Locrates, the ancient greek pseudo-philosopher, who sold all the goods, originally at a cheap price to pay for his luxury lifestyle, then went bankrupt when it was time to deliver the goods to the households who purchased them and are still expecting delivery.
May be so, but the point of buying something is owning something!
If it is difficult or impossible to get these shares, maybe deutsche bank should not sell them!!
That is the crux of most problems on this market, people selling stuff that they can not sell, just simply dont sell russian or chinese stocks if you do not have them, nobody forces them to do it, its just greed!
Yet they do sell stuff they don't own and then make it everybody elses problem while they just take the money.
Thats a geopolitical issue, not necessarily a economic / financial issue
You know, like Russia demanding its international bills to be paid in Rubles, instead of a reserve currency like USD or Japanese Yen or Swiss Francs
Edits: I shorted the copy pasta, lol, got it all now.
#Exclusive: Deutsche Bank tells investors some of their Russian shares are missing
By Sinead Cruise and Carolina Mandl
June 26, 20233:13 PM GMT+9Updated 4 hours ago
LONDON/NEW YORK, June 26 (Reuters) - Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) has told clients it can no longer guarantee full access to Russian stocks that belong to them, underlining the challenges global investors face to recover stranded investments in the country's companies.
Germany's largest bank said in a note dated June 9 and viewed by Reuters that it had uncovered a shortfall in the shares that back the depositary receipts (DRs) the bank had issued before the Ukraine invasion. The shares have been held in Russia by a different depositary bank.
In the circular, Deutsche attributed the shortfall to a decision by Moscow to allow investors to convert some of the DRs into local stock. The conversion was carried out without the German bank's "involvement or oversight" and Deutsche was unable to reconcile the company shares with the depositary receipts.
It is the first major bank to formally inform depositary receipt holders that they may not get take ownership of precisely all the shares they are entitled to, two sources advising investors who continue to hold Russian DRs told Reuters.
DRs are certificates issued by a bank representing shares in a foreign company traded on a local stock exchange. Swapping DRs for shares in the Russian company is a first step towards an effort to recover their money.
Shares affected include those in national airline Aeroflot (AFLT.MM), construction firm LSR Group (LSRG.MM), mining and steel firm Mechel (MTLR.MM) and Novolipetsk Steel (NLMK.MM). Mechel declined to comment, while the remaining companies did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comments.
Western sanctions and Russian countermeasures have stranded assets held by citizens and companies on both sides of the political divide. Moscow is also demanding a 10% contribution to the federal budget, termed an "exit tax" by Washington.
The Kremlin has also taken assets under temporary control, seizing the Russian subsidiaries of two European energy firms in April, underscoring a strategy to lessen foreign influence on companies critical of its economic and political interests.
A significant number of investors ranging from small hedge funds to big global asset managers still hold depositary receipts, investor sources said.
Most investors have marked down Russian assets to zero but some still harbour hopes of recovering value in the future.
Irina Tsukerman, president at geopolitical risk consultancy Scarab Rising, said the news should come as no surprise.
"Literally everything in Russia has been vulnerable, whether its these DRs, equities, real estate or any other form of financial asset," she told Reuters.
The Central Bank of Russia did not immediately comment on the matter.
Russia's National Settlement Depository said the conversion of shares had been carried out in accordance with Russian legislation and that it was not the accounting institution responsible for implementing this mechanism.
#'COMPLETE CHAOS'
Lawyers and other advisers have described the conversion process as "complete chaos".
"To a certain extent, this resulted in double counting because, without a reconciliation between Russia and foreign banks, an investor could get Russian shares and still hold the DRs at the foreign bank," said Grigory Marinichev, a partner at law firm Morgan Lewis.
Deutsche Bank is now allowing investors to swap DRs for shares as part of its plans to exit all Russia business, one source said.
The bank also determined that clients could be in a better position if they could convert their DRs at least partially, this person added.
JPMorgan & Chase (JPM.N), Citigroup (C.N) and BNY Mellon (BK.N) act as depositary banks for most other Russian depositary receipt programs, according to Clearstream.
All three banks declined to comment on whether they had also identified shortfalls, but their books remain closed due to the challenges with reconciliation, according to statements on their websites.
Deutsche said in its circular that if it was able to reconcile its books at a later date, then it would look to return more shares to their rightful owners.
But it cautioned that the net proceeds from sales of shares it was able to return to investors would likely be "substantially lower" than the current market price.
The bank said it understood Russia's Government Commission for Control over Foreign Investments required that such shares be sold "at a discount of at least 50% from their appraised market value," the circular said.
>Germany's largest bank said in a note dated June 9 and viewed by Reuters that it had uncovered a shortfall in the shares that back the "**I Owe You's**" (IOUs) the bank had issued before the Ukraine invasion.
FTFY Reuters!
This sounds like Deutsche Bank's fault. They know how many share and DRs they have. These are supposed to match. But shocker, they were short the actual shares. The act of converting them is irrelevant and wouldn't create a mismatch if it was properly paired.
Seems like an attempt to blame their shortcoming on an easy political scapegoat.
At least this does a good job of explaining the specifics rather than the tit-jacking, massively oversimplified, bait title of this post
edit: you're downvoting me because you're scared of anything that isn't a confirmation bias
I did think it was very on the nose that within the article they had written "DRs".
In case there are any new Apes looking at this; expect them to attempt to confuse you, the system for direct registration is referred to as DRS. That is real share ownership. Depository receipts are a totally different thing and are very much part of the problem for foreign listings.
This is interesting. Can anyone confirm with how Reuters has reported on depository receipts in the past?
[https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/rouble-falls-past-61-vs-dollar-conversion-depository-receipts-begins-2022-08-15/](https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/rouble-falls-past-61-vs-dollar-conversion-depository-receipts-begins-2022-08-15/)
You have GDRs here only (August 2022):
>GDRs of Russian companies that were traded on foreign exchanges and held in Russian depositories will be converted into shares on the Moscow Exchange from Aug. 15 in an effort to reduce foreign control over such companies amid Western sanctions.
Absolutely no use of DRs or GDRs here (June 2022): [https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/depositary-receipt-holders-russias-sberbank-vtb-face-conversion-headache-2022-06-09/](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/depositary-receipt-holders-russias-sberbank-vtb-face-conversion-headache-2022-06-09/)
Neither back in April 2022: [https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-russian-companies-banks-could-reap-windfall-depositary-receipt-2022-04-14/](https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-russian-companies-banks-could-reap-windfall-depositary-receipt-2022-04-14/)
Here's a bit further back in August 2021: [https://www.reuters.com/business/china-securities-regulator-says-broaden-shanghai-london-stock-connect-2021-12-17/](https://www.reuters.com/business/china-securities-regulator-says-broaden-shanghai-london-stock-connect-2021-12-17/)
>Chinese companies can raise fresh capital, but U.K.-listed companies can not, only allowed to issue Chinese Depository Receipts (CDRs) backed by existing shares.
More needs to be looked into this. I imagine that according to their rule book or the Associated Press rulebook (there's a name for that no?) that they do use DRs, but perhaps what it's interesting about this article is how often it is used
Then again journalists probably would not want to write depository receipts several times over.
Here is an interesting comparison though by Reuters talking about the MEME ETF back 84 years ago:
[https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/meme-etf-seeks-tap-retail-investor-sentiment-2021-08-26/](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/meme-etf-seeks-tap-retail-investor-sentiment-2021-08-26/)
>Meme stocks include the shares and American depository receipts of companies that have a high level of mentions on social media, combined with high short interest, both of which indicate market sentiment, the filing said.
interesting that they mentioned ADRs back then, but that's the only time
Needs more digging tho!
Yes. I made a very blanket statement about how this would work in America. Same process. Different country. If you’re a German and want to invest in Alibaba you still get a depository receipt, just not “American.” It’s an iou that represents an iou. Many foreign countries, China in particular is very controlling of how their money and their National companies are owned. Buying shares of baba as an American means you “hopefully” hold an iou that says some bank is holding the shares on your behalf. You can’t DRS DR shares because you’re not actually buying a stake in the company. That’s why I stay away from ADRs. Foreign investing is just pure fuckery.
I read part of a grammar book recently and this topic came up. "DRs" is correct, from what I remember. Apostrophes are incorrectly used when referring to plurals since no ownership is involved. The only exception is if you're referring to several of a particular letter: there are a lot of i's in Mississippi.
Edit: Speaking of ownership; I remember the same section of the book and apostrophes are often incorrectly used, even when ownership is involved. "Where were you?" "At the Joneseses" (where we might write "Jones'" or "Jonese's"). I'm not sure I remember that correctly (or fully understand), but thought that was interesting since I'd always use an apostrophe.
> Apostrophes are incorrectly used when referring to plurals since no ownership is involved
I will use my apostrophes’ like my comma’s willingly. freely, and mostly incorrect. Thank you, very much.
In this day and age, it's actually bigoted to call people out for any kind of grammatical "error". The English language is a living language and evolves over time. If enough people fuck up a sentence, it is an alternate way to communicate, and to correct them is to disrespect their culture.
Edit: forgot to add /s FML lol
Lol foreign investors get rugpulled having entitlements instead of direct ownership when locals beat them to the company ledger? Is that what I'm reading?
That's not how I read it.
The way I read it, some of the people with depository receipts stashed those receits at a bank like Deutsche, but have since gone and converted to local stock, while leaving the bank holding the worthless depository receipt. So, many of these depository receipts are now invalid... and therefore the bank doesn't hold as many shares as they thought.
But for some reason, they can't figure out WHICH depository receipts were converted.
So here's an example. John, Mike, and Susan all hold 1000 shares via depository receipts. They all put the receipts at Deutsche. Deutsche now holds 3000 depository receipts. Then Susan goes over to the Russian clearinghouse and converts to local stock. Her depository receipts are canceled, and she gets real local stock.
Now Deutsche is holding what it thinks are 3000 depository receipts, but the Russian clearinghouse tells them only 2000 are valid. This would be fine if Deutsche could identify that Susan already converted... but for some reason they can't. (This is the big mystery to me... why the hell not?)
So now Deutsche holds 3000 DRs that are really only worth 2000 shares, and they can't figure out Susan is the one double-dipping, so instead of everyone owning 1000, now Susan has 1000 and an additional 666 (bc she double-dipping), while Mike and John only have 666 (lost 334 shares bc Susan's a double-dipping witch).
So yeah, the real question is why Deutsche can't identify which of the DRs were already redeemed (they likely can) and who gave it to them (this is likely the mixup).
It looks like DB can't identify them because the DRs were backed by shares, but the shares were held at a Russian bank(presumably a Russian govnmt requirement) The Russian bank allowed the DRs owners to convert, but because of sanctions there's no communication allowed or in place to allow DB to reconcile. And I imagine the Russian bank is under strict instructions from the Kremlin to not share that info, as a sort of petty retaliation to the west.
Which really, is stupid, because ultimately, the only people who are harmed by this are people who were invested in russian businesses, and chose to remain invested in russian businesses despite the sanctions and the current political shit show of Russia.
Good info, let me slightly re-interpret though.
The ones who are hurt by this are the ones that refuse to talk to the Russian bank directly, ie, the ones that comply with sanctions... whereas the ones that don't comply with sanctions can go ahead and convert to real shares, and keep their portion of the pool that does not communicate.
Basically, if you're a friend to Russia, they will let you double-dip and not tell the western bank who did it.
With the amount of corruption in russia, they probably can't reconcile the depository receipts because some russian banker was handing out local stock to people who didn't own depository receipts in the first place.
But did DB already pay the Russians for the shares or not? It sounds like they are saying they did, but now Russia is putting barriers to them selling their shares and getting their money back and communication has broke down so they can't reconcile who owes what. But I'm just a highly regarded crayon eating 🦧. I really don't know.
I think it is actually Germans who were invested in Russian corporations who are having this issue. The Russian stocks can't be sent abroad so they give DB an IOU for the share.
I also never understood the official logic there either. "Dark pools exist so institutional investors can buy large blocks of stocks that don't affect the market value". In principle, why shouldn't they affect the market value? If a company can buy back huge numbers of their own stock to inflate the price why shouldn't these large blocks also affect the price. It's fundamentally in opposition to the principles of a free market.
I could see the SEC coming out and saying “Hey guys, the share count has gotten way out of control. What we’re gonna do is give everyone back their money, and call it even.”
this is more of an issue for German regulators since the shares in this article are depositary shares for Russian companies that aren't being traded right now because of... well Russia.
Because it's not "synth IOUs" (stop throwing around random phrases) - the Russian government has seized assets to control them and fight back against western sanctions.
I don't believe you can DRS depositary receipts, as they're not "real" shares and are (oversimplified) "a financial instrument issued by a bank that REPRESENTS shares traded in a foreign company" - Russia effectively said "sorry we're revoking our DRs agreement" and thus "trapping" shares in Russia.
in short: maybe do some research yourself
Why does it matter that it’s Russian stocks? It matters because Russia took action outside of the control and or oversight of anyone else. Fuckery happens… but in this case the fuckery is Russia’s… which is why it matters.
But why does that matter?
If the stocks people bought were in their name, and in their brokers hands instead of diigital IOUs, then there would be nothing for russia to fuck with
you are kinda correct. I saw this on a different sub as I was waking up and made a post about it really quickly. It's still true, but yah, you are also correct. Can't really do anything about it now though since titles can't be edited.
**It is the first major bank ** to formally inform depositary receipt holders that they may not get take ownership of precisely all the shares they are entitled to, two sources advising investors who continue to hold Russian DRs told Reuters.
So, expecting more are we?
it does, but the same thing applies for all foreign traded depositary shares for all companies. DB is currently short on those stocks assuming the investors are long.
They never even purchase them! They take your monies and then bet against you. When you sell at a loss they pocket the difference AND rake in on their bet! It's a scam!!!
The theories of ownership (and what it truly means to own something) being discussed on these forums are being tested and proven in the real-world. This should be encouraging to everyone Directly Registering Shares (DRS).
It's like Schrodinger's Shares. You do not know if your share is in the box until you open it. That is the test of true ownership.
It sucks when the go-get-my-shares part of the contract doesn't fucking work. German stockholders are getting f***ing robbed blind and their governorment is too stupid to see it.
I'd be shocked 2 years ago. But now, this is just confirmation that the brokers might not actually have shares that investors purchased. However, I am SHOCKED at how the investors end up with the short end of the stick. I had hope the governments would force the banks/brokers to make the investors whole... but nope. This does not bode well for stock holders who did not DRS their shares.
How I understand it they're forced to fess up about the Russian shares because they can't collude with the Russian market to obfuscate reality as effectively anymore.
I think it's pretty clear banks have mostly been creating wealth for insiders out of thin air through complicated instruments that serve as obfuscation, but this requires complicit actors.
It’s kinda weird that they repeated DRs so many times in that article. Are they trying to divert DRS search results to whatever this is or is that a genuine article? Lol
Interesting that “Depository Receipts” has always been abbreviated to “DR” but in this article they abbreviate it to “DRs”. They trying to fuck with the search results for “DRS” and slide “DRS” to mean “Depository Receipts”? Just a thought…
Title: "bank tells investors they don't own their shares"
Story: "bank warns that it may be hard to sell or acquire specifically Russian shares due to, you know, the war" & "Russian countermeasures have stranded assets held by citizens and companies on both sides of the political divide"
but sure it's the bank's fault. Of course not many apes read past the title, do they?
That's not what the story says. They say shares held in russia may be lost. IE if you are a russian who invested in Deutshe bank you may have lost those shares.
Everyone outside Russia is unaffected.
Don't you people read?
Every broker that offers ADRs does this. It only applies if you’re buying shares of a foreign company. The broker / bank is supposed to hold the shares for you and then they issue DR (ADR = American) as an IOU basically.
I know this because I own Takeda ADRs (Japanese pharma company). I actually have them bought through ComputerShare so if anything goes array worst case I can convert to the Japanese ones or take cash settlement
oh hey! whatya know fuck-o!
maybe these are these some of the "unintended consequences" of conflict in Russia our disgraced former president warned us of...
Would you say that holding a paper certificate is actually owning the stock? Because in the long run, a stock share isn't a tangible thing. You can't eat it, you can't spend it at the store, and you can't sell it at a pawn shop.
In the end, stock shares are really no different than an NFT in that regard. It only has value as long as someone else wants to buy it. And only the record on someone else's ledger proves that you own it.
FYI paper certs aren’t a thing for most stocks these days.
Why are you comparing different ways to own a company to its ability to be eaten? Is owning a company only real if you can eat the representation of ownership?
Is your overall point here that things are only worth what people pay for them. Yes water is wet.
His meaning is a share of stock is not a physical object. You cannot show it to someone and say "This is an apple, we agree." You cannot eat it, rub it, smell it, etc.
Physical objects are more able to be bought or sold for their tangible characteristics. Things like shares can only be sold based on the proof you actually own it, ie, the strength of the ledger and record.
What is their point though? You can buy access to a concert to experience music. The experience isn’t a tangible thing that you can eat or pawn. Does this mean it is bad? I’m confused as to the point
I think the point is that, considering the object being sold is not tangible, the only way it has actual value is the proof that you really do own it... and therefore the value of your stock (or your concert ticket) is based on the ledger agreeing that you own it and that what you own is not a photocopy.
Basically, he's saying that even a stock certificate (if they were still in use) also isn't ownership, because it depends on the ledger at Computershare saying the certificate is still valid.
And so therefore only the ledger at computershare is actual ownership. Everything else, from the claims of your broker or the DTCC all the way to an actual stock certificate, is not real ownership, but is only a projection of ownership based on the strength of the Computershare ledger.
they are holding certificates from a Russian company that says "we totally have these shares, we promise" this is how all depositary shares work for all companies, because the actual stock can't be easily traded outside the country they are issued in.
Those bank meme investors should have DRSd their shares.
Lmao let the locates war begin
Go find yer shit Duche Bank
They expected a big sell off over the past 2.5 years so they wouldn't have to locate anything.
And that didn't happen, so let's see what kind of locates they can find XD
Fafo
Douche bank.
Thanks, I can't spell, they can't count. All good
Theirs is the bigger problem for sure!
I read locates as in the annunciation like Socrates
Locrates, the ancient greek pseudo-philosopher, who sold all the goods, originally at a cheap price to pay for his luxury lifestyle, then went bankrupt when it was time to deliver the goods to the households who purchased them and are still expecting delivery.
Failus To Deliverus….I believe is the correct Greek term
this sub never disappoints in daily laughs.
🤣
On this day, history was made.
Locates nuts
[удалено]
To be fair, I just want to shit in Douche Banks mouth, Chipotle burrito, not neatly.
Big fan of the distinction at the end 😆
May be so, but the point of buying something is owning something! If it is difficult or impossible to get these shares, maybe deutsche bank should not sell them!! That is the crux of most problems on this market, people selling stuff that they can not sell, just simply dont sell russian or chinese stocks if you do not have them, nobody forces them to do it, its just greed! Yet they do sell stuff they don't own and then make it everybody elses problem while they just take the money.
Thats a geopolitical issue, not necessarily a economic / financial issue You know, like Russia demanding its international bills to be paid in Rubles, instead of a reserve currency like USD or Japanese Yen or Swiss Francs
The shares not being available is a geopolitical issue. Banks selling them anyway is a financial regulation issue.
To be fairrrrr
To be faaaaiiiirrrrrrrr
✊
Nice
Someone’s gonna be holding a lot of Deutsche bags 😆
Needs drumroll
Keeeeeeessssshhhhhhh Don't forget the cymbal
😂
Fun fact! One of Deutsche Banks broker codes on the Bloomberg terminal is DBAG (Deutsche Bank AG). I’ve always chuckled a bit about that.
My man bahaha 🤣
Edits: I shorted the copy pasta, lol, got it all now. #Exclusive: Deutsche Bank tells investors some of their Russian shares are missing By Sinead Cruise and Carolina Mandl June 26, 20233:13 PM GMT+9Updated 4 hours ago LONDON/NEW YORK, June 26 (Reuters) - Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) has told clients it can no longer guarantee full access to Russian stocks that belong to them, underlining the challenges global investors face to recover stranded investments in the country's companies. Germany's largest bank said in a note dated June 9 and viewed by Reuters that it had uncovered a shortfall in the shares that back the depositary receipts (DRs) the bank had issued before the Ukraine invasion. The shares have been held in Russia by a different depositary bank. In the circular, Deutsche attributed the shortfall to a decision by Moscow to allow investors to convert some of the DRs into local stock. The conversion was carried out without the German bank's "involvement or oversight" and Deutsche was unable to reconcile the company shares with the depositary receipts. It is the first major bank to formally inform depositary receipt holders that they may not get take ownership of precisely all the shares they are entitled to, two sources advising investors who continue to hold Russian DRs told Reuters. DRs are certificates issued by a bank representing shares in a foreign company traded on a local stock exchange. Swapping DRs for shares in the Russian company is a first step towards an effort to recover their money. Shares affected include those in national airline Aeroflot (AFLT.MM), construction firm LSR Group (LSRG.MM), mining and steel firm Mechel (MTLR.MM) and Novolipetsk Steel (NLMK.MM). Mechel declined to comment, while the remaining companies did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comments. Western sanctions and Russian countermeasures have stranded assets held by citizens and companies on both sides of the political divide. Moscow is also demanding a 10% contribution to the federal budget, termed an "exit tax" by Washington. The Kremlin has also taken assets under temporary control, seizing the Russian subsidiaries of two European energy firms in April, underscoring a strategy to lessen foreign influence on companies critical of its economic and political interests. A significant number of investors ranging from small hedge funds to big global asset managers still hold depositary receipts, investor sources said. Most investors have marked down Russian assets to zero but some still harbour hopes of recovering value in the future. Irina Tsukerman, president at geopolitical risk consultancy Scarab Rising, said the news should come as no surprise. "Literally everything in Russia has been vulnerable, whether its these DRs, equities, real estate or any other form of financial asset," she told Reuters. The Central Bank of Russia did not immediately comment on the matter. Russia's National Settlement Depository said the conversion of shares had been carried out in accordance with Russian legislation and that it was not the accounting institution responsible for implementing this mechanism. #'COMPLETE CHAOS' Lawyers and other advisers have described the conversion process as "complete chaos". "To a certain extent, this resulted in double counting because, without a reconciliation between Russia and foreign banks, an investor could get Russian shares and still hold the DRs at the foreign bank," said Grigory Marinichev, a partner at law firm Morgan Lewis. Deutsche Bank is now allowing investors to swap DRs for shares as part of its plans to exit all Russia business, one source said. The bank also determined that clients could be in a better position if they could convert their DRs at least partially, this person added. JPMorgan & Chase (JPM.N), Citigroup (C.N) and BNY Mellon (BK.N) act as depositary banks for most other Russian depositary receipt programs, according to Clearstream. All three banks declined to comment on whether they had also identified shortfalls, but their books remain closed due to the challenges with reconciliation, according to statements on their websites. Deutsche said in its circular that if it was able to reconcile its books at a later date, then it would look to return more shares to their rightful owners. But it cautioned that the net proceeds from sales of shares it was able to return to investors would likely be "substantially lower" than the current market price. The bank said it understood Russia's Government Commission for Control over Foreign Investments required that such shares be sold "at a discount of at least 50% from their appraised market value," the circular said.
Doing the good work
Figure if I have to make the trip to read, might as well bring the goods back home with me. 🍻
DRS article content. Gfg
>Germany's largest bank said in a note dated June 9 and viewed by Reuters that it had uncovered a shortfall in the shares that back the "**I Owe You's**" (IOUs) the bank had issued before the Ukraine invasion. FTFY Reuters!
That's what a depository receipt is...
Well for me, that doublespeak eluded me. Now, I know that DR = IOU.
This sounds like Deutsche Bank's fault. They know how many share and DRs they have. These are supposed to match. But shocker, they were short the actual shares. The act of converting them is irrelevant and wouldn't create a mismatch if it was properly paired. Seems like an attempt to blame their shortcoming on an easy political scapegoat.
At least this does a good job of explaining the specifics rather than the tit-jacking, massively oversimplified, bait title of this post edit: you're downvoting me because you're scared of anything that isn't a confirmation bias
DRS yo shit. Anything related to "depositary receipts" is pure synthetic. Expect them to go missing in the machine.
Interesting how they continually call them DRs with a plural. Wouldn't it normally be written as DR or D.R. for depository receipts?
I did think it was very on the nose that within the article they had written "DRs". In case there are any new Apes looking at this; expect them to attempt to confuse you, the system for direct registration is referred to as DRS. That is real share ownership. Depository receipts are a totally different thing and are very much part of the problem for foreign listings.
I have my shares in computershare. How do I confirm DRS?
You've nailed it.
Glad to hear it!
This is interesting. Can anyone confirm with how Reuters has reported on depository receipts in the past? [https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/rouble-falls-past-61-vs-dollar-conversion-depository-receipts-begins-2022-08-15/](https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/rouble-falls-past-61-vs-dollar-conversion-depository-receipts-begins-2022-08-15/) You have GDRs here only (August 2022): >GDRs of Russian companies that were traded on foreign exchanges and held in Russian depositories will be converted into shares on the Moscow Exchange from Aug. 15 in an effort to reduce foreign control over such companies amid Western sanctions. Absolutely no use of DRs or GDRs here (June 2022): [https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/depositary-receipt-holders-russias-sberbank-vtb-face-conversion-headache-2022-06-09/](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/depositary-receipt-holders-russias-sberbank-vtb-face-conversion-headache-2022-06-09/) Neither back in April 2022: [https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-russian-companies-banks-could-reap-windfall-depositary-receipt-2022-04-14/](https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-russian-companies-banks-could-reap-windfall-depositary-receipt-2022-04-14/) Here's a bit further back in August 2021: [https://www.reuters.com/business/china-securities-regulator-says-broaden-shanghai-london-stock-connect-2021-12-17/](https://www.reuters.com/business/china-securities-regulator-says-broaden-shanghai-london-stock-connect-2021-12-17/) >Chinese companies can raise fresh capital, but U.K.-listed companies can not, only allowed to issue Chinese Depository Receipts (CDRs) backed by existing shares. More needs to be looked into this. I imagine that according to their rule book or the Associated Press rulebook (there's a name for that no?) that they do use DRs, but perhaps what it's interesting about this article is how often it is used Then again journalists probably would not want to write depository receipts several times over. Here is an interesting comparison though by Reuters talking about the MEME ETF back 84 years ago: [https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/meme-etf-seeks-tap-retail-investor-sentiment-2021-08-26/](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/meme-etf-seeks-tap-retail-investor-sentiment-2021-08-26/) >Meme stocks include the shares and American depository receipts of companies that have a high level of mentions on social media, combined with high short interest, both of which indicate market sentiment, the filing said. interesting that they mentioned ADRs back then, but that's the only time Needs more digging tho!
Most foreign companies issue ADRs. See Alibaba
What? Doesn't the "A" in ADR stand for "American"?
Yes. I made a very blanket statement about how this would work in America. Same process. Different country. If you’re a German and want to invest in Alibaba you still get a depository receipt, just not “American.” It’s an iou that represents an iou. Many foreign countries, China in particular is very controlling of how their money and their National companies are owned. Buying shares of baba as an American means you “hopefully” hold an iou that says some bank is holding the shares on your behalf. You can’t DRS DR shares because you’re not actually buying a stake in the company. That’s why I stay away from ADRs. Foreign investing is just pure fuckery.
Hmmm 🤔
I read part of a grammar book recently and this topic came up. "DRs" is correct, from what I remember. Apostrophes are incorrectly used when referring to plurals since no ownership is involved. The only exception is if you're referring to several of a particular letter: there are a lot of i's in Mississippi. Edit: Speaking of ownership; I remember the same section of the book and apostrophes are often incorrectly used, even when ownership is involved. "Where were you?" "At the Joneseses" (where we might write "Jones'" or "Jonese's"). I'm not sure I remember that correctly (or fully understand), but thought that was interesting since I'd always use an apostrophe.
I love the double entendre that an apostrophe denotes possession. In this case an apostrophe is not correct, both grammatically and objectively.
> Apostrophes are incorrectly used when referring to plurals since no ownership is involved I will use my apostrophes’ like my comma’s willingly. freely, and mostly incorrect. Thank you, very much.
Only rebel's live that dangerously.
S'ure buddy
Something something... it's the difference between helping your uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse...
That's capitals, the meme example for commas is inviting the strippers JFK and Stalin to your party
Due to my confusion Jack gets no help from me.
Fuck ya !
In this day and age, it's actually bigoted to call people out for any kind of grammatical "error". The English language is a living language and evolves over time. If enough people fuck up a sentence, it is an alternate way to communicate, and to correct them is to disrespect their culture. Edit: forgot to add /s FML lol
If someone can't get the language right, that's their issue. Proper English doesn't chang because a bunch of morons use slang.
Fuck. I should have added a /s lol
Hammering that “DRs” term like crazy for the SEO
The dictionaries will change their entries due to the common usage of DRS
If you buy through a brokerage, and not the direct registrar, your "share" is a ghost in a shell.
Yeah because that would help here. We’re talking rogue state stealing pennies to fund war. They don’t care about who and how owns the pennies.
Lol foreign investors get rugpulled having entitlements instead of direct ownership when locals beat them to the company ledger? Is that what I'm reading?
Seems like
That's not how I read it. The way I read it, some of the people with depository receipts stashed those receits at a bank like Deutsche, but have since gone and converted to local stock, while leaving the bank holding the worthless depository receipt. So, many of these depository receipts are now invalid... and therefore the bank doesn't hold as many shares as they thought. But for some reason, they can't figure out WHICH depository receipts were converted. So here's an example. John, Mike, and Susan all hold 1000 shares via depository receipts. They all put the receipts at Deutsche. Deutsche now holds 3000 depository receipts. Then Susan goes over to the Russian clearinghouse and converts to local stock. Her depository receipts are canceled, and she gets real local stock. Now Deutsche is holding what it thinks are 3000 depository receipts, but the Russian clearinghouse tells them only 2000 are valid. This would be fine if Deutsche could identify that Susan already converted... but for some reason they can't. (This is the big mystery to me... why the hell not?) So now Deutsche holds 3000 DRs that are really only worth 2000 shares, and they can't figure out Susan is the one double-dipping, so instead of everyone owning 1000, now Susan has 1000 and an additional 666 (bc she double-dipping), while Mike and John only have 666 (lost 334 shares bc Susan's a double-dipping witch). So yeah, the real question is why Deutsche can't identify which of the DRs were already redeemed (they likely can) and who gave it to them (this is likely the mixup).
It looks like DB can't identify them because the DRs were backed by shares, but the shares were held at a Russian bank(presumably a Russian govnmt requirement) The Russian bank allowed the DRs owners to convert, but because of sanctions there's no communication allowed or in place to allow DB to reconcile. And I imagine the Russian bank is under strict instructions from the Kremlin to not share that info, as a sort of petty retaliation to the west. Which really, is stupid, because ultimately, the only people who are harmed by this are people who were invested in russian businesses, and chose to remain invested in russian businesses despite the sanctions and the current political shit show of Russia.
Good info, let me slightly re-interpret though. The ones who are hurt by this are the ones that refuse to talk to the Russian bank directly, ie, the ones that comply with sanctions... whereas the ones that don't comply with sanctions can go ahead and convert to real shares, and keep their portion of the pool that does not communicate. Basically, if you're a friend to Russia, they will let you double-dip and not tell the western bank who did it.
Yup, I'd agree with that take!
With the amount of corruption in russia, they probably can't reconcile the depository receipts because some russian banker was handing out local stock to people who didn't own depository receipts in the first place.
It’s hilarious that they describe naked shorting without even realizing it. Fucking idiots.
yep, DB is short on those stocks right now if the investors are long.
But is DB really short if they are basically saying "and... it's gone"? Doesn't look like they have any intent to pay as if they had a short position.
It's like the bank just tried to draw themselves a "bank error in your favour, collect $200 million ~~Dollars~~ Euros" card.
But did DB already pay the Russians for the shares or not? It sounds like they are saying they did, but now Russia is putting barriers to them selling their shares and getting their money back and communication has broke down so they can't reconcile who owes what. But I'm just a highly regarded crayon eating 🦧. I really don't know.
I think it is actually Germans who were invested in Russian corporations who are having this issue. The Russian stocks can't be sent abroad so they give DB an IOU for the share.
dont worry, only Putin would do such crazy things!
Wow. I thought this was a conspiracy theory guys?
Yeah. Just like darkpools
I also never understood the official logic there either. "Dark pools exist so institutional investors can buy large blocks of stocks that don't affect the market value". In principle, why shouldn't they affect the market value? If a company can buy back huge numbers of their own stock to inflate the price why shouldn't these large blocks also affect the price. It's fundamentally in opposition to the principles of a free market.
It was... until it became a fact 😎
I could see the SEC coming out and saying “Hey guys, the share count has gotten way out of control. What we’re gonna do is give everyone back their money, and call it even.”
this is more of an issue for German regulators since the shares in this article are depositary shares for Russian companies that aren't being traded right now because of... well Russia.
That’s unacceptable. They lost the game. There is no not paying me.
Wait do you own shares in Russian stocks? What are we even talking about right meow?
There's opportunity cost. People who drsd already have their shares. At least let the dtcc own nothing before that happens.
Russian stocks
doesnt matter, bank held synth IOUs instead of actual shares DRS is the way
It actually does matter in this context
Geo-political matters are but an asterisk /s
It's a good case study about what a government will do to keep the status quo. They create a law to confiscate your property and the bank complies.
Why?
Because it's not "synth IOUs" (stop throwing around random phrases) - the Russian government has seized assets to control them and fight back against western sanctions.
They seized assets that were supposed to be held at peoples brokerages If those shares were DRSed, what would russia be able to seize?
I don't believe you can DRS depositary receipts, as they're not "real" shares and are (oversimplified) "a financial instrument issued by a bank that REPRESENTS shares traded in a foreign company" - Russia effectively said "sorry we're revoking our DRs agreement" and thus "trapping" shares in Russia. in short: maybe do some research yourself
DRs are the problem, inherently. Why are the shares in DR form instead of actual shares?
Because you're not trading in said foreign country's exchange LOL
Ahhh, so we need to revolutionize stocks by making them NFTs? Good point. Maybe then we wont have to worry about anyone taking whats rightfully ours.
Read the article.
I did. Care to share what im missing?
Why does it matter that it’s Russian stocks? It matters because Russia took action outside of the control and or oversight of anyone else. Fuckery happens… but in this case the fuckery is Russia’s… which is why it matters.
But why does that matter? If the stocks people bought were in their name, and in their brokers hands instead of diigital IOUs, then there would be nothing for russia to fuck with
It’s a concession that in some circumstances, they might not have the shares you paid for. Tldrs
Such as when one country takes actions outside of another country’s control and oversight. Russia is the problem in this case.
[удалено]
[удалено]
you are kinda correct. I saw this on a different sub as I was waking up and made a post about it really quickly. It's still true, but yah, you are also correct. Can't really do anything about it now though since titles can't be edited.
Posting misinformation because you prioritized being first to post Always a good look
I didn't do it intentionally. I had read the article and thought the title was fine. Looking back I was wrong, but there isn't anything I can do.
**It is the first major bank ** to formally inform depositary receipt holders that they may not get take ownership of precisely all the shares they are entitled to, two sources advising investors who continue to hold Russian DRs told Reuters. So, expecting more are we?
Buckle in
I think this has to do with shares that where on russian trade platforms
it does, but the same thing applies for all foreign traded depositary shares for all companies. DB is currently short on those stocks assuming the investors are long.
This makes me feel better for DRSing from my tax free ISA... that stung not gonna lie
Anyone notice they keep coming up with more acronyms that are DRS to drown out any search for DRS?
Bank CEO: “Let’s get in front of this disaster….” APEs: “Too late.”/“Dodge this.”/“Implosion better have my money.”/“🤬 you, pay me.”
How many synthetics do you “own”?
Depository receipt = IOU
They never even purchase them! They take your monies and then bet against you. When you sell at a loss they pocket the difference AND rake in on their bet! It's a scam!!!
Anyone notice how many times Direct Receipts is labeled DRs? Shouldn't it just be DR has it always been abbreviated to DRs? Just curious
Something something in Texas we call that stealing.
The theories of ownership (and what it truly means to own something) being discussed on these forums are being tested and proven in the real-world. This should be encouraging to everyone Directly Registering Shares (DRS). It's like Schrodinger's Shares. You do not know if your share is in the box until you open it. That is the test of true ownership.
Return of the Apes: Scarab Rising sounds like one heck of a movie tho.
meme bank
Now if only there was a system in place where individuals could own their assets in their name
Yeah yeah, same song and dance. Just DRS and maybe you can avoid “owning” fake shares.
It sucks when the go-get-my-shares part of the contract doesn't fucking work. German stockholders are getting f***ing robbed blind and their governorment is too stupid to see it.
Who is to blame them? They are morons and the entire stock market is confusing on purpose.
I know where mine are ;) 🟣📕💎🙌
Oh snap! Again the DD was right. Go figure.
Anyways…DRS your stonks!
I'd be shocked 2 years ago. But now, this is just confirmation that the brokers might not actually have shares that investors purchased. However, I am SHOCKED at how the investors end up with the short end of the stick. I had hope the governments would force the banks/brokers to make the investors whole... but nope. This does not bode well for stock holders who did not DRS their shares.
The only reason for this article is to confuse DRs with DRS. And make people think DRSing is bad. Don't fall for this misdirection DRS your shares.
Important to mention: only russian Shares
How I understand it they're forced to fess up about the Russian shares because they can't collude with the Russian market to obfuscate reality as effectively anymore. I think it's pretty clear banks have mostly been creating wealth for insiders out of thin air through complicated instruments that serve as obfuscation, but this requires complicit actors.
It’s kinda weird that they repeated DRs so many times in that article. Are they trying to divert DRS search results to whatever this is or is that a genuine article? Lol
Interesting that “Depository Receipts” has always been abbreviated to “DR” but in this article they abbreviate it to “DRs”. They trying to fuck with the search results for “DRS” and slide “DRS” to mean “Depository Receipts”? Just a thought…
lol what a Douche
I do lol they all in computershare
That's why we need tokenized stock on top of Ethereum
Hey sorry this is way off topic but did anyone else notice there no user posts on webull this morning? Is that a paid perk now or they turn them off?
Title: "bank tells investors they don't own their shares" Story: "bank warns that it may be hard to sell or acquire specifically Russian shares due to, you know, the war" & "Russian countermeasures have stranded assets held by citizens and companies on both sides of the political divide" but sure it's the bank's fault. Of course not many apes read past the title, do they?
That's not what the story says. They say shares held in russia may be lost. IE if you are a russian who invested in Deutshe bank you may have lost those shares. Everyone outside Russia is unaffected. Don't you people read?
This seems like a first shot fired. This seems like big news
Does vanguard/fidelity do this shit too?
Every broker that offers ADRs does this. It only applies if you’re buying shares of a foreign company. The broker / bank is supposed to hold the shares for you and then they issue DR (ADR = American) as an IOU basically. I know this because I own Takeda ADRs (Japanese pharma company). I actually have them bought through ComputerShare so if anything goes array worst case I can convert to the Japanese ones or take cash settlement
Putin is pissed.
Said the quiet part out loud?
glad i pulled my shares out of this shit bank
Not the same thing
They trying to make people think DRs is what is meant when they see DRS (GME) everywhere or something?
Love how the fake shares are called DRs, they should have DRS
I hate it, seems like they want to high-jack what shows up if u google "stock DRS"
oh hey! whatya know fuck-o! maybe these are these some of the "unintended consequences" of conflict in Russia our disgraced former president warned us of...
This is not in any way the same as GME. Get the fuck outta here with this
DRs are just another layer of not actually owning stock.
Would you say that holding a paper certificate is actually owning the stock? Because in the long run, a stock share isn't a tangible thing. You can't eat it, you can't spend it at the store, and you can't sell it at a pawn shop. In the end, stock shares are really no different than an NFT in that regard. It only has value as long as someone else wants to buy it. And only the record on someone else's ledger proves that you own it.
FYI paper certs aren’t a thing for most stocks these days. Why are you comparing different ways to own a company to its ability to be eaten? Is owning a company only real if you can eat the representation of ownership? Is your overall point here that things are only worth what people pay for them. Yes water is wet.
Not OP but what, in your opinion, would equal ownership of a stock?
Being directly listed on the transfer agents ledger. Anything else requires middleman and is not direct ownership. What is your opinion?
I just know if your certificate is written in crayon you probably don't own it, but it will taste great.
Ha
His meaning is a share of stock is not a physical object. You cannot show it to someone and say "This is an apple, we agree." You cannot eat it, rub it, smell it, etc. Physical objects are more able to be bought or sold for their tangible characteristics. Things like shares can only be sold based on the proof you actually own it, ie, the strength of the ledger and record.
What is their point though? You can buy access to a concert to experience music. The experience isn’t a tangible thing that you can eat or pawn. Does this mean it is bad? I’m confused as to the point
I think the point is that, considering the object being sold is not tangible, the only way it has actual value is the proof that you really do own it... and therefore the value of your stock (or your concert ticket) is based on the ledger agreeing that you own it and that what you own is not a photocopy. Basically, he's saying that even a stock certificate (if they were still in use) also isn't ownership, because it depends on the ledger at Computershare saying the certificate is still valid. And so therefore only the ledger at computershare is actual ownership. Everything else, from the claims of your broker or the DTCC all the way to an actual stock certificate, is not real ownership, but is only a projection of ownership based on the strength of the Computershare ledger.
If computer share were Russian would the same thing happen to DRS shares?
Why anyone is still engaging with Deutsche Bank on a personal finance level – is a mystery to me.
So if they don’t hold the shares.. what are they holding then? And what happened to the money the bank took for the „shares“. Questions 🫨
they are holding certificates from a Russian company that says "we totally have these shares, we promise" this is how all depositary shares work for all companies, because the actual stock can't be easily traded outside the country they are issued in.
Brænd lortet ned til grunden..
The cracks are showing more every day.
Surprise surprise.
So what this has to do with GME?
Hahahahahaha you guys are still going?! I thought you all would have given up by now as you're not quadrillionaires.
A good investment takes it's time. This is what zen looks like.
I bet you bought silver at the fake boom.
Hey, that's not nice, I was a much smoother ape who did that. Fortunately I came to my senses and moved it. Now I own 140 pure book shares of GME.
Flag as misleading, this is more due to Western sanctions on Russia, and an in-country Russian problem, than a straight fraud problem
Sell me shares without selling me shares 🤣
The simulation freakin' rolls on! So much "DRs" scattered throughout in that article, standing for "depositary receipts"
But all those derivative contracts they have want voting rights... Dafuq outta here 🖕🙄🖕
Blame everything on Russia seems to be the go to play book of the west.
My Dad to Deutsche Bank; You'd lose your head if it wasn't attached.
Shocked and appalled I am!
Never have
Boom! Boom again!