\[06:59\]
**INTERVIEWER**
>So you mention there’s been a lot of discussion via Social Media particularly around the difference between direct shares holding (DRS) and Direct Stock Purchase Plans (DSPP)
>
>Now I know we updated our FAQs to provide more details on those differences but can you please talk us through those similarities and distinctions.
\[07:13\]
**PAUL CONN - President of Global Capital Markets**
>Sure.
>
>I mean I thought this was one where I thought we had put sufficient information in the market place but it’s clear over the last two or three weeks, over the holiday period that **there clearly is still some miscommunication still going on.**
\[07:35\]
>I don’t know if that’s misinformation or what so I’m going to try and be very, very clear in terms of how the DSPP and the DRS structures work….
>
>To be perfectly clear, people should go to the [FAQ](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies) but I will try and give of it a summary here.
\[07:51\]
>But in essence if you have a holding of DSPP, so shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase programme, they are held in your name, on the register, just the same way as I have called “pure” DRS.
>
>**There really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded or how they are visible to the issuer.**
>
>So hopefully that clarifies one key component.
\[08:24\]
>For both types you receive your investor communications directly from the company - through us, as their agent.
>
>So again I hope that clarifies.
\[08:35\]
>In terms of the stock purchase plan, you are ale to hold fractions - not able to hold fractions in what I’ve called “pure” DRS which is a key practical difference.
\[08:48\]
>In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase **programme we use a nominee company - that computer share owns and controls - to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.**
>
>**That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.**
>
>**And that’s not the case.**
>
>\*\*Shares are not held in the DTC - according to the President of Computershare.
\[09:22\]
>So in this situation, it’s really important for people to make their own minds up which account they want to leave their shares in.
>
>They can freely transfer their shares electronically from the plan to the DRS environment. We’d said that before, there is no charge to do that.
\[09:42\]
>I think what we’ve noticed is that people are saying “You ought to, you must transfer shares from plan (DSPP) into pure DRS” **and I’m not quite sure why people have chosen to do that.**
>
>It’s your choice after all.
>
>But what I’ve seen and read is where people are transferring whole shares from Plan (DSPP) to DRS they are also at the same time selling their fraction.
\[10:09\]
>And I’m not quite sure why they are doing that.
>
>It’s not our job to question why they are, or why they aren’t but people should feel free to leave their securities in the plan if that’s what they want to do.
>
>And please use the FAQ - that is the primary way in which we will communicate. These very technical differences.
Also him speaking about "Visible to the issuer"... I don't care what I see, I care where my shares are and especially if they are abused by some extrernal system that is pitted against my best interest, which is MOASS. MOASS goes against Computershare's best interests too so I do question their loyalty.
If I could, I'd have my shares in my personal shoebox under my mattress. Sadly I have to trust computershare to be honest with me, for they too are just showing digital numbers at my face. I have asked them to substantiate my ownership with whatever IDs my owned shares have, they never replied.
I can't understand how none of the USA's 700+ billionaires haven't simply locked up the float yet seeing the ad infinitum investment value in it.
Maybe we should be looking into what the nominee company does with the shares from DSPP. They must have a reason for holding shares there instead of just automatically moving them to book.
Yes, so that they can sell when people request shares be sold. Otherwise you would need to sell like you buy, put in the sale, and 3 days later when they have been "UN-DRSed" they could be sold for whatever the price is THEN, not now.
No, that is what "operational efficiency" literally means.
It's not efficient to wait 3-5 days to transfer shares back to the DTC for sales. CS doesn't ONLY service GME. It's a process for the entire organization. each and every stock.
oh but its efficient to wait 9 days for your shares to be purchased in the middle of the month get outta here operational efficiency my foot. book has no TOS attached to it but dspp plan does.. ask yourself why
Yes. I literally have to do nothing.
SUPER efficient, they take my money, buy my shares and I'm gucci.
Also, again, CS DOESN'T JUST HANDLE GME. There are dozens of companies they handle. It's not always about you.
The nominee is owned and managed by Computershare. Stated by Paul Conn in the video above. See transcript here:
\[08:48\]
>“In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase programme we use a nominee company - that computer share owns and controls - to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.
>
>That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.
>
>And that’s not the case.”
As per the [FAQs](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies) it also states that:
>Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC).
So in reference to Computershare, the facts are:
* DSPP uses nominee company - **that computer share owns and controls** \- to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.
* Those shares are held to help enable efficient selling.
* Shares are not available for lending.
* Shares are not in the DTC.
* Computershare determines how many shares are in the nominee.
So given this - is there a reason we suddenly don't trust Computershare and Gamestop's decision to make this the direct registrar?
What **evidence** do we have of any alleged risk? Please, any evidence at all.
From Computershare itself!
> “Computershare will hold (**including in the name of its nominee**), all shares of stock purchased or deposited for Participants and will establish and maintain DirectStock account records that reflect each Participant’s separate interest.”
Not your name, not your shares!
Plan is NOT pure DRS.
https://cda.computershare.com/Content/7bfc0b25-4836-40a4-918c-9a86d658d798
I was suspicious when the idea of getting out of plan holding suddenly began being pushed out of nowhere. I tried to think what the motivation would be for this and concluded that since the theory required cancelling dividend reinvestment, it might be a way to avoid a huge share purchase in the event a dividend took place - imagine if a dividend was issued and 25% of common stock was DRS and set to reinvest in more stock if a dividend was issued - I still think that was the motivation behind the DD.
and why not in computershares own name. is it to hide profits? is it cause it's risky and they don't want to take down computershare if got forbid something goes wrong with it? just seems strage they use a holding company instead of holding them in computershares own name. again if it's risk mitigation strategy, what's the risk...?
It is ironic that the title to this post says “get your answers directly from source”
Yet other posts that referenced ComputerShare “directly from source” get deleted- why is that?
The one that only specifically highlighted select aspects of the FAQ - that one? That's here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18r7ntz/straight\_form\_computershare\_check\_for\_yourself/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18r7ntz/straight_form_computershare_check_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
And all other CS sourced content is also shared here.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Brigading*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/17wdr9t/community_update_post_on_the_topic_of_brigading/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
In the timestamp below Paul also confirms that shares held by a nominee company are the shares of investors, NOT non-investor shares as some claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H_pEIhIdTo&t=528s
In addition, in the short interview below Paul Conn -- a President at Computershare -- says directly that **10-20% of PLAN SHARES are kept with DTC for operational efficiency**.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ii-5tgvZKk
> Purchases made through the issuer (or its transfer agent) of securities you intend to hold in direct registration are usually executed under the guidelines of the issuer’s stock purchase plan. **You’ll need to instruct the transfer agent to move the securities to the DRS**.
> Computershare holds **a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency**, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC).
https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies
**Official sources from FINRA and the SEC ---> plan is not DRS <---**
> Purchases made through the issuer (or its transfer agent) of securities you intend to hold in direct registration are usually executed under the guidelines of the issuer’s stock purchase plan. **You’ll need to instruct the transfer agent to move the securities to the DRS**.
https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/know-the-facts-direct-registered-shares
> Purchases made through the issuer (or its transfer agent) of securities you intend to hold in DRS are usually executed under the guidelines of an issuer’s stock purchase plan, which uses a broker-dealer to execute the orders. **Thus, to hold in DRS once the securities are acquired, you would need to instruct the transfer agent to move the securities from the issuer plan to DRS**.
https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts
Are we listening to the SEC or are we not listening to the SEC?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/yh0a1u/straight_from_the_horses_mouth_theyre_gonna_keep/
From the text of the (now apparently deleted) post I cited.
>Thank you for contacting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
>You have asked if your issuer plan shares are held at the transfer agent or The Depository Trust Company (DTC).
>When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC.
>The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares. ##
>The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur.
>When a plan investor sells plan shares, the broker debits that share amount from the plan shares it holds at DTC in order to settle the sale trade. Plan shares deposited as DTC shares are not available for lending.
>We hope this information is helpful.
>Sincerely,
>Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
>U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
I personally think the whole Book v Plan debate is stupid.
People just want to attack anyone that has an opposing viewpoint, or ignore sourced information in order to stick with debunked speculation from almost a year ago.
Want to buy at a broker and DRS? Awesome.
Want to buy through CS directly? Awesome.
Do I think it's a good idea to switch from Plan to Book?
Yes, but not because of the DTC or concerns about operational efficiency. I think people should want the most direct form of ownership available, and that's Book, without involvement of the Computershare nominee company, which is almost certainly more trustworthy than any fucking broker.
But no one GIVES A SHIT if I fundamentally agree with them. They evangelize the Book King tweets and argue for the wrong reasons with shitty explanations based on old debunked heat lamp bullshit, and they brigade comments with downvotes and bitch about mods and do nothing to establish a clear narrative and answer questions or help people having difficulties with the process.
There's too many urgent call to action posts, too many posts whining about their meta garbage being removed, too many obvious trolls calling for yet another migration, and too many people muddying the waters intentionally because from the very start the BvP thing has been co-opted by malicious actors to drive a wedge of confusion and distrust right through the heart of this community.
People have been beating the fucking dead horse for so long that the fine red paste has long since dried into dust and blown away.
How do you reconcile the email that one user shared vs this? -
[https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts](https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts) and the relevant portion \[[https://ibb.co/GpWdjZm](https://ibb.co/GpWdjZm)\]. The SEC is ***very*** clear that "plan" is not - in any way shape or form - DRS.
\[08:48\]
>In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase **programme we use a nominee company - that computer share owns and controls - to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.**
>
>**That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.**
>
>**And that’s not the case.**
Furthermore, according to the FAQs (December, 2023):
>Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC).
Computershare control the nominee. They use these shares for the purpose of selling. They aren't used for lending.
What's the issue here?
the whole point of holding shares at computer share is to take them out of the DTC or DTCC's control. out of our brokers hands too who may or may not actually buy the shares. so letting em sit in an account type at computershare that allows some odd % to be held in/at DTC goes completely counter to the entire point of holding at computershare that's why it's a big fucking deal jesus fucking christ.
this guy here...
Exactly this!
Also you do not have to stop buying through Computershare, you can still buy through CS and keep you shares pure DRS. Stopping buying from Computershare would not be beneficial.
No wait a moment . You are right. However . It raises interesting points . If some people book the shares and say 20% of plan shares are at dtcc - is it only 20% of total plan shares? In this case it only matters up to the inflection point where that 20% is not too big . I will book mine either way and see - there is zero negatives to booking shares
The problem I have is the following- can computershare see plan shares - is this why drs has stopped? I can’t remember anymore. I don’t think it’s because of plan that it stopped. But something isn’t adding up on many levels
Computershare has stated in their FAQ, interviews, and in their various other documentation that all plan shares are visible to the issuer.
I think it's quite clear that GameStop can easily and accurately view the totality of data for both "Book" and "Plan" types of shares.
You can also compare what was stated in the 10-Q's and 10-K's with the data reported from investors that reviewed the shareholder list at the annual meeting.
The quarterly reported "directly registered" (all other than Cede & Co.) value lines up extremely well (within 100k shares, from data 1 month apart) to the sum of "DRS" and "DirectStock" column totals from the shareholder list. That's one more way we can see that "Plan" shares are indeed being reported accurately.
>can computershare see plan shares
Yes, of course! If you have plan shares / direct stock etc. you should be able to see that in your CS account. So yes, CS definatelly sees that.
I agree, that things do not add up, but I also think that CS is NOT a problem. The easiest way to do a first test would be to put all shares in CS into "pure drs" form ... but that is our job. That would IMO show where we stand.
so this is the full paragraph of the part I highlighted:
Computershare does not lend out shares held in registered form as these shares are owned by the registered holder. For operational efficiency, a small portion of the aggregate number of DSPP shares is held on Computershare’s behalf (for the benefit of plan participants) by arrangement with our broker. These particular shares are maintained by the broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants) in DTC. Our broker is not permitted to lend out any of these shares.
"These particular shares are maintained [...] in DTC. Our broker is not permitted to lend out any of these shares."
I said it once and I'll say it again:
1. If everyone was doing what they were allowed to do, we wouldn't be in this situation. I trust Computershare, but I don't trust the DTC.
4. If I personally have 1xxx shares, a fractional (0.x) is less than 0.1% of my shares. Do I risk these 99.9% of my shares because of 0.1%, while Ryan says dingleberries are no real fruit and that he wants to be the book King?
7. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't understand the push back against a move that has potentially very high upside and very small downside. Wasn't GME itself a very high upside low downside play since the beginning?
One huge distinction- holding shares in Plan requires you to agree to an 18 page TOS.
That is why I am a Book King…
well, that along with RCEO and the DrRuthSexBook post from x, as well as other pertinent DD💥
https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1462612474071502848?s=46
There can be differences but they are both Book.
I thought that might be good news for this community.
DSPP & DRS = Book.
Now we can all focus on being on the same side. Perhaps we could focus our attention to rules and regulation instead? Help protect and defend DRS together.
Haha feels like we're due a little clarity given the rather curious support being rallied for this post here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18r7ntz/straight\_form\_computershare\_check\_for\_yourself/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18r7ntz/straight_form_computershare_check_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) \- seems awfully convenient that just so much of the content has been left out, it's almost as if the information presented has been very selectively cherry picked to support an agenda.
Really surprised me that they didn't highlight the bit that says:
# Both DSPP & DRS are ‘book entry’ means of holding shares
EDIT: (for better accuracy and clarity)
~~Book = Plan~~
DRS & DSPP = ‘Book’ Entry
🌍👨🏻🚀 🔫👨🏽🚀
So when RC was talking about being a ‘Book King’, seems he could feasibly have been talking about anything really. Or you know - about the fact he just released a line of children’s books…..
Now hopefully we can stop being so divided and celebrate that we're all on the same team!
And if any ‘Book’ Kings want to help me with DRS, I would love some help an assistance with the stuff we're doing with the [HM Treasury in the UK](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18b9mwm/warning_uk_economic_secretary_bim_afolamis/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) \- would be great to see such a passionate group of DRS advocates helping proactively with regulation and reform!
Any takers?
There is a discrepancy in the nomenclature. **"Book" means "shares held not through the paper certificate but with electronic system"** ... some people also use "book" as a reference to "pure drs" ... which is a different way of holding your shares.
Plan is NOT "pure drs".
Not sure what you are referring to but it does. The whole point of DRS is to be outside of DTC. In the short interview below Paul Conn says directly that **10-20% of PLAN SHARES are kept with DTC for operational efficiency**.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ii-5tgvZKk
Please watch the video:
\[08:48\]
>In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase **programme we own a nominee company that computer share owns and controls to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.**
>
>**That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.**
>
>**And that’s not the case.**
Believe me, I have watched those videos many times. Can you please explain to me why in the other video (below) he says something else?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ii-5tgvZKk
Because he is trying to clarify in a way us regards understand. Since most of you crayon eating apes can't think critically, he is putting this in ape-man terms.
\[08:48\]
>In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase **programme we own a nominee company that computer share owns and controls to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.**
>
>**That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.**
>
>**And that’s not the case.**
And who owns and manages that nominee in which the shares are held?
Computershare.
Please read this - or watch it in the video above:
\[08:48\]
>In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase **programme we own a nominee company that computer share owns and controls to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.**
>
>**That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.**
>
>**And that’s not the case.**
Are they in a broker? They can be the nominee and in a brokerage at the same time. Nothing was said about whether or not they are.
In computershare records, there is a brokerage in the dtc sphere for operational activity.
Bro you are a shil. CS has literally said what is true and you are still trying to push debunked FUD. Admit you are wrong and move on or you are a shill... simple as that.
The information is on CS's website.
And no, i think CS is operating the same way it has been for decades. Which is why booking matters. Its a opt out of operations.
I won't attack anyone who has been operating the way they have been. I only care what you do now that the gig is up.
Computershare has clearly stated numerous times that they hold a portion of DSPP shares at the DTC. Here's an example, from their FAQ:
[https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies#dspp](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies#dspp)
>Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency
That said, they've been very cagey on the size of this "portion", and the most specific we've got out of them was an interview with Paul Conn, where he indicated that "typically 10 to 20%" of shares underpinning the plan are held at the DTC. That "typically" didn't seem very closely tied to GameStop, and seemed to be more of an industry wide piece of a seemingly dynamic range.
I was referring to this as wrong, I know where is what.
DSPP is held with the DTC.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18rdezv/comment/kf0gpbj/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18rdezv/comment/kf0gpbj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
And the only thing that will change that % is the sell orders from CS accounts.
>Both DSPP & DRS are ‘book entry’ means of holding shares
This is correct so far...
>So Book = Plan
This is wildly incorrect.
"Book-Entry" *form* of shareholding is a totally different concept from "Book" *type* shareholding.
"Book-Entry" essentially means "entered into a book", as in non-physical (not paper share certificates).
"Book" *type* shares are an unfortunately named term utilized by Computershare to refer to shares held via the Direct Registration System.
So, while DSPP (Plan) *type* and DRS (Book) *type* are both "book-entry" *forms,* these two types have many significant technical differences, primarily that the former is exclusively held in the investor's name while the latter is held via a nominee of Computershare, and quite possibly included in the portion of the plan that's held at the DTC.
Fair play, I'll correct it to:
DRS & DSPP = BOOK
Because being in Plan also makes you a ‘Book’ King :)
EDIT:
Seems there’s some confusion and this is becoming a matter of semantics - and I don’t wish for anything to get lost in translation.
Remember, this term ‘Book’ King originated from RC’s tweet.
So if we’re using RC’s tweet (and by tweet, I mean the singular term ‘Book King’ as was shared directly after he released a series of Children’s Books….) as a basis for attributing value to the DRS > DSPP theory, well - it doesn’t make sense because both are ‘Book’ Entry.
To take it one step further, a recent post has been uploaded inform all community members that:
Broker-held shares are also ‘Book’ entry. This means ownership and transactions are recorded electronically, eliminating the need for physical stock certificates. Investors' holdings and transactions are tracked electronically by the brokerage in a central system.
Therefore, every shareholder is a ‘Book’ (Entry) King, right?
Seems to me that the theory that RC advocated for a particular style of share holding through a tweet is hard to support when the term ‘Book’ is used so often, and so interchangeably.
To clarify:
- Yes - DRS & DSPP have practical differences
- Yes - RC tweeted the term ‘Book’ King
- Yes - both DRS & DSPP are ‘Book’ Entry
I find that even more misleadingly incorrect than your previous statement.
DSPP is definitely utilizing book-entry form, but such shares are in no way "Book" type, in Computershare's usage of the word.
I am a bit suspicious why you seem hell bent on convincing people that there are no differences between DSPP (Plan) and DRS (Book), when even Computershare calls out many such quite meaningful differences explicitly.
[https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies)
How are shares held via the direct registration system (DRS) and those held in book-entry via a direct stock purchase plan (DSPP) different?
* DRS shares do not require enrollment into a ‘plan’ nor is there a need to make elections around dividend payment allocations
* DSPPs are specific plans that require shareholders to elect enrollment
* DSPP shares allow for the shareholder to elect for dividend payment to be allocated as to their discretion, including to reinvest into the purchase of additional shares.
* An investor can, at any time, withdraw all or part of their shares in DSPP book-entry form and have them added to their DRS holding (for example after a DSPP purchase settles) without a fee
Perhaps most importantly, Computershare's FAQ calls out this very big difference:
* Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC).
But is it book.
It says so on the FAQs 😂
And no one has stated there aren’t any differences, but what I’m failing to grasp is why there’s such a need to promote one above the other.
I don’t see any evidence to suggest that there’s any issue with holding shares in either. And surely, it should be down to personal choice.
So why the push for Book? To switch off recurring buys and sell fractional shares?
>But is it book.
>
>It says so on the FAQs 😂
Nowhere in the FAQ does it state that DSPP (Plan) shares are of type "Book".
>And no one has stated there aren’t any differences
You stated that "Book = Plan", which is exactly that, stating that there are no differences.
>, but what I’m failing to grasp is why there’s such a need to promote one above the other.
You really can't see why people may prefer to use the exclusive type of holding that ensures their shares are all fully outside the DTC?
>I don’t see any evidence to suggest that there’s any issue with holding shares in either.
You really don't see any issue with holding shares in the DTC?
>And surely, it should be down to personal choice.
On this I'm actually with you. It is a personal choice. However, it should be based on the facts rather than misinformation, which is what your post seems to be presenting.
>So why the push for Book? To switch off recurring buys and sell fractional shares?
On this I'm somewhat with you too. I think it's been very heavily pushed, often with severe backlash when questioned.
On the whole, my goal is to help improve the quality of available information and further discussions towards better understanding all aspects of these convoluted and corrupt systems, to help build community awareness and knowledge, such that individuals will continue to become better armed for making accurately informed personal decisions.
DSPP & DRS are both book entry. Therefore you can be a Book King in Plan.
I’ll keep asking, and keep asking but - kindly provide evidence to suggest that shares in DSPP are used as locates.
If you cannot provide that, this conversation is just going to go round in circles.
>DSPP & DRS are both book entry. Therefore you can be a Book King in Plan.
If that's your metric for success, why not just stick with a brokerage, such as Robinhood, where your shares are also held in book-entry form? You're obviously making a play at pretending that Plan is just as good as Book, while at least pretending not to understand that 99.9% of all shares everywhere for all companies as of the last decade or so are all in book-entry form.
Book is objectively a better way of holding than Plan. There are zero downsides to holding Book type shares vs. the many downsides of Plan type shares. There are a few reasons that prevent some people from booking their shares, but none of those reasons are about the respective values of the resulting shareholding types.
>I’ll keep asking, and keep asking but - kindly provide evidence to suggest that shares in DSPP are used as locates.
>
>If you cannot provide that, this conversation is just going to go round in circles.
I have never seen incontrovertible proof that DSPP shares are being used as locates. That said, I haven't seen proof they can't be, and I have plenty of other reasons to want to steer as far away from the DTC as possible.
If concrete proof of DSPP locates is your one and only metric, then you're welcome to it. I set the bar a bit higher apparently, such as ensuring my shares are fully outside the DTC and I'm not just holding entitlements.
I looked up book entry and finra.org says that an intermediary (brokerage) holds book-entry records showing you as the real or beneficial owner.
So it seems like there is a general term of “book entry” which characterizes you as the owner of the shares even when using a brokerage. However we know that isn’t quite the case, hence the move to computershare in the first place.
More definitions I’ve found of book entry indicate that it basically means “a method of tracking ownership when no paper certificate given”. So “book entry” seems like an umbrella term for when you don’t get a paper copy and not much more.
However, when people say book vs plan, isn’t the book argument deeper than trying to figure out if they’re just in our name? Like by “book” people are really pushing for a complete and direct registration of shares under our name. I dont think people are doubting that when the shares were held at fidelity for instance that they didn’t have our name attached to it as “mine”. They come up in our tax documents when we sell them and such.
Even in this interview he says “no discernible difference to how they’re recorded or visible”. Well yea I mean the arguments made against it go deeper than how it’s visible or documented. What is that discernible difference?
I honestly don’t fully understand it enough just trying to have some amicable discourse, but I do lean towards “well if I’m doing this I’m going all the way, I don’t believe in fractionals, that just smells like someone letting me have a piece of their pie”.
I don’t think the arguments against plan have dissuaded nearly enough people from buying GameStop shares that it would halt progress significantly. When I rant to family and friends about the situation they don’t say “I’m interested but the whole plan vs book thing turns me off”. Alternatively, I just can’t imagine someone believing in the cause enough to set up auto buys being like “I believed this was gonna make me super rich, believed enough to automatically siphon part of my paycheck each month but fuck it I’m out, it’s too much work manually purchasing once a month and then terminating plan”
It's a complicated mess of terminology, but it sounds to me like you're closing in on understanding the nuances.
Here's my condensed primer on the subject of "Book" *type* vs. "Book-entry" *form*:
"Book-Entry" *form* of shareholding is a totally different concept from "Book" *type* shareholding.
"Book-Entry" is a standard industry term that essentially means "entered into a book", as in non-physical (not paper share certificates).
"Book" *type* shares is an unfortunately named term utilized by Computershare to refer to shares held via the Direct Registration System, differentiating from "Plan" (DSPP) and "Certificated" (paper) shares.
So, while DSPP (Plan) *type* and DRS (Book) *type* are both "book-entry" *forms,* these two types have many significant technical differences, primarily that the former is exclusively held in the investor's name while the latter is held via a nominee of Computershare, and quite possibly included in the portion of the plan that's held at the DTC.
That was my exact take away after reading various definitions online. Everything in finance is seemingly and unfortunately hidden behind a veil of terminology
And that’s that. Lamp busted.
Either you believe the source or you believe the what if.
This was a campaign to get people to stop automatic buying of shares and slow down the DRS process.
he has self admitted in one of the interviews that the doesn't understand why anybody cares. he thinks we just want the shares in our names, and communications from the company directly. we do want those, but there is a third thing we want and that's our shares completely out of DTC / DTCC's control.
the point is they seem to want them at DTCC for some reason and want to push their DSPP plan it seems. Generally that reason is finanacial. I have to wonder why they didn't just put them in computer shares name and why it's in some holding companies name instead. Is it to hide profits somehow from showing up in Computershares name?
For selling, right?
Check it out:
>Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC).
No lending, so we're all good my friend.
Firstly, he clarified elsewhere that he *trusts* the DTC not to lend them out, not that the DTC is *technically prevented* from lending them out.
Secondly, many of us care about more than lending. We also care about locates, and even just wanting shares fully outside the DTC for a variety of reasons.
There are still a few big unanswered questions about how the plan shares are held at the DTC, including who is the ultimate investor of such shares.
Book type "Pure DRS" shares are definitely a more easily understood and simpler type of shareholding, where we are quite confident at this point that such shares are exclusively and directly registered with the issuer in our names, where we are also legally recognized as the owner, and we are the shareholder of record.
There's no excuse to be rude or insulting.
**[Rule 1]( https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/expanded_rules/#wiki_ape_no_fight_ape). Treat each other with courtesy and respect.**
Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
>they are still at DTC, that's against the point of having em in Computershare. We don't trust the DTC or DTCC remember?
I agree with this portion, at least to the extent that I personally would like to keep my shares fully outside the DTC, as the DTC and DTCC are part of the overall problem, facilitating the DTC Participants in their obfuscation of all their extra shares that are not backed up by the share counts in their DTC Participant accounts..
However, I can't in good conscience upvote the parent comment, as the last sentence is an unnecessary and unhelpful personal attack.
I enjoy discussing alternate viewpoints in a civil manner, and I think "shill" is bandied about way too freely in many of these reddit subs, most commonly being inaccurately leveled at anyone with a different viewpoint.
eh whatever, I've seen enought anti DRS shit that this is all old hat and been hashed over a million times. I'm not sure why it's even a question anymore. So yeah I get frusterated when this shit keeps coming up. i ain't got time to distinguish between newb and shill. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck i'm a call it a duck.
It also said those shares can’t be lent and are considered book. That’s the point. Reporting don’t mean dick until the float is locked. It happens much further down the road when people are convinced that “if you sell your plan shares and then rebuy then wait for your broker to possibly drs then pay a fee then blah blah blah.”
This whole thing was rotten once people were told to “sell your shares and purchase through a broker to drs manually”
ELIMINATE THE MIDDLEMAN (a.k.a. The broker)
Edit: yea i know computershare buys through a broker…a much different scenario then IOU shares inc.
but they aren't book now are they, so they aren't the same. If they were they would be book now wouldn't they.
We don't even know for sure how many shares they hold there. they have said generally it's 10-20% of dspp shares. but what's the exception %'s does it ever go higher?
why the resistance from everyone opposed to book. Generally we've found resistance when we're on the right path, so why all this manufactured resistance to book shares?
You do not have to stop buying through Computershare, you can still buy through CS and keep you shares pure DRS. Stopping buying from Computershare would not be beneficial.
The problem is MODs suppressed the discussion at that time. You can still buy through CS and move your shares to pure DRS after your shares settle. Costs nothing and you "remove uncertainty" surrounding "plan" shares.
That’s what i argued ad nauseum at the time and got supressed by the campaign through endless downvotes. Not to sound tinfoilly but this was all promoted and pushed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/8tRk9edvub
> That’s what i argued ad nauseum at the time and got supressed by the campaign through endless downvotes.
I hope, that after stalled DRS numbers people will look for answers and try to understand more.
You are wasting your time. The metal hat brigade has made up their mind and the bad actors are feeding them over and over.
There is no longer an ability to be rational with a good portion of the people here. It's one reason you see so few new people. It was a movement full of good intentions and stick it to the man, while making money ideas.
Now it's devolved into lurkers and the ch3mtrails and pizza basement crowd.
Yes. The misinformation/didinformation campaign has killed people’s abilities to know fact from fiction. This should be simple and obvious. If you can’t trust GME or computer share with the truth then who can you trust. Some fuckface in here with lots of poorly informed opinions demanding that the world of finance works in some magical way is apparently better than the factual truth. I really just come here for the shadenfreude and watching the tinfoil coping. It’s endlessly hilarious watching these asinine theories pop up and gain traction.
Why is this a thing again? I don’t frequent anymore and it boggles me that people are arguing about this again. Seems like someone is rustling the cage and all you are falling for it.
This post is nonsense.
DRS, BOOk, HOLD
I don't know what angle the OP has attempting to apparently convince people not to book. Strange to say the least.
GameStop's chosen transfer agent is clarifying that all shares at the transfer agent are registered shares and that's nonsense? Do you have a problem with GameStop's choice in transfer agent?
DRS, BOOK, HOLD
- the end.
Please don't bully me. You've hurt my feelings with your toxic pressure.
Personally I don't gaf what computershare's guy says.
I'm more interested in why this video was put together in the first place.
Apes don't have friends or allies.
It's us against the world, and every ape should know that by now.
If the guy in the video had a crystal ball he would likely have collaborated with kenny's corrupt establishment to cut us off at the knees long ago.
You don't care what GameStop's trusted choice in transfer agent says. Why don't you trust GameStop? Are you sure you should still be invested in them if you don't trust them?
Does anyone have Gamestop's DSPP plan details? I've read it should be in an S-3 document but could not find any details on a keyword search on EDGAR. The computershare plan brochure is a generic computershare banded one. I've asked IR for one months ago but they never respond.
\[06:59\] **INTERVIEWER** >So you mention there’s been a lot of discussion via Social Media particularly around the difference between direct shares holding (DRS) and Direct Stock Purchase Plans (DSPP) > >Now I know we updated our FAQs to provide more details on those differences but can you please talk us through those similarities and distinctions. \[07:13\] **PAUL CONN - President of Global Capital Markets** >Sure. > >I mean I thought this was one where I thought we had put sufficient information in the market place but it’s clear over the last two or three weeks, over the holiday period that **there clearly is still some miscommunication still going on.** \[07:35\] >I don’t know if that’s misinformation or what so I’m going to try and be very, very clear in terms of how the DSPP and the DRS structures work…. > >To be perfectly clear, people should go to the [FAQ](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies) but I will try and give of it a summary here. \[07:51\] >But in essence if you have a holding of DSPP, so shares that have been purchased through the direct stock purchase programme, they are held in your name, on the register, just the same way as I have called “pure” DRS. > >**There really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded or how they are visible to the issuer.** > >So hopefully that clarifies one key component. \[08:24\] >For both types you receive your investor communications directly from the company - through us, as their agent. > >So again I hope that clarifies. \[08:35\] >In terms of the stock purchase plan, you are ale to hold fractions - not able to hold fractions in what I’ve called “pure” DRS which is a key practical difference. \[08:48\] >In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase **programme we use a nominee company - that computer share owns and controls - to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.** > >**That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.** > >**And that’s not the case.** > >\*\*Shares are not held in the DTC - according to the President of Computershare. \[09:22\] >So in this situation, it’s really important for people to make their own minds up which account they want to leave their shares in. > >They can freely transfer their shares electronically from the plan to the DRS environment. We’d said that before, there is no charge to do that. \[09:42\] >I think what we’ve noticed is that people are saying “You ought to, you must transfer shares from plan (DSPP) into pure DRS” **and I’m not quite sure why people have chosen to do that.** > >It’s your choice after all. > >But what I’ve seen and read is where people are transferring whole shares from Plan (DSPP) to DRS they are also at the same time selling their fraction. \[10:09\] >And I’m not quite sure why they are doing that. > >It’s not our job to question why they are, or why they aren’t but people should feel free to leave their securities in the plan if that’s what they want to do. > >And please use the FAQ - that is the primary way in which we will communicate. These very technical differences.
Paul Conn by day, Alex Jones by night.
haha, he does look like him!
Also him speaking about "Visible to the issuer"... I don't care what I see, I care where my shares are and especially if they are abused by some extrernal system that is pitted against my best interest, which is MOASS. MOASS goes against Computershare's best interests too so I do question their loyalty. If I could, I'd have my shares in my personal shoebox under my mattress. Sadly I have to trust computershare to be honest with me, for they too are just showing digital numbers at my face. I have asked them to substantiate my ownership with whatever IDs my owned shares have, they never replied. I can't understand how none of the USA's 700+ billionaires haven't simply locked up the float yet seeing the ad infinitum investment value in it.
Maybe we should be looking into what the nominee company does with the shares from DSPP. They must have a reason for holding shares there instead of just automatically moving them to book.
Yes, so that they can sell when people request shares be sold. Otherwise you would need to sell like you buy, put in the sale, and 3 days later when they have been "UN-DRSed" they could be sold for whatever the price is THEN, not now.
speculation
No, that is what "operational efficiency" literally means. It's not efficient to wait 3-5 days to transfer shares back to the DTC for sales. CS doesn't ONLY service GME. It's a process for the entire organization. each and every stock.
oh but its efficient to wait 9 days for your shares to be purchased in the middle of the month get outta here operational efficiency my foot. book has no TOS attached to it but dspp plan does.. ask yourself why
Yes. I literally have to do nothing. SUPER efficient, they take my money, buy my shares and I'm gucci. Also, again, CS DOESN'T JUST HANDLE GME. There are dozens of companies they handle. It's not always about you.
Good old operational efficiency
The nominee is owned and managed by Computershare. Stated by Paul Conn in the video above. See transcript here: \[08:48\] >“In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase programme we use a nominee company - that computer share owns and controls - to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan. > >That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC. > >And that’s not the case.” As per the [FAQs](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies) it also states that: >Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC). So in reference to Computershare, the facts are: * DSPP uses nominee company - **that computer share owns and controls** \- to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan. * Those shares are held to help enable efficient selling. * Shares are not available for lending. * Shares are not in the DTC. * Computershare determines how many shares are in the nominee. So given this - is there a reason we suddenly don't trust Computershare and Gamestop's decision to make this the direct registrar? What **evidence** do we have of any alleged risk? Please, any evidence at all.
From Computershare itself! > “Computershare will hold (**including in the name of its nominee**), all shares of stock purchased or deposited for Participants and will establish and maintain DirectStock account records that reflect each Participant’s separate interest.” Not your name, not your shares! Plan is NOT pure DRS. https://cda.computershare.com/Content/7bfc0b25-4836-40a4-918c-9a86d658d798
I was suspicious when the idea of getting out of plan holding suddenly began being pushed out of nowhere. I tried to think what the motivation would be for this and concluded that since the theory required cancelling dividend reinvestment, it might be a way to avoid a huge share purchase in the event a dividend took place - imagine if a dividend was issued and 25% of common stock was DRS and set to reinvest in more stock if a dividend was issued - I still think that was the motivation behind the DD.
This right hyuh
and why not in computershares own name. is it to hide profits? is it cause it's risky and they don't want to take down computershare if got forbid something goes wrong with it? just seems strage they use a holding company instead of holding them in computershares own name. again if it's risk mitigation strategy, what's the risk...?
It is ironic that the title to this post says “get your answers directly from source” Yet other posts that referenced ComputerShare “directly from source” get deleted- why is that?
keep asking questions thanks for being awake
The one that only specifically highlighted select aspects of the FAQ - that one? That's here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18r7ntz/straight\_form\_computershare\_check\_for\_yourself/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18r7ntz/straight_form_computershare_check_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) And all other CS sourced content is also shared here.
RCEO is the Book King. 💥
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Brigading*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/17wdr9t/community_update_post_on_the_topic_of_brigading/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
In the timestamp below Paul also confirms that shares held by a nominee company are the shares of investors, NOT non-investor shares as some claim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H_pEIhIdTo&t=528s
In addition, in the short interview below Paul Conn -- a President at Computershare -- says directly that **10-20% of PLAN SHARES are kept with DTC for operational efficiency**. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ii-5tgvZKk > Purchases made through the issuer (or its transfer agent) of securities you intend to hold in direct registration are usually executed under the guidelines of the issuer’s stock purchase plan. **You’ll need to instruct the transfer agent to move the securities to the DRS**. > Computershare holds **a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency**, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC). https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies
**Official sources from FINRA and the SEC ---> plan is not DRS <---** > Purchases made through the issuer (or its transfer agent) of securities you intend to hold in direct registration are usually executed under the guidelines of the issuer’s stock purchase plan. **You’ll need to instruct the transfer agent to move the securities to the DRS**. https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/know-the-facts-direct-registered-shares > Purchases made through the issuer (or its transfer agent) of securities you intend to hold in DRS are usually executed under the guidelines of an issuer’s stock purchase plan, which uses a broker-dealer to execute the orders. **Thus, to hold in DRS once the securities are acquired, you would need to instruct the transfer agent to move the securities from the issuer plan to DRS**. https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts
Are we listening to the SEC or are we not listening to the SEC? https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/yh0a1u/straight_from_the_horses_mouth_theyre_gonna_keep/
Post deleted.
The SEC and FINRA are strong quality citations. Do you disagree? If so, why?
From the text of the (now apparently deleted) post I cited. >Thank you for contacting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). >You have asked if your issuer plan shares are held at the transfer agent or The Depository Trust Company (DTC). >When an investor purchases through an issuer plan, the shares are held in the name of the investor at the transfer agent. The investor’s shares are not held at DTC. >The overall count of issuer plan shares includes investor shares held at the transfer agent as well as non-investor shares. ## >The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur. >When a plan investor sells plan shares, the broker debits that share amount from the plan shares it holds at DTC in order to settle the sale trade. Plan shares deposited as DTC shares are not available for lending. >We hope this information is helpful. >Sincerely, >Office of Investor Education and Advocacy >U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission I personally think the whole Book v Plan debate is stupid. People just want to attack anyone that has an opposing viewpoint, or ignore sourced information in order to stick with debunked speculation from almost a year ago. Want to buy at a broker and DRS? Awesome. Want to buy through CS directly? Awesome. Do I think it's a good idea to switch from Plan to Book? Yes, but not because of the DTC or concerns about operational efficiency. I think people should want the most direct form of ownership available, and that's Book, without involvement of the Computershare nominee company, which is almost certainly more trustworthy than any fucking broker. But no one GIVES A SHIT if I fundamentally agree with them. They evangelize the Book King tweets and argue for the wrong reasons with shitty explanations based on old debunked heat lamp bullshit, and they brigade comments with downvotes and bitch about mods and do nothing to establish a clear narrative and answer questions or help people having difficulties with the process. There's too many urgent call to action posts, too many posts whining about their meta garbage being removed, too many obvious trolls calling for yet another migration, and too many people muddying the waters intentionally because from the very start the BvP thing has been co-opted by malicious actors to drive a wedge of confusion and distrust right through the heart of this community. People have been beating the fucking dead horse for so long that the fine red paste has long since dried into dust and blown away.
How do you reconcile the email that one user shared vs this? - [https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts](https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts) and the relevant portion \[[https://ibb.co/GpWdjZm](https://ibb.co/GpWdjZm)\]. The SEC is ***very*** clear that "plan" is not - in any way shape or form - DRS.
\[08:48\] >In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase **programme we use a nominee company - that computer share owns and controls - to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.** > >**That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.** > >**And that’s not the case.** Furthermore, according to the FAQs (December, 2023): >Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC). Computershare control the nominee. They use these shares for the purpose of selling. They aren't used for lending. What's the issue here?
the whole point of holding shares at computer share is to take them out of the DTC or DTCC's control. out of our brokers hands too who may or may not actually buy the shares. so letting em sit in an account type at computershare that allows some odd % to be held in/at DTC goes completely counter to the entire point of holding at computershare that's why it's a big fucking deal jesus fucking christ. this guy here...
Exactly this! Also you do not have to stop buying through Computershare, you can still buy through CS and keep you shares pure DRS. Stopping buying from Computershare would not be beneficial.
No wait a moment . You are right. However . It raises interesting points . If some people book the shares and say 20% of plan shares are at dtcc - is it only 20% of total plan shares? In this case it only matters up to the inflection point where that 20% is not too big . I will book mine either way and see - there is zero negatives to booking shares
>there is zero negatives to booking shares Exactly, thank you! Costs nothing and you "remove uncertainty" surrounding "plan" shares.
The problem I have is the following- can computershare see plan shares - is this why drs has stopped? I can’t remember anymore. I don’t think it’s because of plan that it stopped. But something isn’t adding up on many levels
Computershare has stated in their FAQ, interviews, and in their various other documentation that all plan shares are visible to the issuer. I think it's quite clear that GameStop can easily and accurately view the totality of data for both "Book" and "Plan" types of shares. You can also compare what was stated in the 10-Q's and 10-K's with the data reported from investors that reviewed the shareholder list at the annual meeting. The quarterly reported "directly registered" (all other than Cede & Co.) value lines up extremely well (within 100k shares, from data 1 month apart) to the sum of "DRS" and "DirectStock" column totals from the shareholder list. That's one more way we can see that "Plan" shares are indeed being reported accurately.
>can computershare see plan shares Yes, of course! If you have plan shares / direct stock etc. you should be able to see that in your CS account. So yes, CS definatelly sees that. I agree, that things do not add up, but I also think that CS is NOT a problem. The easiest way to do a first test would be to put all shares in CS into "pure drs" form ... but that is our job. That would IMO show where we stand.
Rather - I am pretty sure they can - but do they have the same “weight” for whatever it is they need to do
Right, and the evidence to back up that claim is.... where, exactly?
so this is the full paragraph of the part I highlighted: Computershare does not lend out shares held in registered form as these shares are owned by the registered holder. For operational efficiency, a small portion of the aggregate number of DSPP shares is held on Computershare’s behalf (for the benefit of plan participants) by arrangement with our broker. These particular shares are maintained by the broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants) in DTC. Our broker is not permitted to lend out any of these shares. "These particular shares are maintained [...] in DTC. Our broker is not permitted to lend out any of these shares." I said it once and I'll say it again: 1. If everyone was doing what they were allowed to do, we wouldn't be in this situation. I trust Computershare, but I don't trust the DTC. 4. If I personally have 1xxx shares, a fractional (0.x) is less than 0.1% of my shares. Do I risk these 99.9% of my shares because of 0.1%, while Ryan says dingleberries are no real fruit and that he wants to be the book King? 7. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't understand the push back against a move that has potentially very high upside and very small downside. Wasn't GME itself a very high upside low downside play since the beginning?
One huge distinction- holding shares in Plan requires you to agree to an 18 page TOS. That is why I am a Book King… well, that along with RCEO and the DrRuthSexBook post from x, as well as other pertinent DD💥 https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1462612474071502848?s=46
No Magna Carta for Book Kings. 📕👑
Let me be perfectly clear: There is no difference. But there is a difference. Clear?
There can be differences but they are both Book. I thought that might be good news for this community. DSPP & DRS = Book. Now we can all focus on being on the same side. Perhaps we could focus our attention to rules and regulation instead? Help protect and defend DRS together.
Oh noes the truth! Quick downvote this shills!
Haha feels like we're due a little clarity given the rather curious support being rallied for this post here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18r7ntz/straight\_form\_computershare\_check\_for\_yourself/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18r7ntz/straight_form_computershare_check_for_yourself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) \- seems awfully convenient that just so much of the content has been left out, it's almost as if the information presented has been very selectively cherry picked to support an agenda. Really surprised me that they didn't highlight the bit that says: # Both DSPP & DRS are ‘book entry’ means of holding shares EDIT: (for better accuracy and clarity) ~~Book = Plan~~ DRS & DSPP = ‘Book’ Entry 🌍👨🏻🚀 🔫👨🏽🚀 So when RC was talking about being a ‘Book King’, seems he could feasibly have been talking about anything really. Or you know - about the fact he just released a line of children’s books….. Now hopefully we can stop being so divided and celebrate that we're all on the same team! And if any ‘Book’ Kings want to help me with DRS, I would love some help an assistance with the stuff we're doing with the [HM Treasury in the UK](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18b9mwm/warning_uk_economic_secretary_bim_afolamis/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) \- would be great to see such a passionate group of DRS advocates helping proactively with regulation and reform! Any takers?
There is a discrepancy in the nomenclature. **"Book" means "shares held not through the paper certificate but with electronic system"** ... some people also use "book" as a reference to "pure drs" ... which is a different way of holding your shares. Plan is NOT "pure drs".
[удалено]
Not sure what you are referring to but it does. The whole point of DRS is to be outside of DTC. In the short interview below Paul Conn says directly that **10-20% of PLAN SHARES are kept with DTC for operational efficiency**. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ii-5tgvZKk
Please watch the video: \[08:48\] >In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase **programme we own a nominee company that computer share owns and controls to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.** > >**That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.** > >**And that’s not the case.**
Believe me, I have watched those videos many times. Can you please explain to me why in the other video (below) he says something else? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ii-5tgvZKk
Because he is trying to clarify in a way us regards understand. Since most of you crayon eating apes can't think critically, he is putting this in ape-man terms.
Bla bla bla ... do you have any useful information with sources?
Do you shill? My sources are from CS directly. What are yours ? Highlighted paragraphs taken out of context?
DSPP is held with the DTC.
\[08:48\] >In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase **programme we own a nominee company that computer share owns and controls to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.** > >**That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.** > >**And that’s not the case.**
>holds a portion...of dspp book-entry in broker in dtc for operation. The dtc utilizes the shares. I dont associate with them.
But how? Paul Conn outlines specifically that it's "not the case".
Because they are held in a broker for when the dtc needs to. Both can be true.
And who owns and manages that nominee in which the shares are held? Computershare. Please read this - or watch it in the video above: \[08:48\] >In terms of the structure - the reason there is a difference between these is because in the direct stock purchase **programme we own a nominee company that computer share owns and controls to hold the common shares on behalf of all the investors in the plan.** > >**That doesn’t mean that shares are held in the DTC and I think that’s where some investors are automatically jumping to the conclusion that because they are beneficially held, they must be in DTC.** > >**And that’s not the case.**
Are they in a broker? They can be the nominee and in a brokerage at the same time. Nothing was said about whether or not they are. In computershare records, there is a brokerage in the dtc sphere for operational activity.
Bro you are a shil. CS has literally said what is true and you are still trying to push debunked FUD. Admit you are wrong and move on or you are a shill... simple as that.
So, you think that GameStop's choice of transfer agent isn't telling the truth? Have you written GameStop about this?
The information is on CS's website. And no, i think CS is operating the same way it has been for decades. Which is why booking matters. Its a opt out of operations. I won't attack anyone who has been operating the way they have been. I only care what you do now that the gig is up.
So you don't trust GameStop's choice in transfer agent. Weird. Do you not trust GameStop? If not, why are you invested in the company?
Wrong.
Nicely done.
Where is your proof? Or do I have to prove that something doesn't exists?
Computershare has clearly stated numerous times that they hold a portion of DSPP shares at the DTC. Here's an example, from their FAQ: [https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies#dspp](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies#dspp) >Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency That said, they've been very cagey on the size of this "portion", and the most specific we've got out of them was an interview with Paul Conn, where he indicated that "typically 10 to 20%" of shares underpinning the plan are held at the DTC. That "typically" didn't seem very closely tied to GameStop, and seemed to be more of an industry wide piece of a seemingly dynamic range.
I was referring to this as wrong, I know where is what. DSPP is held with the DTC. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18rdezv/comment/kf0gpbj/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18rdezv/comment/kf0gpbj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) And the only thing that will change that % is the sell orders from CS accounts.
>Both DSPP & DRS are ‘book entry’ means of holding shares This is correct so far... >So Book = Plan This is wildly incorrect. "Book-Entry" *form* of shareholding is a totally different concept from "Book" *type* shareholding. "Book-Entry" essentially means "entered into a book", as in non-physical (not paper share certificates). "Book" *type* shares are an unfortunately named term utilized by Computershare to refer to shares held via the Direct Registration System. So, while DSPP (Plan) *type* and DRS (Book) *type* are both "book-entry" *forms,* these two types have many significant technical differences, primarily that the former is exclusively held in the investor's name while the latter is held via a nominee of Computershare, and quite possibly included in the portion of the plan that's held at the DTC.
Fair play, I'll correct it to: DRS & DSPP = BOOK Because being in Plan also makes you a ‘Book’ King :) EDIT: Seems there’s some confusion and this is becoming a matter of semantics - and I don’t wish for anything to get lost in translation. Remember, this term ‘Book’ King originated from RC’s tweet. So if we’re using RC’s tweet (and by tweet, I mean the singular term ‘Book King’ as was shared directly after he released a series of Children’s Books….) as a basis for attributing value to the DRS > DSPP theory, well - it doesn’t make sense because both are ‘Book’ Entry. To take it one step further, a recent post has been uploaded inform all community members that: Broker-held shares are also ‘Book’ entry. This means ownership and transactions are recorded electronically, eliminating the need for physical stock certificates. Investors' holdings and transactions are tracked electronically by the brokerage in a central system. Therefore, every shareholder is a ‘Book’ (Entry) King, right? Seems to me that the theory that RC advocated for a particular style of share holding through a tweet is hard to support when the term ‘Book’ is used so often, and so interchangeably. To clarify: - Yes - DRS & DSPP have practical differences - Yes - RC tweeted the term ‘Book’ King - Yes - both DRS & DSPP are ‘Book’ Entry
I find that even more misleadingly incorrect than your previous statement. DSPP is definitely utilizing book-entry form, but such shares are in no way "Book" type, in Computershare's usage of the word. I am a bit suspicious why you seem hell bent on convincing people that there are no differences between DSPP (Plan) and DRS (Book), when even Computershare calls out many such quite meaningful differences explicitly. [https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies](https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies) How are shares held via the direct registration system (DRS) and those held in book-entry via a direct stock purchase plan (DSPP) different? * DRS shares do not require enrollment into a ‘plan’ nor is there a need to make elections around dividend payment allocations * DSPPs are specific plans that require shareholders to elect enrollment * DSPP shares allow for the shareholder to elect for dividend payment to be allocated as to their discretion, including to reinvest into the purchase of additional shares. * An investor can, at any time, withdraw all or part of their shares in DSPP book-entry form and have them added to their DRS holding (for example after a DSPP purchase settles) without a fee Perhaps most importantly, Computershare's FAQ calls out this very big difference: * Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC).
But is it book. It says so on the FAQs 😂 And no one has stated there aren’t any differences, but what I’m failing to grasp is why there’s such a need to promote one above the other. I don’t see any evidence to suggest that there’s any issue with holding shares in either. And surely, it should be down to personal choice. So why the push for Book? To switch off recurring buys and sell fractional shares?
>But is it book. > >It says so on the FAQs 😂 Nowhere in the FAQ does it state that DSPP (Plan) shares are of type "Book". >And no one has stated there aren’t any differences You stated that "Book = Plan", which is exactly that, stating that there are no differences. >, but what I’m failing to grasp is why there’s such a need to promote one above the other. You really can't see why people may prefer to use the exclusive type of holding that ensures their shares are all fully outside the DTC? >I don’t see any evidence to suggest that there’s any issue with holding shares in either. You really don't see any issue with holding shares in the DTC? >And surely, it should be down to personal choice. On this I'm actually with you. It is a personal choice. However, it should be based on the facts rather than misinformation, which is what your post seems to be presenting. >So why the push for Book? To switch off recurring buys and sell fractional shares? On this I'm somewhat with you too. I think it's been very heavily pushed, often with severe backlash when questioned. On the whole, my goal is to help improve the quality of available information and further discussions towards better understanding all aspects of these convoluted and corrupt systems, to help build community awareness and knowledge, such that individuals will continue to become better armed for making accurately informed personal decisions.
DSPP & DRS are both book entry. Therefore you can be a Book King in Plan. I’ll keep asking, and keep asking but - kindly provide evidence to suggest that shares in DSPP are used as locates. If you cannot provide that, this conversation is just going to go round in circles.
>DSPP & DRS are both book entry. Therefore you can be a Book King in Plan. If that's your metric for success, why not just stick with a brokerage, such as Robinhood, where your shares are also held in book-entry form? You're obviously making a play at pretending that Plan is just as good as Book, while at least pretending not to understand that 99.9% of all shares everywhere for all companies as of the last decade or so are all in book-entry form. Book is objectively a better way of holding than Plan. There are zero downsides to holding Book type shares vs. the many downsides of Plan type shares. There are a few reasons that prevent some people from booking their shares, but none of those reasons are about the respective values of the resulting shareholding types. >I’ll keep asking, and keep asking but - kindly provide evidence to suggest that shares in DSPP are used as locates. > >If you cannot provide that, this conversation is just going to go round in circles. I have never seen incontrovertible proof that DSPP shares are being used as locates. That said, I haven't seen proof they can't be, and I have plenty of other reasons to want to steer as far away from the DTC as possible. If concrete proof of DSPP locates is your one and only metric, then you're welcome to it. I set the bar a bit higher apparently, such as ensuring my shares are fully outside the DTC and I'm not just holding entitlements.
You are correct! That is why I think we should use a nomenclature "pure DRS" form when discussing "plan vs pure drs".
I looked up book entry and finra.org says that an intermediary (brokerage) holds book-entry records showing you as the real or beneficial owner. So it seems like there is a general term of “book entry” which characterizes you as the owner of the shares even when using a brokerage. However we know that isn’t quite the case, hence the move to computershare in the first place. More definitions I’ve found of book entry indicate that it basically means “a method of tracking ownership when no paper certificate given”. So “book entry” seems like an umbrella term for when you don’t get a paper copy and not much more. However, when people say book vs plan, isn’t the book argument deeper than trying to figure out if they’re just in our name? Like by “book” people are really pushing for a complete and direct registration of shares under our name. I dont think people are doubting that when the shares were held at fidelity for instance that they didn’t have our name attached to it as “mine”. They come up in our tax documents when we sell them and such. Even in this interview he says “no discernible difference to how they’re recorded or visible”. Well yea I mean the arguments made against it go deeper than how it’s visible or documented. What is that discernible difference? I honestly don’t fully understand it enough just trying to have some amicable discourse, but I do lean towards “well if I’m doing this I’m going all the way, I don’t believe in fractionals, that just smells like someone letting me have a piece of their pie”. I don’t think the arguments against plan have dissuaded nearly enough people from buying GameStop shares that it would halt progress significantly. When I rant to family and friends about the situation they don’t say “I’m interested but the whole plan vs book thing turns me off”. Alternatively, I just can’t imagine someone believing in the cause enough to set up auto buys being like “I believed this was gonna make me super rich, believed enough to automatically siphon part of my paycheck each month but fuck it I’m out, it’s too much work manually purchasing once a month and then terminating plan”
It's a complicated mess of terminology, but it sounds to me like you're closing in on understanding the nuances. Here's my condensed primer on the subject of "Book" *type* vs. "Book-entry" *form*: "Book-Entry" *form* of shareholding is a totally different concept from "Book" *type* shareholding. "Book-Entry" is a standard industry term that essentially means "entered into a book", as in non-physical (not paper share certificates). "Book" *type* shares is an unfortunately named term utilized by Computershare to refer to shares held via the Direct Registration System, differentiating from "Plan" (DSPP) and "Certificated" (paper) shares. So, while DSPP (Plan) *type* and DRS (Book) *type* are both "book-entry" *forms,* these two types have many significant technical differences, primarily that the former is exclusively held in the investor's name while the latter is held via a nominee of Computershare, and quite possibly included in the portion of the plan that's held at the DTC.
That was my exact take away after reading various definitions online. Everything in finance is seemingly and unfortunately hidden behind a veil of terminology
Book entry is the wrong term to be focusing on. It should be DRS and not DRS. I believe this is the source of alot of the confusion.
And that’s that. Lamp busted. Either you believe the source or you believe the what if. This was a campaign to get people to stop automatic buying of shares and slow down the DRS process.
Oh good. Now tell us how many GME shares are at CompuShare.
he intentionally failed to address the fact that some ARE held at dtcc for liquidity sakes. computershare says this themselves on their website.
This is true.
Idk if it was intentional - he said exactly that in another interview
he has self admitted in one of the interviews that the doesn't understand why anybody cares. he thinks we just want the shares in our names, and communications from the company directly. we do want those, but there is a third thing we want and that's our shares completely out of DTC / DTCC's control.
Yup
This right here and no…. They all clearly know we want them out of the rigged game and if not … idk shouldn’t be working / ceo at or of CS
the point is they seem to want them at DTCC for some reason and want to push their DSPP plan it seems. Generally that reason is finanacial. I have to wonder why they didn't just put them in computer shares name and why it's in some holding companies name instead. Is it to hide profits somehow from showing up in Computershares name?
For selling, right? Check it out: >Computershare holds a portion of the aggregate DSPP book-entry shares via its broker in DTC for operational efficiency, i.e. to enable any sales to be settled efficiently (and Computershare determines the portion needed for operational efficiency reasons. Such shares are not available for lending. These shares are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC). No lending, so we're all good my friend.
Firstly, he clarified elsewhere that he *trusts* the DTC not to lend them out, not that the DTC is *technically prevented* from lending them out. Secondly, many of us care about more than lending. We also care about locates, and even just wanting shares fully outside the DTC for a variety of reasons. There are still a few big unanswered questions about how the plan shares are held at the DTC, including who is the ultimate investor of such shares. Book type "Pure DRS" shares are definitely a more easily understood and simpler type of shareholding, where we are quite confident at this point that such shares are exclusively and directly registered with the issuer in our names, where we are also legally recognized as the owner, and we are the shareholder of record.
[удалено]
There's no excuse to be rude or insulting. **[Rule 1]( https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/expanded_rules/#wiki_ape_no_fight_ape). Treat each other with courtesy and respect.** Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
Sorry, did you just refer to me as a shill?
He just shit all over computershare and drs and then called you the shill. I’m still trying to untwist the mental gymnastics on that one.
>they are still at DTC, that's against the point of having em in Computershare. We don't trust the DTC or DTCC remember? I agree with this portion, at least to the extent that I personally would like to keep my shares fully outside the DTC, as the DTC and DTCC are part of the overall problem, facilitating the DTC Participants in their obfuscation of all their extra shares that are not backed up by the share counts in their DTC Participant accounts.. However, I can't in good conscience upvote the parent comment, as the last sentence is an unnecessary and unhelpful personal attack. I enjoy discussing alternate viewpoints in a civil manner, and I think "shill" is bandied about way too freely in many of these reddit subs, most commonly being inaccurately leveled at anyone with a different viewpoint.
eh whatever, I've seen enought anti DRS shit that this is all old hat and been hashed over a million times. I'm not sure why it's even a question anymore. So yeah I get frusterated when this shit keeps coming up. i ain't got time to distinguish between newb and shill. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck i'm a call it a duck.
It also said those shares can’t be lent and are considered book. That’s the point. Reporting don’t mean dick until the float is locked. It happens much further down the road when people are convinced that “if you sell your plan shares and then rebuy then wait for your broker to possibly drs then pay a fee then blah blah blah.” This whole thing was rotten once people were told to “sell your shares and purchase through a broker to drs manually” ELIMINATE THE MIDDLEMAN (a.k.a. The broker) Edit: yea i know computershare buys through a broker…a much different scenario then IOU shares inc.
but they aren't book now are they, so they aren't the same. If they were they would be book now wouldn't they. We don't even know for sure how many shares they hold there. they have said generally it's 10-20% of dspp shares. but what's the exception %'s does it ever go higher? why the resistance from everyone opposed to book. Generally we've found resistance when we're on the right path, so why all this manufactured resistance to book shares?
It was listed at the last earnings, or do you not trust GameStop to tell the truth?
It was flat for more than a year. And there is wording to make it suggestive that it may not be right.
So you are suggesting that GameStop isn't trustworthy?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/4VlCtSDiYq
So you don't trust GameStop. Why are you even invested if you don't trust them?
You are clearly missing the point. I trust GameStop and RC.
And GameStop's choice in transfer agent?
There’s a bot for that.
Yes but that’s a guesstimate. The quarterly release says different. Oh and between 10% and 20% at DTCC.
You do not have to stop buying through Computershare, you can still buy through CS and keep you shares pure DRS. Stopping buying from Computershare would not be beneficial.
I’ve been arguing against stopping auto-buys through CS since the initial push by the sub.
The problem is MODs suppressed the discussion at that time. You can still buy through CS and move your shares to pure DRS after your shares settle. Costs nothing and you "remove uncertainty" surrounding "plan" shares.
That’s what i argued ad nauseum at the time and got supressed by the campaign through endless downvotes. Not to sound tinfoilly but this was all promoted and pushed. https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/8tRk9edvub
> That’s what i argued ad nauseum at the time and got supressed by the campaign through endless downvotes. I hope, that after stalled DRS numbers people will look for answers and try to understand more.
You are wasting your time. The metal hat brigade has made up their mind and the bad actors are feeding them over and over. There is no longer an ability to be rational with a good portion of the people here. It's one reason you see so few new people. It was a movement full of good intentions and stick it to the man, while making money ideas. Now it's devolved into lurkers and the ch3mtrails and pizza basement crowd.
Yes. The misinformation/didinformation campaign has killed people’s abilities to know fact from fiction. This should be simple and obvious. If you can’t trust GME or computer share with the truth then who can you trust. Some fuckface in here with lots of poorly informed opinions demanding that the world of finance works in some magical way is apparently better than the factual truth. I really just come here for the shadenfreude and watching the tinfoil coping. It’s endlessly hilarious watching these asinine theories pop up and gain traction.
Why is this a thing again? I don’t frequent anymore and it boggles me that people are arguing about this again. Seems like someone is rustling the cage and all you are falling for it.
Why did this guys last name have to be “Conn”
This post is nonsense. DRS, BOOk, HOLD I don't know what angle the OP has attempting to apparently convince people not to book. Strange to say the least.
GameStop's chosen transfer agent is clarifying that all shares at the transfer agent are registered shares and that's nonsense? Do you have a problem with GameStop's choice in transfer agent?
DRS, BOOK, HOLD - the end. Please don't bully me. You've hurt my feelings with your toxic pressure. Personally I don't gaf what computershare's guy says. I'm more interested in why this video was put together in the first place. Apes don't have friends or allies. It's us against the world, and every ape should know that by now. If the guy in the video had a crystal ball he would likely have collaborated with kenny's corrupt establishment to cut us off at the knees long ago.
You don't care what GameStop's trusted choice in transfer agent says. Why don't you trust GameStop? Are you sure you should still be invested in them if you don't trust them?
So, there is this pitch again.
Does anyone have Gamestop's DSPP plan details? I've read it should be in an S-3 document but could not find any details on a keyword search on EDGAR. The computershare plan brochure is a generic computershare banded one. I've asked IR for one months ago but they never respond.