this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
21 points (100.0% liked)

DRS Your GME

1228 readers
1 users here now

ΔΡΣ Central

Community to discuss the DRSGME.org project and resources, and how to spread DRS advocacy and information to GameStop investors around the world.

Have a great idea to spread the word? There are some resources here to get started!

https://www.drsgme.org/free-resources

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
apes_on_parade@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
Chives@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
bibic_jr@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
Millertime1216@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
Jmarie777@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
21
Computershared.net and some thoughts (lemmy.whynotdrs.org)
submitted 1 year ago by Spacefyre@lemmy.whynotdrs.org to c/drs_your_gme@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Is there an alternative to computershared.net that keeps track of all the shares owned by insiders, institutions, etfs, retail etc? I thought Computershared did a fantastic job of keeping up to date numbers, but since it went down I haven't been able to find a good alternative.

The reason I ask is because it disappeared rather quietly, and considering how important share counts are, I thought it critically important to follow.

The latest info I have is from May 29th, 2023

  • 15% institutions
  • 12% mutual funds
  • 10% etfs
  • 13% insiders
  • 5% insider stagnant
  • 17.1% pure drs
  • 10.9% directstock
  • .1% operational efficiency

This gives a grand total of 81.6% of shares owned.

I find it curious that the website went down when ownership was hitting these levels. VW's short squeeze was 62.6% ownership of total shares by Porsche and Lower Saxony, and 32% were "owned" through options by Porsche. Northern Pacific Railway had 94% of its total shares owned by James Hill and JP Morgan.

If there are 18.4% shares remaining, that equates to 56,074,000 shares. At a current price of $16.36, someone would need roughly 16.36*56,074,000 = $974,370,640 dollars to buy the remaining float. Who, or which company has that?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You should all read this. The numbers going forward are based on Cede&Co. We will not see the numbers go up at all past what works out mathematically.

The computershared account put a disclaimer of this, and that is why it got taken down.

[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Sorry to spam, but this is going to be important going forward. Esp if they continue to give us the relative-numbers instead of the raw data.

@iofhua@lemmy.whynotdrs.org

@DDoS@lemmy.whynotdrs.org

@sw33tn0th1ng@lemmy.whynotdrs.org

@regolith@lemmy.whynotdrs.org

@Chives@lemmy.whynotdrs.org

@lovetoburst@lemmy.whynotdrs.org

@MozooZ@lemmy.whynotdrs.org

[–] Chives@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I do not mind - you can always ping me if you need something!

That's not why the Computershared.net website was taken down, by the way. I am somewhat friendly with u/JonPro03 who was maintaining the site has been going through some IRL stuff and it's simply not his priority atm. He does support the efforts of the DRS team which is why the site now redirects towards a DRSGME.org page detailing the findings when investors went to Grapevine to see the 2023 stock list.

The truth is that, as far as I am aware, we do not know exactly why the language in the filings changed.

[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Depending on how much you pried, I would imagine "personal stuff" could have been that the lawyers said "nah man" and it would be a really dumb idea for JonPro to elaborate any further.

Changing the DRS count to “Not Cede” was most likely what got them in trouble with the 34T entity that is Cede & Co (with a whopping 4 paragraphs on Wikipedia). It didn't really become a problem until it blew up on SuperStonk that the wording changed.

[–] MozooZ@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No worries.

Not sure I understand the exact reasoning for this, though. Can you explain a little, maybe?

[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wording before the change was always:

As of M DD, YYYY, XX.XX million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent.

https://investor.gamestop.com/static-files/5a610aaf-6606-4173-86a1-cba6abdb204a

https://investor.gamestop.com/static-files/5df55006-ebe2-478e-8058-d88a7b5b3d88

https://investor.gamestop.com/static-files/3a9d968d-b9f5-415a-877f-895d5ac83ed3

Wording after the change is now:

As of MM DD, YYYY, there were approximately XXX,XXX,XXX shares of our Class A common stock outstanding. Of those outstanding shares, approximately XXX.X million were held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares) and approximately XX.X million shares of our Class A common stock were held by registered holders with our transfer agent (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares) as of June 1, 2023.

https://investor.gamestop.com/static-files/70a8632c-6308-4f16-8adc-7bdd65c39d89

I personally find it odd to now be laying out each holding party so blatantly. It also it begs the question, if Cede is acting on behalf of the DTCC, they could say ANY number as the number they "should" have.

Will Gamestop actually go out to put a future report like:

Cede has 75%.

Computershare has 35%

:)

doubtful, but they HAVE SEC record of what Cede said exist. It's a cover-their-own-ass style of reporting. No reason to get yourself sued when you stand to make so much on a stock run. I for one am fascinated to see what the next quarter claims. If we haven't moved at all, I venture to guess it's going to be a black-box-##'s-wise until it really starts to fuck shit up.

Notice the addition of the word approximately everywhere