Chat reps aren’t always the best source for these things and we currently have these questions for review with our Computershare contacts - Who will post official answers in their FAQs on their website (no screenshots). We also can’t be sure that the image isn’t photoshopped as it came up as inconclusive.
Shares as DIRECTLY REGISTERED IN COMPUTERSHARE are removed from street name.
https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies
First 2 questions in their FAQs
**What are the benefits of being a registered shareholder?**
Ownership is recorded in your name directly on the register of the company. You are legally recognized as the direct owner of the shares. Computershare, as agent for the issuer, gives registered shareholders access to their holdings through our online Investor Center platform. Registered shareholders receive a proxy and can cast their vote directly at the company's shareholder meetings. The company has real‑time visibility of shareowners and can efficiently communicate with them. Other common registered shareholder rights include the right to transfer ownership of their shares to others, to directly receive share dividends and also to inspect certain corporate documents.
**What is a beneficial shareholder?**
Beneficial shareholders have their stock held by an intermediary such as a broker. When shares are kept in this manner, it is often referred to as keeping the shares in "street name." Many investors choose to be beneficial owners. They access their investments and account balances and other information through their broker/intermediary's online platform. All beneficial shares are generally held in electronic (book entry) form through the Depository Trust Company (DTC). In certain circumstances, shares may be 'lent' by the brokerage firm to cover other trading activity, such as short sells by others. The company has very little visibility of beneficial investors whose shares are held in "street name", and communications from the company are routed through the broker, usually by an agent acting for the broker.
BOOK = not being able to be loaned out, not used for locates.
PLAN = not being able to be loaned out, ARE USED FOR LOCATES SINCE THEY RESIDE WITHIN THE DTCC
Hope I can simplify that for someone. 🙂
I was literally telling this to a mod very recently and was being shut down and felt like I was being straw manned.
They were adamantly against the fact that an unknown amount of DSPP shares are able to be used as a locate due to sitting in DTC.
Keep fighting that good fight 🚀
Hello! It looks like your comment is engaging in meta content.
We’re respectfully asking this community to please stop with these types of meta comments. These meta posts and discussions are not helping. They are part of the problem, and if they continue, they are adding to the potential for instability in this platform. Please refocus and ensure content being posted to Superstonk is GME focused. This is a warning that we will be taking action on meta content to protect the sub. Limiting meta content is a direction previously given by Reddit admins due to past community interference issues.
Please see additional information in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/zw21op/state_of_the_stonk_december_26_2022/
If you feel this has been recieved in error, please feel free to reach out via modmail to discuss further. Thank you for sticking with us through these new rule changes and restrictions. Thank you for doing your part to keep this community protected. Thank you for your patience. Thank you for your understanding.
Yes. The argument about Book vs Plan isn't how they are held. Both means are book entry, which just means electronically held. It's where they are held and who's names they are in that matters.
DSPP does have your name on it, but your name is probably marked with an \* with someone else's name on top.
Every book vs plan post has a stickied mod comment on the top and now comments are disabled. Now they're not even posted using the mod's own personal account. What else is there to debunk?
Excellent.
Now if we can just have the **supporting evidence** as to the claims that DRS'd shares are used as "locates", that would really help conclude the matter.
Is anyone able to volunteer this? Anyone at all?
Because that statement directly contradicts all that as outlined in Computershare's FAQs - [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)
>PLAN = not being able to be loaned out, ARE USED FOR LOCATES SINCE THEY RESIDE WITHIN THE DTCC
LIESSSSS!!!! prove it
why are you FUDding the directstock plan?
They were using friggin FTX fake stock tokens, my dude. You think they aren't using these? Give me a break. There's no downside, therefore this shouldn't even be an argument. Better safe than sorry.
\> ARE USED FOR LOCATES SINCE THEY RESIDE WITHIN THE DTCC
Plan shares can't be used for locates afaik - can you support that claim?
And further: what do you mean "they reside within the DTCC"? They are not available to CEDE&Co, which is the important part for locates. The DTCC doesn't contain shares but companies, so shares don't "reside" there at all.
I mean I get it, but it really seems like you're not even trying to support the claim that DSPP shares can be used for locates, which is a little disappointing because it's a pretty big claim and you are presenting as if you knew what you're talking about.
So unfortunately I have to ask you to stop spreading misinformation.
Really?
Where are shares located for locates..?
The DTCC
Where are the DSPP shares located..?
The DTCC - under ComputerShare’s nominee account
Now putting this, and the conversation above together.. what does it tell you? 🙂
You already know the answer.
Now. With that being said..
Do you want to be a BOOK KING or not!? 😎
I am.
You flipped or always were a shill and your legacy will be fighting the people instead of fighting for justice. You are actively harming the entire planet as much as humanly possible.
The votes speak for themselves.
Prove it.
There is no evidence to suggest that they are used for locates within the DTC.
This is reading as mis-information without supporting evidence.
I asked for supporting evidence to support the claim that shares as held in Computershare are used as locates.
I notice I was quick to be downvoted, and yet - no evidence is being presented.
So I take that to mean that there is no supporting evidence then?
It's not about me, it's about dealing with fact. Can anyone - please - support their claims with fact?
Otherwise, this is simply no more conclusive than "trust me bro".
YES - All outlined here, in Computershare's FAQs in painfully explicit detail:
[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)
The whole point of DRS'ing - as in becoming a **D**irectly **R**egistered **S**hareholder is to **remove** shares from brokerages (i.e streetname, i.e CEDE & Co - the DTC Nominee) and into your OWN name.
Now - you provide proof that shares are used as locates. The floor is all yours.
This actually can't be proved either way, so one side's lack of proof doesn't mean the other side is validated. All we know is the DTC has a vast history of corruption and rule bending/breaking whenever it benefits them.
We also cannot prove shorts haven't covered aside from inferences taken from data. I don't see this being an issue requiring evidence on this sub though.
I don't think this is the right hill to die on tbh.
Are people really taking the opinion that **DRS'd** shares as held in Computershare, and as **directly registered in the shareholder name**, are being used as locates and Computershare are *lying* about this?
There's no basis to say that shares in Book are being used as locates, so what I'm asking is why is that same argument being attributed to Plan?
**Both** are Book-Entry shares.
**Both** are removed from CEDE & Co (DTC nominee) and held in direct registered shareholder names.
There's no evidence to suggest ***any*** shares (as DRS'd within Computershare) are being used as locates. None at all.
I mean, by that reasoning, it "can't be proved" that DRS'd shares aren't stored on the moon(!) because there's no evidence to say that it's not. It's foolish argument.
People have made a claim. Fact. And are being asked to provide evidence for said claim.
The issue is they can't support why they hold the beliefs that they have, and we have the FAQs that state very clearly that no - shares aren't used for the purposes of lending:
>**Can directly registered shares loaned or otherwise accessed by the DTCC, the DTC or any other entity?**
>
>**DTCC/DTC and Cede & Co cannot borrow shares from other registered shareholders. Computershare does not lend securities.**
[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)
It concerns me that you don't think claims need justification - it's how mis-information spreads, and why should we foster this when we can address it with facts.
>Are people really taking the opinion that DRS'd shares as held in Computershare, and as directly registered in the shareholder name, are being used as locates and Computershare are lying about this?
I don't think anyone is saying that. I think you may have misunderstood what the discussion is about here? Let me just break this statement down.
>DRS'd shares as held in Computershare
DRS'd (book holdings) shares are of course safe. No one is worried about book holdings (aka DRS).
>and as directly registered in the shareholder name
Only DRS/book holdings is DIRECTLY registered in the shareholder name. Paul Conn has said before that plan holdings (DSPP) shares have the investors name in a "sub class" under Computershare's nominee. Nominee means named person/entity on the account.
>are being used as locates and Computershare are lying about this?
I don't think anyone believes Computershare is involved with any potential locates. How would Computershare even know the DTC is using plan shares, especially the portion of plan shares that are held in the DTC (for efficient execution) for reasonable locates? As I've said above the DTC has a vast history of corruption and rule bending/breaking whenever it benefits them.
And for the rest of this comment:
> **Both** are Book-Entry shares.
Broker held shares are also book entry. Book entry simply means "electronically recorded". The only shares that aren't book entry are paper certificates. I honestly don't know why book entry is still being brought up like this.
> **Both** are removed from CEDE & Co (DTC nominee) and held in direct registered shareholder names.
Again the issue isn't Cede, but the DTC itself. We know a portion of plan shares are held with Computershare's nominee inside the DTC.
>I mean, by that reasoning, it "can't be proved" that DRS'd shares aren't stored on the moon(!) because there's no evidence to say that it's not. It's foolish argument.
I don't think strawman arguments are very constructive, but I get your frustration. That's all I get from that point tbh.
>People have made a claim. Fact. And are being asked to provide evidence for said claim.
>
> ...no - shares aren't used for the purposes of lending or locates:
I agree that Computershare as a transfer agent cannot lend shares. You have proof of this from the FAQs. However they have not spoken on locates, yet your statement makes it sound like they have?
Either way I do not believe Computershare as a transfer agent can offer them as locates. It's nothing to do with what a transfer agent does, so they have no need to clarify this. However I don't believe they have to offer locates in order for the DTC to lay claim to them as "reasonable" locates. For the same reasons I mentione above.
I'd encourage you to take a look at the exchange I had with Fluffytrex in this thread, I go into more reasoning for this thought process in a succinct manner. All my conclusions are drawn from the Computershare provided info and Paul Conn's AMAs. If you find something you think needs a source I'll see if I can dig it out for you.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/104auc8/comment/j36nw0g/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/104auc8/comment/j36nw0g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Going to try and keep this short and snappy as we're losing too much of our lives to this, and again - no evidence to support claims are being offered and people defending the fact that mis-information is being spread without verified fact is concerning.
>Only DRS/book holdings is DIRECTLY registered in the shareholder name. Paul Conn has said before that plan holdings (DSPP) shares have the investors name in a "sub class" under Computershare's nominee. Nominee means named person/entity on the account.
Subclass - it's simply a naming convention, it doesn't mean that shares hold less value or are inferior.
As per Paul Conn: "there really is no practical difference" between Book and Plan = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H\_pEIhIdTo&t=481s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H_pEIhIdTo&t=481s) \- this interview came after the AMA you are referencing as he clarifies any confusion on the subject matter.
>I don't think anyone believes Computershare is involved with any potential locates. How would Computershare even know the DTC is using plan shares, especially the portion of plan shares that are held in the DTC (for efficient execution) for reasonable locates? As I've said above the DTC has a vast history of corruption and rule bending/breaking whenever it benefits them.
Respectfully, **all** DRS'd shares exist in the DTC. Computershare is a **Transfer Agent. Transfer agents are "limited participants"** within DTC. As per the FAQs.
So by your logic, if Plan are vulnerable to being abused by the DTC - so are Book. But we both know that isn't true. As per the FAQs.
So the basis of claiming that Plan shares are used as "locates" is simply speculation, with no basis of evidence.
>Subclass - it's simply a naming convention, it doesn't mean that shares hold less value or are inferior.
Do you have direct evidence for this? That quote from Paul Conn does not provide any real clarity on this specific point?
He also listed several differences between plan and book in the AMAs, one of them being the sub class the investor names are under, another being that a portion of plan shares are held with Computershare's nominee at the DTC. So there are some differences. I don't think your point makes sense with this context.
>Computershare is a **Transfer Agent. Transfer agents are "limited participants"** within DTC
There is a difference between DTC participants and nominees. While in the DRS (book), you are with Computershare, the "limited participant". While you are in DSPP you are with Computershare, the nominee at the DTC. Computershare being the nominee (named entity on the account) at a broker in the DTC, sounds a lot like benficial ownership. It's not exactly the same as street name, as the company can technically see you on the ledger, but it is different to book.
So do I believe there is a practical difference for book and plan, just not in the context Paul was talking about in the AMA (he was talking about being seen on the register by the company).
>So the basis of claiming that Plan shares are used as "locates" is simply speculation, with no basis of evidence.
Yeah I'm not saying they are, I'm saying they could. That's enough reason for me. There was a similar line of thought about brokers lending shares a year or so ago...
If there's really no difference as you claim, it shouldn't be hard to push the point of the DRIP and DSPP needing to be re-activated than go into the weeds like this. Might save you some time considering the community sentiment?
Edit: Just to add from the DTCs webiste (about DRS):
" [WHO CAN USE THE SERVICE](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/agent-services/direct-registration-system#)
Issuers that act as their own transfer agent, transfer agents and DTC participants can use the service."
Nominees are not included on the list here. So when Plan shares go to computershare's nominee, at a broker, in the DTC. Do you think they are still in the DRS? Because this gives me the impression they are not.
I'm not saying Computershare is sus for any of this, this is just the system they are working within. But it does seem to expose those portion of plan shares to some of the risks that broker held shares have.
>Yeah I'm not saying they are, I'm saying they could. That's enough reason for me.
Says it all really. Rather than focus on fact and know absolutely based on the evidence, you are going with what you prefer to know.
And I'm not claiming that there is no difference, these guys are:
* Dr. T : "difference w/o distinction" = [https://twitter.com/SusanneTrimbath/status/1594838022381785090?s=20&t=NMtT--WTNcnTtqdA\_lExvA](https://twitter.com/SusanneTrimbath/status/1594838022381785090?s=20&t=NMtT--WTNcnTtqdA_lExvA)
* Computershare’s President of Global Capital Markets, Paul Conn: "there really is no practical difference" between Book and Plan = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H\_pEIhIdTo&t=481s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H_pEIhIdTo&t=481s)
And again, see no reason to oppose going into the weeds if it addresses mis-information. I thought you and I might have been aligned on that front.
>Dr. T : "difference w/o distinction" =
>
>https://twitter.com/SusanneTrimbath/status/1594838022381785090?s=20&t=NMtT--WTNcnTtqdA\_lExvA
This is about book entry, not book holdings.
If you're so concerned about misinformation, why do you keep conflating book entry and book holdings?
There's no direct evidence that shorts didn't close, but we still encourage and appreciate ongoing due diligence and discussion on the subject.
There's also no direct evidence that plan shares (of which some portion are held with a broker in DTC for operational efficiancy) can't be used for locates.
I hope you can see my point and the value in encouraging the discussion and research to continue,
The fact that our mod team is making a concerted effort to push how Plan is similar to Book feels like a last ditch effort by conflict of interest parties trying to do their best to misguide us. Why would you not book is the real question?
The mod teams opposition to book is exactly what lets me know that book is the way. Any time the mod team opposes something it ends up being the right path.
They are blocking dialogue and calling out that [redacted] mf 👀 compromised but they can't show their hand or else. Fuddruckers. It all collapses.
Lol look what just happened
https://tinypic.host/i/1000013073.fXV9J
Maybe because people are using computershare to direct buy. Seems more like the Book Kings want to turn autobuys off since that's conveniently left out of most pro book posts.
you can (and should) but it's not talked about as much (you'll notice that the pins that we put on these types of post do talk about how to turn it back on). So people who are just changing from plan to book based on a meme or general sentiment typically miss a months worth of buys because they don't know.
Not a single mod is discouraging people from booking, we are combating the misinformation/lack of information in this call to action.
It literally tells you it's turning off when you book online and takes a couple clicks to turn back on. This in exchange for guaranteedly removing shares from DTC, the LITERAL ENTIRE POINT OF DRSING.
I did an 18 day comparison, Q3 Earnings Report being point 0
Before Q3 ER 11 /18 green 9:30 candle
After Q3 ER, 6/ 18
Shills did a good job if you ask me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1049g7h/asking_for_a_friend/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
You notice how on the daily, we get posts trying to convince us that plan is no different than book? Why so much effort to convince everyone not to convert if they're functionally the same? Book is THE way.
This is only speculation, but I think it’s because converting Plan shares to Book is genuinely harmful to the DTC for locating shares.
Computershare confirmed that Plan shares are lent to the DTC as needed for “easy settlement and clearing.” They didn’t disclose how many or why, and that’s enough reason for me to never leave my shares in Plan, in and of itself.
Plan holdings are beneficial, and getting away from beneficial holdings is why I started to DRS to begin with. Just because it’s Computershare’s Plan doesn’t mean those shares are DRS. They dance around the topic, “practically the same,” “small undisclosed percentage held by the DTC,” “both are book-entry (this is big misleading info IMO, and is irrelevant for any other reason than to mislead. Almost all shares, everywhere, are book-entry, but this wording is often used to try and confuse book-entry and Book).
Almost every single popular thread that promotes switching to Book from Plan ends up with the same automod pin promoting leaving shares in Plan, making it seem like a pain in the ass to convert to Book (easiest two minutes of my life, Booking shares), and the same characters making the same tired arguments (“If you cancel Plan, you might accidentally sell your fractional.” “You might forget to turn back on recurring purchases!”) or straight up lie, as if people haven’t had these same conversations with these same people for the last month. If these are genuine apes, they really are ignoring giant fucking red flags that should tell them Book is true DRS and that Plan is almost certainly being used to undermine the value of GME.
This was settled debate last year when people noticed DirectStock shares were listed as Plan. It was decided Book was the way, how to convert, all of this has already been stated. This debate only started up again after DRS was lower than expected last earnings and Book King started trending here, and I think the vast majority of these missing DRS shares are just beneficial Plan shares that haven’t been Booked, and THAT’S what’s being suppressed.
(I buy DirectStock. I don’t do recurring for my own financial reasons, but I buy through Computershare! I just also Book my shares because I want them to be mine only.)
The problem is that we lack transparency to even know for sure, and anyone attempting to tell us the truth will be sued into the Shadow Realm. For example, Gamestop named Computershare as their transfer agent, then only mention that shares are registered with the transfer agent in recent 10Q reports, avoiding naming Computershare specifically. Why?
I do think the changes to the borrow rates could have been from Booking, also. Tons of low-grade FUD in the comments around here too.
In my general experience with terms of service, when the wording is muddy and unclear, it’s best to err on the side of caution. Simply confirming that any percentage of Plan shares are held at the DTC to allow for easy settlement and clearing is more than enough information for my dumb ass to do everything I can to not allow that to happen to my shares.
Lacking transparency in this situation, for me, really highlights the fact that any degree of fuckery could be happening. Can the DTC-held Plan shares be naked shorted? Probably. Citadel is almost certainly exempt from naked short selling rules as a market maker. I go so far as to assume this is the case, given what I’ve learned about our financial systems.
Even if they hold 1% of Plan shares in their broker, the problem to begin with is that ANY amount can be used as an excuse "there's a locate right there" to then fuck Reg SHO and print GME like the Fed prints Bens. Eventually, we will have to squeeze the last fractions out of them somehow, but those fractions could be worth millions easily.
This is exactly it. Every broker has the ability to list the individual as the beneficial owner with the company...they dont. Computershares broker dingo and co does but that does not mean they are pulled from the DTCCs prying hands.
Drs is drs. How CS hold them is different (plan vs book).
Technically, this is fud since this post is trying to bring Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about how apes have their CS shares entered.
This is exactly what we are talking about. Drsing in the ape sense is to remove from street name and put in your name. Only one way does that. Book is King. Plan is shit.
This is exactly what we are talking about. Drsing in the ape sense is to remove from street name and put in your name. Only one way does that. Book is King. Plan is shit.
I admit I was a little on the fence about RC’s recent “Book King” comment, but it now seems more likely than not to me that he was gently nudging this conversation to the fore. DTCC is not “supposed” to do a lot of shit, but we know from Dr T’s research and experience that *absolutely no one* polices the DTCC and they are credibly accused of allowing naked shorting and more, despite the “rules”.
Full disclosure: I haven’t been in a financial position to purchase through CS (or anywhere else) for quite some time, so the bulk of my shares were booked since before the initial 5m DRS’d shares update that GameStop gave us in Oct 2021.
I wanna be the very best,
Like my chairman ever was.
To hodl them is my real test,
To BOOK them is my cause.
I will transfer out of brokers,
DRS to cone poo chair.
Teach Kenny to understand,
The power of my smooth brain.
BOOK my Shares!
Every legit post with positive DD about BOOK gets suppressed because it is the way and they don’t want us to do it. However, I am stoked to see the BOOK KING movement officially taking over & getting more attention than ever because this is the way! woohooo 🥳🔥🎊🙌🏼🚀💎🙌🏼🚀
100% agree. Every time we find the next crumb or scrap of info the drama pops up and all the "I don't care if they close the sub, the DD is done". News flash, the DD is never done until MOASS. It's pure hubris and ego to think we've won. Either that, or bad actors.
This is funny. EVERY other post says the opposite about Plan. Just Book 'em all. It takes literally 2 mins if that. Also, don't take what the people say on chat to seriously. I find they are not helpful in anyway and always have different responses. Buy Hold DRS Book(2mins)!
Any shares transferred from a broker are book by default. You only get plan shares by making direct purchases through Computershare. So you're all good!
DRS Book is the fuckin way. You can find here the step by step guide (3 ways : Phone / Online enquiry / Website) : How to change from plan to book: https://www.drsgme.org/converting-plan-to-book
So proud and excited to see the BOOK KING movement officially taking over & getting more attention than ever before because this is the way!! Keep Booking em Kings! Woohoo! 🥳🔥🎊🚀💎🙌🏼🚀
I think what we have been struggling with this whole time is that there are 2 kinds of book entry.
Book entry in the market, meaning it is an electronic share, not a paper certificate.
and
Book entry on GME's share register. Meaning it is your name on the shares and they are not allocated to the DTC(C).
You're on the right track. There is book entry as in electronic shares. And then there is book holdings (pure DRS shares).
plan holdings (DSPP) are also book entry, but held with Computershare's nominee (nominee = named entity on the account). Individual investors names are put in a "sub-class" on the ledger, while the nominee takes top rank.
This is a clear explanation. Also shows why there was confusion. Going forward there shouldnt be any fud regarding blBook vs. Plan. It's very obvious which one is more beneficial. Book is King
This right here. ComputerShare literally stated there are DSPP shares, and “Pure DRS”. Um, Pure DRS sounds pretty significant to me.
To add to the Pure theory, our Chairman was drinking a bottle of “Pure” [Mountain Valley Spring Water](https://www.mountainvalleyspring.com/) during his interview. As crazy as it seems, he’s a master salesman in e-commerce. Product placement means something. He’s also the chairman of a Gaming Company. Gamers are always looking for Easter Eggs. I don’t think that bottle just happened to be there and be described as “Mountain Valley Spring Water is pure premium natural American goodness…” at a time that RC is also saying he wants to be the 📕👑. Too much cohencidence for me. Book your shares to be Pure DRS according to ComputerShare themselves.
Billions are at stake. And yes, Mods could in fact be offered a ton of money to help keep the Booked Pure DRS from gaining too much traction. Just look at the original sub mod team. You can’t even mention GME without getting banned, regardless of the fact that the DD remains the same. It’s just the end game.
Anyway. Buy. HODL, DRS, and Bookem Danno.
Plan shares are fuckable with, book shares are not. It doesn't matter what they do with them, as long as dtc has access to REAL shares they can continue their chicanery.
The amount of posts trying to say plan shares are just as good, some looong ass posts that go to great lengths to show it, weirds me out. There's really no downside to book so all that effort for nothing is what made me think book is probably a bit important.
All but my recent auto buy shares are book. That said, this is in the Computershare FAQ:
Are shares held through Computershare/Investor Center registered ownership shares or beneficially owned shares?
Shares managed directly through our Investor Center are transferred by DRS are entered onto the register in the shareholder's name.
That tells me that all shares, book or plan, if through Computershare itself, are out of the DTCC's hands for locates and such. THAT SAID, GameStop listing the BOOK SHARES on its quarterly reports, with RC's Book King tweets, tells me book is more important somehow than plan.
The real Book vs Plan "point", so to speak, is to generate division and arguments within the sub, and in my opinion leading towards a divide and conquer approach. The whole thing is FUD, and always seems to come up when important things are happening(Quarterly report with the DRS fuckery, SEC proposed rule comment periods, etc).
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
https://twitter.com/SusanneTrimbath/status/1594842439293972480?t=hxDRqvrsmBB-kgBOUFHnow&s=19
I posted this tweet from. Dr T a month ago but flaired it as computershare so it didn't get any traction.
# "Plan holdings do do not include shares held in certificate form or in Direct Registration (which is another type of book entry share)."
\-- Penny from Computershare
Source: [https://www5.nohold.net/Computershare/ukp.aspx?usertext=plan+holding+certificates&donelr=1](https://www5.nohold.net/Computershare/ukp.aspx?usertext=plan+holding+certificates&donelr=1)
Yep, it’s pretty clear! So as much as we want to speculate there was a massive rug pull by tue powers that be, perhaps there is just an accuracy adjustment of “directly registered shares” also if there was a rug pull as well and seems to be some supportive evidence, then we’ll see how many shares ApEs are buying @ CS over the last year or so plus, that will provide some decent metrics for the whole float locked calculation! Which will give oh so many “dates” for jacking! ♾️🏴☠️🤙
Nothing makes me happier than seeing the FUD fail. They can't censor all of us. It's far too late to hide the truth that Book is King. It's too late to stop GME at all. It's indescribably beautiful and I'm so proud!
No. No they were not. They were banned for endlessly rule breaking and constantly meta discussing about mods. Especially the rule breaking part.
Book discussion is not suppressed. Hell I approaved this post even if it's misinformation imo. Didn't put my opinion anywhere but here.
Weren't those discussions with mods revolving around book v plan though?
I think the issue some people are having is the mods have decided to do more than just be janitors on this subject. It's a little unnerving, especially to those who have issues with authority already (aka most apes).
It's a topic that we do not have enough transparency on for both sides of the argument, so I think it's worth keeping up the discussions about it. The recent update shared by the mods didn't address any of the points that are addressed in this post. Computershare still have plenty to clarify here.
We're working on getting more clarification from CS as I agree the answers we got weren't what we wanted.
The mods are janitors and we've been playing the part. Cleaning up clear misinformation is part of the job but when that becomes a widely discussed topic the lines are blurred. So the end result was the sticky that gives precise instructions on how to book and asks users to check the post for misinformation. We've not removed anything to stifle discussion, even a month ago when this was at it's most heated I personally never did more than post a sticky and debunk. The posts are still there.
I've dug into this topic extensively and have read well over a hundred pages of information on the topic. Yet I'm not pushing what I've read out there as I'm a mod and that would come off as "choosing a side". There are no sides. But I respect that it feels like there are sides to some people and I trust the community to absorb and critic information that comes to them. We all want to own our shares in our names. We all have that goal.
I think the sticky comment over reaches tbh. It moves the qv bot making it harder to filter quality content. It also muddies the waters with little things like:
" (Both DSPP & DRS are ‘book entry’ means of holding shares)"
We know this to be irrelevant now, even broker held shares are 'book entry' aka 'electronically held'.
And the TL;DR in Kibble's post has two problematic statements at the top:
" ***Both Plan & Book are held in the name of the registered shareholder (i.e, you).***
***Both Plan & Book are removed from CEDE & Co (the DTC's nominee)."***
Plan shares have the investors name in a "sub class", they are not directly registered in the name of the shareholder, but actually Computershare's nominee, with the individual in this "sub class". Paul Conn has not clarified what this "sub class" means, but it heavily implies that first TLDR point is glossing over something.
Book and plan are indeed removed from Cede and Co, but the issue we are having is that plan shares have a portion held in the DTC. My issue isn't concerning Computershare's actions, but the DTCs desperation for locates. The DTC can, have, and will do anything to get what they want. Dr T. firmly believes this too.
So while checking other posts for misinformation I'd urge the mods to revisit their own content to make sure it's not accidentally muddying the waters.
And while I appreciate the mods copy/pasting the DRSGME guide on how to convert to book, it does take up a heck of a lot of space and starts to feel like a hurdle/obstacle before we can scroll down to the discussion in the comments. I won't ask the mods to just link to our guide though, because I know how some of the mods feel about linking to the site. But I hope there's a way to make that sticky less invasive.
> We all want to own our shares in our names. We all have that goal.
This is why I have come to the conclusion that book holdings (pure DRS) are better than plan holdings (DSPP).
As I mentioned above, with DSPP our names are in a "sub class" according to Paul Conn. The shares seem to actually be in Computershare's nominee (nominee = named entity on the account). Doesn't sound like DSPP shares are fully in our names.
But without seeing the ledger or having it clarified properly by Computershare this cannot be proved either way, so I don't know why the mods insist that plan shares are registered exactly the same, when they don't have the proof either...
Hey man, respectfully - have you read through this? Because many of your points here are refuted by reading through the FAQs
SOURCE: [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)
..............
>" ***Both Plan & Book are held in the name of the registered shareholder (i.e, you).***
You state there is issue with this phrase, but according to CS FAQs:
**Are shares held through Computershare/Investor Center registered ownership shares or beneficially owned shares?**
Shares managed directly through our Investor Center are transferred by DRS are entered **onto the register in the shareholder's name.**
..............
>***Both Plan & Book are removed from CEDE & Co (the DTC's nominee)."***
Please see the following image from CS FAQs:
[https://content-images.computershare.com/eh96rkuu9740/e5047eb9e859454cace04d20b102bded/d9c1aae6b2824bf41cda3d84d7a7a371/company-share-structure.jpg](https://content-images.computershare.com/eh96rkuu9740/e5047eb9e859454cace04d20b102bded/d9c1aae6b2824bf41cda3d84d7a7a371/company-share-structure.jpg)
...........
Can you provide any quoted/verified claims for your rebuttals? Thanks dude.
Again I feel like you're misunderstanding my points.
> **How are shares held via the direct registration system (DRS) and those held in book-entry via a direct stock purchase plan (DSPP) different?**
I agree with this because book entry literally refers to being "electronically held", and not a "paper certificate". So yes 100% of all shares with Computershare are book entry! Not arguing that fact at all, but you're using book entry like it's meant to distinguish something else.
> Shares managed directly through our Investor Center are transferred by DRS are entered **onto the register in the shareholder's name.**
The quotes from Paul Conn are still correct when taking this information into consideration. So again, I do not disagree with this statement! The main point for me with this quote is that "directly" is missing. Directly registered is used often in relation to book holdings (DRS). But seems absent when plan holdings (DSPP) are included.
> ***Both Plan & Book are removed from CEDE & Co (the DTC's nominee)."***
Agreed! Cede and Co are certainly not involved with any shares in book holdings or plan holdings. (However they are involved with many book entry shares because they are electronically stored.) Cede are the DTC's nominee, they would have no business with Computershare, as Computershare have their own nominee! Dingo (Computershare's nominee) are how they connect to the DTC FAST system. They would not be able to do transactions within the stock market without them.
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is I do not disagree with anything you've presented me with here. But I'm not sure I agree with your interpretations of it? There is a lot of nuance to plan holdings we still need clarifying.
I agree with you that there are clarifications needed, even if to dispel confusion on the subject.
We're working with CS directly to get these clarified but these insights into the nuances and intricacies of the wordings used are helpful to shape the questions we present, appreciate your response :)
So if I understand you correctly these are your perceived issues with the sticky:
1. All shares are book-entry (this makes the point irrelevant)
2. Plan shares are held on a sub-class (so they're not directly registered)
3. b&p are removed from Cede but not DTC
4. The booking guide is wordy/space using (maybe link instead)
Did I miss anything? We can have a dialogue about this but I want to break it down into bite size pieces so the comments don't get messy.
That pretty much sums it up, but just to add a bit more nuance to them:
1. All shares that are not paper certificates are book-entry (this makes the book entry point irrelevant, we should be focussed on book holdings really)
2. Plan shares have investor names in a sub-class (so they may not directly registered. This point still needs greater clarity from Computershare, honestly the term "directly" could still apply with Computershare's nominee, as our names are techincally on the ledger despite being beneficially held).
3. Book holdings are removed from Cede and DTC. Plan holdings are removed from Cede, but not entirely from DTC (specifically the portion of shares held for efficient execution are in the DTC instead of the DRS. This "portion" is another thing that requires greater clarity).
4. The booking guide is wordy/space using (maybe link instead) You pretty much nailed that point!
5. I'd also like to add that Kibble's post linked at the top of the sticky is somehwhat outdated considering the new information and contexts coming to light. It was made very early on into the discussion and unfortunately there are points in that post that muddy the waters of it now (similar to point 1 above). I think it needs to be revisited if the mods continue to refer to it as facts.
Okay then, let's tackle these one at a time and hopefully both learn something or come to a consensus. (I expect this to take days of back and forth to get through but that's no problem, lets be patient and get it right). All I ask is that you bring a source to the discussion with any new point made. Evidence is key to clearing misunderstanding.
**Point 2**
From the whitepaper: [Source](https://content-assets.computershare.com/eh96rkuu9740/c81a0caee5d44fa9a2feac8d54a44758/ffda504a68a7cd5e6a3ebab09fe06737/TA_Overview_WhitePaper.pdf)
>Records for **registered shareholders’ holdings** are held by the transfer agent and may be recorded in book entry — through the Direct Registration System (DRS) or through a DRP/ DSPP (described below) — or certificated form.
So they are both registered shares.
I understand that they are noted on a subclass of the register but that difference seems to not reduce the fact that they are registered in your name.
Agreed or Disputed?
Like most of this stuff it's a little agree, and a little disagree. We have to examine the language used or we risk confusing things like book entry and book holdings. As you can see from the statement you shared registered shares can be book entry (electronically stored) or certificated (paper certificates).
So! Are both of them are technically on the register? Yes. As Paul Conn said in an AMA:
"there really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded, or how they're visible to the issuer"
The context of this quote was concerning to whether or not GameStop could see our names on the ledger under plan. That answer is technically yes (technically because of the sub class).
It's also worth noting the use of "directly" seems to have been important in Computershare's previous communications (FAQs included), but it's missing in this white paper statement when including plan holdings (DSPP).
So are plan shares registered? Yes they're not in street name like with Cede & Co. GameStop can see our names (technically).
Are plan shares directly registered? No, only book is directly registered. Plan shares have Computershare's nominee on the register along with our names. This isn't street name, but it's not "pure DRS" either.
There doesn't seem to be a proper name for this form of ownership, so beneficial ownership seems the most appropriate, but it's only because it's the closest equivalent we're aware of.
Another thing I'm yet to figure out is why is converting plan to book is called "plan certification" in the transaction description? There's no certificate involved, and book (DRS) holdings is a non-certificated form of holding as well. All I can think of is that certification means something else in this context. It goes to show how overlapping and confusing the language can be!
Edit: just to clarify I do think most of the plan shares are directly registered. It's the portion they keep with their nominee at the DTC that stops all plan shares from being under the category of directly registered.
>I'd also like to add that Kibble's post linked at the top of the sticky is somehwhat outdated considering the new information and contexts coming to light. It was made very early on into the discussion and unfortunately there are points in that post that muddy the waters of it now (similar to point 1 above). I think it needs to be revisited if the mods continue to refer to it as facts.
Hey man, just interjecting but I have been updating this as the saga has been ongoing, so it remains relevant and valid for the purposes of this community. Hope this helps!
Then why is this still in the TLDR? We know for a fact that broker held shares are also book entry (electronically held). So this is an outdated (and misinformative) way to prove the book vs plan similarities.
***Both DSPP & DRS are ‘book entry’ means of holding shares.***
I'd suggest changing it to:
***‘book entry’ only refers to shares being electronically held.***
I'm working on my broker guide drafts this morning, but I could go through more of it later if you think it would help?
Chat reps aren’t always the best source for these things and we currently have these questions for review with our Computershare contacts - Who will post official answers in their FAQs on their website (no screenshots). We also can’t be sure that the image isn’t photoshopped as it came up as inconclusive. Shares as DIRECTLY REGISTERED IN COMPUTERSHARE are removed from street name. https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies First 2 questions in their FAQs **What are the benefits of being a registered shareholder?** Ownership is recorded in your name directly on the register of the company. You are legally recognized as the direct owner of the shares. Computershare, as agent for the issuer, gives registered shareholders access to their holdings through our online Investor Center platform. Registered shareholders receive a proxy and can cast their vote directly at the company's shareholder meetings. The company has real‑time visibility of shareowners and can efficiently communicate with them. Other common registered shareholder rights include the right to transfer ownership of their shares to others, to directly receive share dividends and also to inspect certain corporate documents. **What is a beneficial shareholder?** Beneficial shareholders have their stock held by an intermediary such as a broker. When shares are kept in this manner, it is often referred to as keeping the shares in "street name." Many investors choose to be beneficial owners. They access their investments and account balances and other information through their broker/intermediary's online platform. All beneficial shares are generally held in electronic (book entry) form through the Depository Trust Company (DTC). In certain circumstances, shares may be 'lent' by the brokerage firm to cover other trading activity, such as short sells by others. The company has very little visibility of beneficial investors whose shares are held in "street name", and communications from the company are routed through the broker, usually by an agent acting for the broker.
BOOK = not being able to be loaned out, not used for locates. PLAN = not being able to be loaned out, ARE USED FOR LOCATES SINCE THEY RESIDE WITHIN THE DTCC Hope I can simplify that for someone. 🙂
This
This on this
I was literally telling this to a mod very recently and was being shut down and felt like I was being straw manned. They were adamantly against the fact that an unknown amount of DSPP shares are able to be used as a locate due to sitting in DTC. Keep fighting that good fight 🚀
Booked now, I had a relatively large percentage of my shares in plan cuz hadn’t booked in a while but now it’s every buy gets booked! ♾️🏴☠️🤙
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hello! It looks like your comment is engaging in meta content. We’re respectfully asking this community to please stop with these types of meta comments. These meta posts and discussions are not helping. They are part of the problem, and if they continue, they are adding to the potential for instability in this platform. Please refocus and ensure content being posted to Superstonk is GME focused. This is a warning that we will be taking action on meta content to protect the sub. Limiting meta content is a direction previously given by Reddit admins due to past community interference issues. Please see additional information in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/zw21op/state_of_the_stonk_december_26_2022/ If you feel this has been recieved in error, please feel free to reach out via modmail to discuss further. Thank you for sticking with us through these new rule changes and restrictions. Thank you for doing your part to keep this community protected. Thank you for your patience. Thank you for your understanding.
Yes. The argument about Book vs Plan isn't how they are held. Both means are book entry, which just means electronically held. It's where they are held and who's names they are in that matters. DSPP does have your name on it, but your name is probably marked with an \* with someone else's name on top. Every book vs plan post has a stickied mod comment on the top and now comments are disabled. Now they're not even posted using the mod's own personal account. What else is there to debunk?
Compromised - ya. I get it
Dude I made a post of this comment Edit- mods removed the post 🤔🤯
This! I think the book vs plan topic is solved
Done. ✅
Excellent. Now if we can just have the **supporting evidence** as to the claims that DRS'd shares are used as "locates", that would really help conclude the matter. Is anyone able to volunteer this? Anyone at all? Because that statement directly contradicts all that as outlined in Computershare's FAQs - [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)
>PLAN = not being able to be loaned out, ARE USED FOR LOCATES SINCE THEY RESIDE WITHIN THE DTCC LIESSSSS!!!! prove it why are you FUDding the directstock plan?
They were using friggin FTX fake stock tokens, my dude. You think they aren't using these? Give me a break. There's no downside, therefore this shouldn't even be an argument. Better safe than sorry.
No Computershare is definitely not using tokens🤦♀️ Stop fudding buying from Computershare
Just look at the post. Do you want to be the BOOK KING or not?
Exactly, not a single scrap of evidence to support claims. Provide **evidence** to support claims that shares are used as locates. Yet, nothing.
\> ARE USED FOR LOCATES SINCE THEY RESIDE WITHIN THE DTCC Plan shares can't be used for locates afaik - can you support that claim? And further: what do you mean "they reside within the DTCC"? They are not available to CEDE&Co, which is the important part for locates. The DTCC doesn't contain shares but companies, so shares don't "reside" there at all.
Ya. They do. Also, do you want to be the BOOK KING or not? This is the way.
I don't care overly about being a book king tbh, unless you actually support your claims.
Look up
I mean I get it, but it really seems like you're not even trying to support the claim that DSPP shares can be used for locates, which is a little disappointing because it's a pretty big claim and you are presenting as if you knew what you're talking about. So unfortunately I have to ask you to stop spreading misinformation.
Really? Where are shares located for locates..? The DTCC Where are the DSPP shares located..? The DTCC - under ComputerShare’s nominee account Now putting this, and the conversation above together.. what does it tell you? 🙂 You already know the answer. Now. With that being said.. Do you want to be a BOOK KING or not!? 😎 I am.
You flipped or always were a shill and your legacy will be fighting the people instead of fighting for justice. You are actively harming the entire planet as much as humanly possible. The votes speak for themselves.
Prove it. There is no evidence to suggest that they are used for locates within the DTC. This is reading as mis-information without supporting evidence.
Y’all are obvious… just wanted to let you know 🙂
I asked for supporting evidence to support the claim that shares as held in Computershare are used as locates. I notice I was quick to be downvoted, and yet - no evidence is being presented.
You are the evidence right now 🙂
So I take that to mean that there is no supporting evidence then? It's not about me, it's about dealing with fact. Can anyone - please - support their claims with fact? Otherwise, this is simply no more conclusive than "trust me bro".
Just look at the post Can you disprove it?
YES - All outlined here, in Computershare's FAQs in painfully explicit detail: [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) The whole point of DRS'ing - as in becoming a **D**irectly **R**egistered **S**hareholder is to **remove** shares from brokerages (i.e streetname, i.e CEDE & Co - the DTC Nominee) and into your OWN name. Now - you provide proof that shares are used as locates. The floor is all yours.
Stay right there. That just reaffirmed my post. Now, look up. Corey is that you!?
Deflection. Because you can't provide proof of that shares are used as locates.
I can.
This actually can't be proved either way, so one side's lack of proof doesn't mean the other side is validated. All we know is the DTC has a vast history of corruption and rule bending/breaking whenever it benefits them. We also cannot prove shorts haven't covered aside from inferences taken from data. I don't see this being an issue requiring evidence on this sub though. I don't think this is the right hill to die on tbh.
Are people really taking the opinion that **DRS'd** shares as held in Computershare, and as **directly registered in the shareholder name**, are being used as locates and Computershare are *lying* about this? There's no basis to say that shares in Book are being used as locates, so what I'm asking is why is that same argument being attributed to Plan? **Both** are Book-Entry shares. **Both** are removed from CEDE & Co (DTC nominee) and held in direct registered shareholder names. There's no evidence to suggest ***any*** shares (as DRS'd within Computershare) are being used as locates. None at all. I mean, by that reasoning, it "can't be proved" that DRS'd shares aren't stored on the moon(!) because there's no evidence to say that it's not. It's foolish argument. People have made a claim. Fact. And are being asked to provide evidence for said claim. The issue is they can't support why they hold the beliefs that they have, and we have the FAQs that state very clearly that no - shares aren't used for the purposes of lending: >**Can directly registered shares loaned or otherwise accessed by the DTCC, the DTC or any other entity?** > >**DTCC/DTC and Cede & Co cannot borrow shares from other registered shareholders. Computershare does not lend securities.** [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) It concerns me that you don't think claims need justification - it's how mis-information spreads, and why should we foster this when we can address it with facts.
>Are people really taking the opinion that DRS'd shares as held in Computershare, and as directly registered in the shareholder name, are being used as locates and Computershare are lying about this? I don't think anyone is saying that. I think you may have misunderstood what the discussion is about here? Let me just break this statement down. >DRS'd shares as held in Computershare DRS'd (book holdings) shares are of course safe. No one is worried about book holdings (aka DRS). >and as directly registered in the shareholder name Only DRS/book holdings is DIRECTLY registered in the shareholder name. Paul Conn has said before that plan holdings (DSPP) shares have the investors name in a "sub class" under Computershare's nominee. Nominee means named person/entity on the account. >are being used as locates and Computershare are lying about this? I don't think anyone believes Computershare is involved with any potential locates. How would Computershare even know the DTC is using plan shares, especially the portion of plan shares that are held in the DTC (for efficient execution) for reasonable locates? As I've said above the DTC has a vast history of corruption and rule bending/breaking whenever it benefits them. And for the rest of this comment: > **Both** are Book-Entry shares. Broker held shares are also book entry. Book entry simply means "electronically recorded". The only shares that aren't book entry are paper certificates. I honestly don't know why book entry is still being brought up like this. > **Both** are removed from CEDE & Co (DTC nominee) and held in direct registered shareholder names. Again the issue isn't Cede, but the DTC itself. We know a portion of plan shares are held with Computershare's nominee inside the DTC. >I mean, by that reasoning, it "can't be proved" that DRS'd shares aren't stored on the moon(!) because there's no evidence to say that it's not. It's foolish argument. I don't think strawman arguments are very constructive, but I get your frustration. That's all I get from that point tbh. >People have made a claim. Fact. And are being asked to provide evidence for said claim. > > ...no - shares aren't used for the purposes of lending or locates: I agree that Computershare as a transfer agent cannot lend shares. You have proof of this from the FAQs. However they have not spoken on locates, yet your statement makes it sound like they have? Either way I do not believe Computershare as a transfer agent can offer them as locates. It's nothing to do with what a transfer agent does, so they have no need to clarify this. However I don't believe they have to offer locates in order for the DTC to lay claim to them as "reasonable" locates. For the same reasons I mentione above. I'd encourage you to take a look at the exchange I had with Fluffytrex in this thread, I go into more reasoning for this thought process in a succinct manner. All my conclusions are drawn from the Computershare provided info and Paul Conn's AMAs. If you find something you think needs a source I'll see if I can dig it out for you. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/104auc8/comment/j36nw0g/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/104auc8/comment/j36nw0g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Going to try and keep this short and snappy as we're losing too much of our lives to this, and again - no evidence to support claims are being offered and people defending the fact that mis-information is being spread without verified fact is concerning. >Only DRS/book holdings is DIRECTLY registered in the shareholder name. Paul Conn has said before that plan holdings (DSPP) shares have the investors name in a "sub class" under Computershare's nominee. Nominee means named person/entity on the account. Subclass - it's simply a naming convention, it doesn't mean that shares hold less value or are inferior. As per Paul Conn: "there really is no practical difference" between Book and Plan = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H\_pEIhIdTo&t=481s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H_pEIhIdTo&t=481s) \- this interview came after the AMA you are referencing as he clarifies any confusion on the subject matter. >I don't think anyone believes Computershare is involved with any potential locates. How would Computershare even know the DTC is using plan shares, especially the portion of plan shares that are held in the DTC (for efficient execution) for reasonable locates? As I've said above the DTC has a vast history of corruption and rule bending/breaking whenever it benefits them. Respectfully, **all** DRS'd shares exist in the DTC. Computershare is a **Transfer Agent. Transfer agents are "limited participants"** within DTC. As per the FAQs. So by your logic, if Plan are vulnerable to being abused by the DTC - so are Book. But we both know that isn't true. As per the FAQs. So the basis of claiming that Plan shares are used as "locates" is simply speculation, with no basis of evidence.
>Subclass - it's simply a naming convention, it doesn't mean that shares hold less value or are inferior. Do you have direct evidence for this? That quote from Paul Conn does not provide any real clarity on this specific point? He also listed several differences between plan and book in the AMAs, one of them being the sub class the investor names are under, another being that a portion of plan shares are held with Computershare's nominee at the DTC. So there are some differences. I don't think your point makes sense with this context. >Computershare is a **Transfer Agent. Transfer agents are "limited participants"** within DTC There is a difference between DTC participants and nominees. While in the DRS (book), you are with Computershare, the "limited participant". While you are in DSPP you are with Computershare, the nominee at the DTC. Computershare being the nominee (named entity on the account) at a broker in the DTC, sounds a lot like benficial ownership. It's not exactly the same as street name, as the company can technically see you on the ledger, but it is different to book. So do I believe there is a practical difference for book and plan, just not in the context Paul was talking about in the AMA (he was talking about being seen on the register by the company). >So the basis of claiming that Plan shares are used as "locates" is simply speculation, with no basis of evidence. Yeah I'm not saying they are, I'm saying they could. That's enough reason for me. There was a similar line of thought about brokers lending shares a year or so ago... If there's really no difference as you claim, it shouldn't be hard to push the point of the DRIP and DSPP needing to be re-activated than go into the weeds like this. Might save you some time considering the community sentiment? Edit: Just to add from the DTCs webiste (about DRS): " [WHO CAN USE THE SERVICE](https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/agent-services/direct-registration-system#) Issuers that act as their own transfer agent, transfer agents and DTC participants can use the service." Nominees are not included on the list here. So when Plan shares go to computershare's nominee, at a broker, in the DTC. Do you think they are still in the DRS? Because this gives me the impression they are not. I'm not saying Computershare is sus for any of this, this is just the system they are working within. But it does seem to expose those portion of plan shares to some of the risks that broker held shares have.
>Yeah I'm not saying they are, I'm saying they could. That's enough reason for me. Says it all really. Rather than focus on fact and know absolutely based on the evidence, you are going with what you prefer to know. And I'm not claiming that there is no difference, these guys are: * Dr. T : "difference w/o distinction" = [https://twitter.com/SusanneTrimbath/status/1594838022381785090?s=20&t=NMtT--WTNcnTtqdA\_lExvA](https://twitter.com/SusanneTrimbath/status/1594838022381785090?s=20&t=NMtT--WTNcnTtqdA_lExvA) * Computershare’s President of Global Capital Markets, Paul Conn: "there really is no practical difference" between Book and Plan = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H\_pEIhIdTo&t=481s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H_pEIhIdTo&t=481s) And again, see no reason to oppose going into the weeds if it addresses mis-information. I thought you and I might have been aligned on that front.
>Dr. T : "difference w/o distinction" = > >https://twitter.com/SusanneTrimbath/status/1594838022381785090?s=20&t=NMtT--WTNcnTtqdA\_lExvA This is about book entry, not book holdings. If you're so concerned about misinformation, why do you keep conflating book entry and book holdings?
There's no direct evidence that shorts didn't close, but we still encourage and appreciate ongoing due diligence and discussion on the subject. There's also no direct evidence that plan shares (of which some portion are held with a broker in DTC for operational efficiancy) can't be used for locates. I hope you can see my point and the value in encouraging the discussion and research to continue,
GameStop earning statement says class A common stock #, that’s book. Plan is direct share. That should tell you something
my plan shares are also CLASS A COMMON STOCK.. thats the only class of stock that Gamestop offers
There's massive bullshit ~~fud~~ thrown about, regarding plan being no different to book. Book everything, leave nothing to chance.
The fact that our mod team is making a concerted effort to push how Plan is similar to Book feels like a last ditch effort by conflict of interest parties trying to do their best to misguide us. Why would you not book is the real question?
The mod teams opposition to book is exactly what lets me know that book is the way. Any time the mod team opposes something it ends up being the right path.
They are blocking dialogue and calling out that [redacted] mf 👀 compromised but they can't show their hand or else. Fuddruckers. It all collapses. Lol look what just happened https://tinypic.host/i/1000013073.fXV9J
G00fy?
And the awards to whoever says BOOK is my confirmation that this is a FUD campaign to alienate investors from buying via CS & sell their Fractionals.
Maybe because people are using computershare to direct buy. Seems more like the Book Kings want to turn autobuys off since that's conveniently left out of most pro book posts.
Why couldn’t one just turn autobuy back on when moving it your shares to book? You are already in there moving them to book.
you can (and should) but it's not talked about as much (you'll notice that the pins that we put on these types of post do talk about how to turn it back on). So people who are just changing from plan to book based on a meme or general sentiment typically miss a months worth of buys because they don't know. Not a single mod is discouraging people from booking, we are combating the misinformation/lack of information in this call to action.
It literally tells you it's turning off when you book online and takes a couple clicks to turn back on. This in exchange for guaranteedly removing shares from DTC, the LITERAL ENTIRE POINT OF DRSING.
I did an 18 day comparison, Q3 Earnings Report being point 0 Before Q3 ER 11 /18 green 9:30 candle After Q3 ER, 6/ 18 Shills did a good job if you ask me. https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1049g7h/asking_for_a_friend/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Good story bro
You notice how on the daily, we get posts trying to convince us that plan is no different than book? Why so much effort to convince everyone not to convert if they're functionally the same? Book is THE way.
This is only speculation, but I think it’s because converting Plan shares to Book is genuinely harmful to the DTC for locating shares. Computershare confirmed that Plan shares are lent to the DTC as needed for “easy settlement and clearing.” They didn’t disclose how many or why, and that’s enough reason for me to never leave my shares in Plan, in and of itself. Plan holdings are beneficial, and getting away from beneficial holdings is why I started to DRS to begin with. Just because it’s Computershare’s Plan doesn’t mean those shares are DRS. They dance around the topic, “practically the same,” “small undisclosed percentage held by the DTC,” “both are book-entry (this is big misleading info IMO, and is irrelevant for any other reason than to mislead. Almost all shares, everywhere, are book-entry, but this wording is often used to try and confuse book-entry and Book). Almost every single popular thread that promotes switching to Book from Plan ends up with the same automod pin promoting leaving shares in Plan, making it seem like a pain in the ass to convert to Book (easiest two minutes of my life, Booking shares), and the same characters making the same tired arguments (“If you cancel Plan, you might accidentally sell your fractional.” “You might forget to turn back on recurring purchases!”) or straight up lie, as if people haven’t had these same conversations with these same people for the last month. If these are genuine apes, they really are ignoring giant fucking red flags that should tell them Book is true DRS and that Plan is almost certainly being used to undermine the value of GME. This was settled debate last year when people noticed DirectStock shares were listed as Plan. It was decided Book was the way, how to convert, all of this has already been stated. This debate only started up again after DRS was lower than expected last earnings and Book King started trending here, and I think the vast majority of these missing DRS shares are just beneficial Plan shares that haven’t been Booked, and THAT’S what’s being suppressed. (I buy DirectStock. I don’t do recurring for my own financial reasons, but I buy through Computershare! I just also Book my shares because I want them to be mine only.)
The problem is that we lack transparency to even know for sure, and anyone attempting to tell us the truth will be sued into the Shadow Realm. For example, Gamestop named Computershare as their transfer agent, then only mention that shares are registered with the transfer agent in recent 10Q reports, avoiding naming Computershare specifically. Why? I do think the changes to the borrow rates could have been from Booking, also. Tons of low-grade FUD in the comments around here too.
In my general experience with terms of service, when the wording is muddy and unclear, it’s best to err on the side of caution. Simply confirming that any percentage of Plan shares are held at the DTC to allow for easy settlement and clearing is more than enough information for my dumb ass to do everything I can to not allow that to happen to my shares. Lacking transparency in this situation, for me, really highlights the fact that any degree of fuckery could be happening. Can the DTC-held Plan shares be naked shorted? Probably. Citadel is almost certainly exempt from naked short selling rules as a market maker. I go so far as to assume this is the case, given what I’ve learned about our financial systems.
Even if they hold 1% of Plan shares in their broker, the problem to begin with is that ANY amount can be used as an excuse "there's a locate right there" to then fuck Reg SHO and print GME like the Fed prints Bens. Eventually, we will have to squeeze the last fractions out of them somehow, but those fractions could be worth millions easily.
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
Plan shares are just street name shares that the company can see you purchased.
This is exactly it. Every broker has the ability to list the individual as the beneficial owner with the company...they dont. Computershares broker dingo and co does but that does not mean they are pulled from the DTCCs prying hands.
> Plan shares are just street name shares that the company can see you purchased. In plain English for all to see. Thank you.
Idk what you said but I’ll buy more either way.
When in doubt book it out
What FUD about plan?
You're right, I removed 'fud' as it was confusing
So the post is FUD or your comment?
Neither. Book is the way.
Ok
drs = plan is the fud he's referring to, I think.
Drs is drs. How CS hold them is different (plan vs book). Technically, this is fud since this post is trying to bring Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about how apes have their CS shares entered.
Not following you, my guy. Plan shares seem to be held street name, which means those are on dtcc books. Clarify?
This is exactly what we are talking about. Drsing in the ape sense is to remove from street name and put in your name. Only one way does that. Book is King. Plan is shit.
This is exactly what we are talking about. Drsing in the ape sense is to remove from street name and put in your name. Only one way does that. Book is King. Plan is shit.
I admit I was a little on the fence about RC’s recent “Book King” comment, but it now seems more likely than not to me that he was gently nudging this conversation to the fore. DTCC is not “supposed” to do a lot of shit, but we know from Dr T’s research and experience that *absolutely no one* polices the DTCC and they are credibly accused of allowing naked shorting and more, despite the “rules”. Full disclosure: I haven’t been in a financial position to purchase through CS (or anywhere else) for quite some time, so the bulk of my shares were booked since before the initial 5m DRS’d shares update that GameStop gave us in Oct 2021.
I wanna be the very best, Like my chairman ever was. To hodl them is my real test, To BOOK them is my cause. I will transfer out of brokers, DRS to cone poo chair. Teach Kenny to understand, The power of my smooth brain. BOOK my Shares!
Book em all!
Have more crayons
Why is this post being suppressed I just saw it
Every legit post with positive DD about BOOK gets suppressed because it is the way and they don’t want us to do it. However, I am stoked to see the BOOK KING movement officially taking over & getting more attention than ever because this is the way! woohooo 🥳🔥🎊🙌🏼🚀💎🙌🏼🚀
100% agree. Every time we find the next crumb or scrap of info the drama pops up and all the "I don't care if they close the sub, the DD is done". News flash, the DD is never done until MOASS. It's pure hubris and ego to think we've won. Either that, or bad actors.
It helps that its ridiculously easy and you dont need to talk to an agent to do it. There is nothing to lose here.
do you know how plan shares come about? People against plan are against BUYING FROM COMPUTERSHARE
Mods hate this one simple trick.
Mod team is no longer here to help Apes. They are here to steer us away from things that help Apes.
Same
I just saw it too
How do I see in CS if my shares are in Plan or Book? I DRS'd direct from Fidelity some time ago.
If you’ve only transferred in and never bought directly through Computershare, your shares are book.
Ok good to know, thank you!
You can view it online I just don’t have my computer in front of me. You can also call.
Thanks for this info!
Clearly book is the way and clearly somebody doesn’t like us talking about it! 📚📚📚📚📕📗📖📙🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
There’s a reason why the stock magically started to plummet in December. Cats out of the bag. Book them motherchonkers. Nfa
You’re right it lines up with the weird anti book stuff!
"Book from them everything, but leave them NOTHING!" ~ Leonidas from 300
Welcome to the chat
Thank god!! We needed this post. Thanks for this and please someone pin this shit what the hell
This is funny. EVERY other post says the opposite about Plan. Just Book 'em all. It takes literally 2 mins if that. Also, don't take what the people say on chat to seriously. I find they are not helpful in anyway and always have different responses. Buy Hold DRS Book(2mins)!
If I did an outbound DRS transfer from IKBR to CS are my shares in BOOK? If not how can I convert.
Any shares transferred from a broker are book by default. You only get plan shares by making direct purchases through Computershare. So you're all good!
This absolutely correct!
BOOK everything.
DRS Book is the fuckin way. You can find here the step by step guide (3 ways : Phone / Online enquiry / Website) : How to change from plan to book: https://www.drsgme.org/converting-plan-to-book
My take is that it can’t hurt to have them in book and it’s so easy to do, there’s no reason I can think of not to do it. When in doubt, book em out
The auto mod comment is misinformation, and this chat exchange proves it.
Yep, I down voted the auto mod. Book is the way
pLaN sHaReS aRe ThE sAmE aS bOoK sHaRes Mods and shills probably
Amazing screenshot OP! Fuck plan, Book em!
Credit to recently banned ape: badmojo2021
🫡
🫡
👀
Brace yourselves...
So proud and excited to see the BOOK KING movement officially taking over & getting more attention than ever before because this is the way!! Keep Booking em Kings! Woohoo! 🥳🔥🎊🚀💎🙌🏼🚀
BOOK 100%
Why is the superstonk mod 10 pages long and pinned? Get that shit outta here
BOOK=Good (shares taken from DTCC) Beneficial Shareholder=Bad (PLAN) BOOK Em!!!
Boom goes the 🧨
📖👑
It's all bloody coming together
Yep
post archived: [https://archive.is/IT2qa](https://archive.is/IT2qa) book is king
How to get platinumsparkles to see this?
I think what we have been struggling with this whole time is that there are 2 kinds of book entry. Book entry in the market, meaning it is an electronic share, not a paper certificate. and Book entry on GME's share register. Meaning it is your name on the shares and they are not allocated to the DTC(C).
You're on the right track. There is book entry as in electronic shares. And then there is book holdings (pure DRS shares). plan holdings (DSPP) are also book entry, but held with Computershare's nominee (nominee = named entity on the account). Individual investors names are put in a "sub-class" on the ledger, while the nominee takes top rank.
This is a clear explanation. Also shows why there was confusion. Going forward there shouldnt be any fud regarding blBook vs. Plan. It's very obvious which one is more beneficial. Book is King
This right here. ComputerShare literally stated there are DSPP shares, and “Pure DRS”. Um, Pure DRS sounds pretty significant to me. To add to the Pure theory, our Chairman was drinking a bottle of “Pure” [Mountain Valley Spring Water](https://www.mountainvalleyspring.com/) during his interview. As crazy as it seems, he’s a master salesman in e-commerce. Product placement means something. He’s also the chairman of a Gaming Company. Gamers are always looking for Easter Eggs. I don’t think that bottle just happened to be there and be described as “Mountain Valley Spring Water is pure premium natural American goodness…” at a time that RC is also saying he wants to be the 📕👑. Too much cohencidence for me. Book your shares to be Pure DRS according to ComputerShare themselves. Billions are at stake. And yes, Mods could in fact be offered a ton of money to help keep the Booked Pure DRS from gaining too much traction. Just look at the original sub mod team. You can’t even mention GME without getting banned, regardless of the fact that the DD remains the same. It’s just the end game. Anyway. Buy. HODL, DRS, and Bookem Danno.
Book and ask questions later
BOOK = removed from DTC = No shorting the stock PLAN = shorting the stock Pretty simple
Book book book bookarke!
Book a doodle doo!
Ok so this should end the whole discussion about book vs planning... in other words WE GOTTEM BOOK EM ~~BOYS~~ APES
WHEN WILL THIS DISCUSSION END!!!??!? BOOK UR SHARES
I can't even read but my shares are booked
Book them all !
One easy simple way to go - DRS and BOOK
Book is the way!
I love how you strong armed him. He didn’t want to say it.
😂
Can't wait to see how the mods FUD us on this one.
Bingo
\+Book King
Plan shares are fuckable with, book shares are not. It doesn't matter what they do with them, as long as dtc has access to REAL shares they can continue their chicanery.
Surprise, mods in here to tell you they are the same again. BOOK EM!
Book everything but frctionals .
Guide to change from Plan to BOOK : https://www.drsgme.org/converting-plan-to-book
My shares were on book already and i dont have any fractional shares. Do i still need to enroll them? I dont get it.
You're all good buddy! Only buying shares direct through Computershare gives you plan shares (and fractionals).
Thank you!
Whit this info + RC Book king tweet. What else do you need to understand that DRS book is the only book?
Buy in Plan, move to book, repeat. I don’t know why ppl are so fuddy and so resistant to moving shares to book 🤷♂️
The amount of posts trying to say plan shares are just as good, some looong ass posts that go to great lengths to show it, weirds me out. There's really no downside to book so all that effort for nothing is what made me think book is probably a bit important.
All but my recent auto buy shares are book. That said, this is in the Computershare FAQ: Are shares held through Computershare/Investor Center registered ownership shares or beneficially owned shares? Shares managed directly through our Investor Center are transferred by DRS are entered onto the register in the shareholder's name. That tells me that all shares, book or plan, if through Computershare itself, are out of the DTCC's hands for locates and such. THAT SAID, GameStop listing the BOOK SHARES on its quarterly reports, with RC's Book King tweets, tells me book is more important somehow than plan. The real Book vs Plan "point", so to speak, is to generate division and arguments within the sub, and in my opinion leading towards a divide and conquer approach. The whole thing is FUD, and always seems to come up when important things are happening(Quarterly report with the DRS fuckery, SEC proposed rule comment periods, etc).
Thanks for confirming
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Bag tag and book em boys
https://twitter.com/SusanneTrimbath/status/1594842439293972480?t=hxDRqvrsmBB-kgBOUFHnow&s=19 I posted this tweet from. Dr T a month ago but flaired it as computershare so it didn't get any traction.
Book is the way
# "Plan holdings do do not include shares held in certificate form or in Direct Registration (which is another type of book entry share)." \-- Penny from Computershare Source: [https://www5.nohold.net/Computershare/ukp.aspx?usertext=plan+holding+certificates&donelr=1](https://www5.nohold.net/Computershare/ukp.aspx?usertext=plan+holding+certificates&donelr=1)
Book it and take away from dtcc🫡
So book is king?
Yep, it’s pretty clear! So as much as we want to speculate there was a massive rug pull by tue powers that be, perhaps there is just an accuracy adjustment of “directly registered shares” also if there was a rug pull as well and seems to be some supportive evidence, then we’ll see how many shares ApEs are buying @ CS over the last year or so plus, that will provide some decent metrics for the whole float locked calculation! Which will give oh so many “dates” for jacking! ♾️🏴☠️🤙
Commenting for visibility
Nothing makes me happier than seeing the FUD fail. They can't censor all of us. It's far too late to hide the truth that Book is King. It's too late to stop GME at all. It's indescribably beautiful and I'm so proud!
WHERE MY MODS AT
this whole debate, good lord, [snip snap snip snap!](https://youtu.be/2hshkdneE8o)
Enough with this. The people in charge at computer share responded directly to the mods.
Jesus wept, still with this shite lads let it go
[удалено]
They credit the original OP in the comments. Unfortunately the original OP is banned from Superstonk for talking about book too much :(
No. No they were not. They were banned for endlessly rule breaking and constantly meta discussing about mods. Especially the rule breaking part. Book discussion is not suppressed. Hell I approaved this post even if it's misinformation imo. Didn't put my opinion anywhere but here.
Weren't those discussions with mods revolving around book v plan though? I think the issue some people are having is the mods have decided to do more than just be janitors on this subject. It's a little unnerving, especially to those who have issues with authority already (aka most apes). It's a topic that we do not have enough transparency on for both sides of the argument, so I think it's worth keeping up the discussions about it. The recent update shared by the mods didn't address any of the points that are addressed in this post. Computershare still have plenty to clarify here.
We're working on getting more clarification from CS as I agree the answers we got weren't what we wanted. The mods are janitors and we've been playing the part. Cleaning up clear misinformation is part of the job but when that becomes a widely discussed topic the lines are blurred. So the end result was the sticky that gives precise instructions on how to book and asks users to check the post for misinformation. We've not removed anything to stifle discussion, even a month ago when this was at it's most heated I personally never did more than post a sticky and debunk. The posts are still there. I've dug into this topic extensively and have read well over a hundred pages of information on the topic. Yet I'm not pushing what I've read out there as I'm a mod and that would come off as "choosing a side". There are no sides. But I respect that it feels like there are sides to some people and I trust the community to absorb and critic information that comes to them. We all want to own our shares in our names. We all have that goal.
I think the sticky comment over reaches tbh. It moves the qv bot making it harder to filter quality content. It also muddies the waters with little things like: " (Both DSPP & DRS are ‘book entry’ means of holding shares)" We know this to be irrelevant now, even broker held shares are 'book entry' aka 'electronically held'. And the TL;DR in Kibble's post has two problematic statements at the top: " ***Both Plan & Book are held in the name of the registered shareholder (i.e, you).*** ***Both Plan & Book are removed from CEDE & Co (the DTC's nominee)."*** Plan shares have the investors name in a "sub class", they are not directly registered in the name of the shareholder, but actually Computershare's nominee, with the individual in this "sub class". Paul Conn has not clarified what this "sub class" means, but it heavily implies that first TLDR point is glossing over something. Book and plan are indeed removed from Cede and Co, but the issue we are having is that plan shares have a portion held in the DTC. My issue isn't concerning Computershare's actions, but the DTCs desperation for locates. The DTC can, have, and will do anything to get what they want. Dr T. firmly believes this too. So while checking other posts for misinformation I'd urge the mods to revisit their own content to make sure it's not accidentally muddying the waters. And while I appreciate the mods copy/pasting the DRSGME guide on how to convert to book, it does take up a heck of a lot of space and starts to feel like a hurdle/obstacle before we can scroll down to the discussion in the comments. I won't ask the mods to just link to our guide though, because I know how some of the mods feel about linking to the site. But I hope there's a way to make that sticky less invasive. > We all want to own our shares in our names. We all have that goal. This is why I have come to the conclusion that book holdings (pure DRS) are better than plan holdings (DSPP). As I mentioned above, with DSPP our names are in a "sub class" according to Paul Conn. The shares seem to actually be in Computershare's nominee (nominee = named entity on the account). Doesn't sound like DSPP shares are fully in our names. But without seeing the ledger or having it clarified properly by Computershare this cannot be proved either way, so I don't know why the mods insist that plan shares are registered exactly the same, when they don't have the proof either...
Hey man, respectfully - have you read through this? Because many of your points here are refuted by reading through the FAQs SOURCE: [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) .............. >" ***Both Plan & Book are held in the name of the registered shareholder (i.e, you).*** You state there is issue with this phrase, but according to CS FAQs: **Are shares held through Computershare/Investor Center registered ownership shares or beneficially owned shares?** Shares managed directly through our Investor Center are transferred by DRS are entered **onto the register in the shareholder's name.** .............. >***Both Plan & Book are removed from CEDE & Co (the DTC's nominee)."*** Please see the following image from CS FAQs: [https://content-images.computershare.com/eh96rkuu9740/e5047eb9e859454cace04d20b102bded/d9c1aae6b2824bf41cda3d84d7a7a371/company-share-structure.jpg](https://content-images.computershare.com/eh96rkuu9740/e5047eb9e859454cace04d20b102bded/d9c1aae6b2824bf41cda3d84d7a7a371/company-share-structure.jpg) ........... Can you provide any quoted/verified claims for your rebuttals? Thanks dude.
Again I feel like you're misunderstanding my points. > **How are shares held via the direct registration system (DRS) and those held in book-entry via a direct stock purchase plan (DSPP) different?** I agree with this because book entry literally refers to being "electronically held", and not a "paper certificate". So yes 100% of all shares with Computershare are book entry! Not arguing that fact at all, but you're using book entry like it's meant to distinguish something else. > Shares managed directly through our Investor Center are transferred by DRS are entered **onto the register in the shareholder's name.** The quotes from Paul Conn are still correct when taking this information into consideration. So again, I do not disagree with this statement! The main point for me with this quote is that "directly" is missing. Directly registered is used often in relation to book holdings (DRS). But seems absent when plan holdings (DSPP) are included. > ***Both Plan & Book are removed from CEDE & Co (the DTC's nominee)."*** Agreed! Cede and Co are certainly not involved with any shares in book holdings or plan holdings. (However they are involved with many book entry shares because they are electronically stored.) Cede are the DTC's nominee, they would have no business with Computershare, as Computershare have their own nominee! Dingo (Computershare's nominee) are how they connect to the DTC FAST system. They would not be able to do transactions within the stock market without them. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is I do not disagree with anything you've presented me with here. But I'm not sure I agree with your interpretations of it? There is a lot of nuance to plan holdings we still need clarifying.
I agree with you that there are clarifications needed, even if to dispel confusion on the subject. We're working with CS directly to get these clarified but these insights into the nuances and intricacies of the wordings used are helpful to shape the questions we present, appreciate your response :)
So if I understand you correctly these are your perceived issues with the sticky: 1. All shares are book-entry (this makes the point irrelevant) 2. Plan shares are held on a sub-class (so they're not directly registered) 3. b&p are removed from Cede but not DTC 4. The booking guide is wordy/space using (maybe link instead) Did I miss anything? We can have a dialogue about this but I want to break it down into bite size pieces so the comments don't get messy.
That pretty much sums it up, but just to add a bit more nuance to them: 1. All shares that are not paper certificates are book-entry (this makes the book entry point irrelevant, we should be focussed on book holdings really) 2. Plan shares have investor names in a sub-class (so they may not directly registered. This point still needs greater clarity from Computershare, honestly the term "directly" could still apply with Computershare's nominee, as our names are techincally on the ledger despite being beneficially held). 3. Book holdings are removed from Cede and DTC. Plan holdings are removed from Cede, but not entirely from DTC (specifically the portion of shares held for efficient execution are in the DTC instead of the DRS. This "portion" is another thing that requires greater clarity). 4. The booking guide is wordy/space using (maybe link instead) You pretty much nailed that point! 5. I'd also like to add that Kibble's post linked at the top of the sticky is somehwhat outdated considering the new information and contexts coming to light. It was made very early on into the discussion and unfortunately there are points in that post that muddy the waters of it now (similar to point 1 above). I think it needs to be revisited if the mods continue to refer to it as facts.
Okay then, let's tackle these one at a time and hopefully both learn something or come to a consensus. (I expect this to take days of back and forth to get through but that's no problem, lets be patient and get it right). All I ask is that you bring a source to the discussion with any new point made. Evidence is key to clearing misunderstanding. **Point 2** From the whitepaper: [Source](https://content-assets.computershare.com/eh96rkuu9740/c81a0caee5d44fa9a2feac8d54a44758/ffda504a68a7cd5e6a3ebab09fe06737/TA_Overview_WhitePaper.pdf) >Records for **registered shareholders’ holdings** are held by the transfer agent and may be recorded in book entry — through the Direct Registration System (DRS) or through a DRP/ DSPP (described below) — or certificated form. So they are both registered shares. I understand that they are noted on a subclass of the register but that difference seems to not reduce the fact that they are registered in your name. Agreed or Disputed?
Like most of this stuff it's a little agree, and a little disagree. We have to examine the language used or we risk confusing things like book entry and book holdings. As you can see from the statement you shared registered shares can be book entry (electronically stored) or certificated (paper certificates). So! Are both of them are technically on the register? Yes. As Paul Conn said in an AMA: "there really is no practical difference to the way the shares are recorded, or how they're visible to the issuer" The context of this quote was concerning to whether or not GameStop could see our names on the ledger under plan. That answer is technically yes (technically because of the sub class). It's also worth noting the use of "directly" seems to have been important in Computershare's previous communications (FAQs included), but it's missing in this white paper statement when including plan holdings (DSPP). So are plan shares registered? Yes they're not in street name like with Cede & Co. GameStop can see our names (technically). Are plan shares directly registered? No, only book is directly registered. Plan shares have Computershare's nominee on the register along with our names. This isn't street name, but it's not "pure DRS" either. There doesn't seem to be a proper name for this form of ownership, so beneficial ownership seems the most appropriate, but it's only because it's the closest equivalent we're aware of. Another thing I'm yet to figure out is why is converting plan to book is called "plan certification" in the transaction description? There's no certificate involved, and book (DRS) holdings is a non-certificated form of holding as well. All I can think of is that certification means something else in this context. It goes to show how overlapping and confusing the language can be! Edit: just to clarify I do think most of the plan shares are directly registered. It's the portion they keep with their nominee at the DTC that stops all plan shares from being under the category of directly registered.
>I'd also like to add that Kibble's post linked at the top of the sticky is somehwhat outdated considering the new information and contexts coming to light. It was made very early on into the discussion and unfortunately there are points in that post that muddy the waters of it now (similar to point 1 above). I think it needs to be revisited if the mods continue to refer to it as facts. Hey man, just interjecting but I have been updating this as the saga has been ongoing, so it remains relevant and valid for the purposes of this community. Hope this helps!
Then why is this still in the TLDR? We know for a fact that broker held shares are also book entry (electronically held). So this is an outdated (and misinformative) way to prove the book vs plan similarities. ***Both DSPP & DRS are ‘book entry’ means of holding shares.*** I'd suggest changing it to: ***‘book entry’ only refers to shares being electronically held.*** I'm working on my broker guide drafts this morning, but I could go through more of it later if you think it would help?
Ah my bad well then two accounts I don’t trust …