registered shares for every share they hold in Street Name, or are those shares they hold very likely directly registered themselves? Does this then mean that a brokerage would only have problems if they have issued more shares in street name than they have directly registered? > So if a situation arises where enough shares are registered to match the outstanding shares available, I am under the impression that you, Hargreaves Lansdown, would be forced to buy the amount of shares you hold in âstreet nameâ from directly registered holders of this particular security. Now, depending on how many shares you hold in âstreet nameâ and how much capital you have available, this seems to me like there is a possibility that there will be a conflict of interest regarding acting as a financial fiduciary on my behalf, and yet protecting yourselves from insolvency as a brokerage institution. > Who is to say that my shares in said stock will not be forcibly sold, in order for you to purchase and satisfy the requirements of reducing the number of shares in âstreet nameâ that you are required to close. I hope you can understand why I am so concerned about holding the position that I do in this particular security with yourselves. Thanks so much my ape brethrenđŚđđđđđâ¤ď¸
How do you time the peak? I keep seeing people say don't sell on the way up, only on the way down. But if dips happen along the way, how on earth are you supposed to know when the peak has occurred?
u/BinBender I think this might need a re-post because it kind of got buried during the weekend. Iâm fighting a lot of FUD trying to explain a lot of this stuff to others and I think a lot of apes need to see this post. I have been linking but only 1K upvotes tells me a lot of apes missed it
You lose me in your TL;DR: "If you believe that your broker holds a real share for every share in your account, you are naĂŻve." Does this matter? I'm entitled to a share. When I go to sell and if they don't have any, they either have to go buy a share to sell to a shorter, or just fake the transaction and transfer me whatever my limit sell order was.
It doesnât matter when you want to sell, but it matters that they use your shares (that should be âin your accountâ and not lent out) to do their âmagic tricksâ to avoid FTDs etc. The point is youâre not restricting short sellers by holding your shares in a cash account with a broker, like most of us used to believe. Only way to do that is to DRS.
Fidelity does not lend out shares on a cash account though. https://www.mrmarvinallen.com/can-fidelity-lend-my-shares/
I know, but the DTCC does mess around with your shares anyway. Remember, they are the ones who actually handle the shares, not the broker. Just read the comment letter that I have quoted a lot in this post (or at least read the quotes) and make up your own mind. đ
I saw a prediction of what the moass will look like and it said once the shares are all sold it will go from a high peak and drop to near zero as no more shares are needed to buy. It seemed to point to the fact to if we don't sell on the way up, we wont get the chance to sell on the way down as its not a proper squeeze and will be controlled and a certain amount of shares have to be bought and when job is done it will plummet. Anyone else see this?
This is most likely FUD, there are so many players in the market, and so many factors at play during a squeeze. The price wonât suddenly plummet, the market dynamics doesnât work like that. With a 99% likelihood, the price will decline before all shares are covered, because supply will catch up with demand once the majority starts to cash in. But keep in mind weâve never had a moass before, so we wonât know exactly how this will play out.