2012.08.17 09:48 Flammy Clash of Clans
2021.10.13 03:49 wharblegarblemuricah baseballoffseason2024
2017.09.26 06:27 SparksFlowing BaseballOffseason2021
2024.05.30 18:56 samdane7777 Policy Expert Scott Johnson
2024.05.29 15:57 lbabinz [PSN] Days of Play Sale
2024.05.25 06:17 Ravant-Ilo Psionics and Ninjas and Superspys are a WILD combo
2024.05.20 17:41 DrEyeBall GME: Summary of Events and What is Coming
Hello! Just wanted to catch others up to speed (not that the majority do NOT know here) and have this post serve as a reference down the road. I'm going to make this relatively short and sweet with links/references. This is just grazing the surface as many of these points have been expanded upon by others over the months/years. Also I think this is my first Teddy post! submitted by DrEyeBall to Teddy [link] [comments] Disclaimer: These are my opinions. I am not telling you to do anything. Recent Stock VolatilityThere were likely multiple reasons for recent price action:
Teddy TinfoilI would say Keith eats tinfoil for breakfast. There are quite a few possible references to Teddy / BBBY in Keith Gill's tweets. Chime in if I missed anything:
My Opinion on How This Is Going To Play OutCompany has now pre-released earnings financials and submitted a 45,000,000 share ATM offering and S3. I defer the reader to other posts discussing the S3 as it is complex. The important part of this is that at this point in time, anyone short the stock (directly, indirectly, etc.) is at considerable risk now and in the long term. Because of this:FIRST: There will be a short squeeze and GameStop will raise several billion dollars using their ATM offering. NEXT: The company will acquire one or several businesses for their Net Operating Losses (NOLs), legacy shorts, logistics, patents, and shareholders. I anticipate this in the fall/winter of 2024. THEN: I defer the reader to the many posts about reverse triangle mergers / depository trust unit dividends (possibly involving Teddy Bank). Other people would be able to better describe this than me. What Price Action Will Happen?I expect a short squeeze within the next 2 months. Astrologists predict the price could reach several hundred to several thousand dollars per share, possibly following Fibonacci levels, possibly going to the whole round numbers of 69, 420, 741, and beyond. I anticipate the price will remain high to prevent further speculative investing after this.
Fuckery is PossibleThis goes without saying, but I would go into this anticipating the following:
WHAT'S IN THE BOX!? (Why is this happening)The company has been setting up for M&A for quite a while. Some of this has been foretold (see my profile for posts called Welcome to GMERICA and We're Pregnant - unable to link to SS here) by others (see Edwinbarnesc, and many more).1: Change to a Holding Company
2: Many other factors
3: Market psychology
https://preview.redd.it/lcl1o04xil1d1.png?width=888&format=png&auto=webp&s=77177878d920104a76cfe5e83dffb8514db01626 Thank you for reading! |
2024.05.16 21:28 Independent_Rough_69 Do we know about this? The MOASS killer law???
2024.05.15 21:37 airplane3579 AMC's float sold over 150% short by Hedge funds (Table C) since Friday alone
OCC Market Data Market Loan-Loan Balance (Market-Maker Table B) vs Hedge Loan Balance (H.F. Table C) submitted by airplane3579 to amcstock [link] [comments] |
2024.05.15 15:08 WhatCanIMakeToday Operational Efficiency Shares: Rehypothecating 🐇🐇🐇🐇 And Breaking Free Of Chains [WalkThrough] (4/n)
From the prior DD in this series [1], we know that ComputerShare can “give” the DTC registered DSPP shares to hold onto for operational efficiency which are then “given back” as shares beneficially owned “for the benefit of” (“FBO”) DSPP Plan Participants at ComputerShare, as illustrated in this diagram: submitted by WhatCanIMakeToday to Superstonk [link] [comments] From The Prerequisite DD It’s time to explore what “operational efficiency” benefits may be gained by DSPP shares going around this roundabout. At first glance, shares are basically just going in a big circle from DSPP Plan Participants with registered ownership DSPP shares at ComputerShare heading to the DTC, who hands shares to ComputerShare’s broker who maintains those shares for the benefit of ComputerShare who holds those shares for the benefit of Plan Participants. While I think it’s unlikely that shares just go around in a big fat circle for no reason, I do remember people getting onto flights to literally go nowhere a few years ago [CNN, NYT]; so maybe these operational efficiency shares simply miss hanging out at the DTC? Let’s look more closely… While title is held by a registered DSPP Plan Participant, ComputerShare is giving the DTC possession [1] of registered DSPP shares to the DTC to hold for operational efficiency which then ultimately end back in the possession of ComputerShare’s broker (who isn’t lending out shares) for the benefit of ComputerShare for the benefit of Plan Participants. If we treat the DTC’s operations as a big black box, we see registered shares going into the DTC black box and beneficially owned shares coming out of the black box to ComputerShare for Plan Participants. DTCC Black Box: Inputs vs Outputs Investopedia says that shareholders have rights, with a list of 6 main rights including:
§ 240.13d-3 Determination of beneficial owner.ComputerShare basically confirms this list (except for the right to sue as that’s probably not one their issuer customers would emphasize) and adds that beneficially held shares may be lent by brokers generally (but not by ComputerShare’s broker). Registered Shareholder Rights vs Beneficial Owner Rights Maybe you’ve had different experiences from me, but I’ve never known Wall St to deliver more than the bare minimum they’re contractually obligated to. Which means the DTC black box is very likely watering down shareholder rights from the 6 that go in down to the 2 which come out. (And yet, we’re supposed to believe that all shares are equal. 🙄) Dividends (#4 on the list) [2] may be the clearest example of a watered down shareholder right. Registered shareholders have the right “to directly receive share dividends” [CS FAQ] which means if a company (e.g., GameStop or OverStock) issues a dividend, registered shareholders have the right to directly receive the dividend as issued. If the company issues a crypto dividend (as OverStock tried to do), registered shareholders have the right to directly receive the issued crypto dividend. Beneficial shareholders would get an issued dividend, if available, or a cash equivalent if not. Historically, stock and other dividends to beneficial shareholders could easily be delivered as a cash equivalent, a watered down form. Crypto dividends don’t scale well with shorts (both naked and legal via, for example, share lending and borrowing) because crypto tokens are unique which makes it abundantly clear why a crypto dividend was nixed for a heavily shorted idiosyncratic stock like GameStop; especially given GameStop’s particularly active shareholders. Ownership (#2 on the list) may be the second clearest example of a watered down shareholder right as more security interests to shares exist in the DTC’s beneficial ownership system than there are shares; with the SEC saying beneficial shares get a pro rata interest in the securities of that issue held by DTC. [See End Game Part Deux: Problems at the DTCC plus The Bigger Picture, particularly the section “The Pie Is Shrinking: Get Out (And DRS) While You Can”] Voting (#1 on the list) is also an example watered down shareholder right; this one having a long history on this sub with, for example, BroadRidge tossing 7B votes and bragging about it. (Beneficial owners only need to get shared voting rights per Rule 13d-3 above so those 7B “shared” votes just lost out to who they shared with.) Unlike other beneficially held shares, voting rights for DSPP shares are not watered down as ComputerShare sends registered holders their voting forms. Operational Efficiency Shares, Whatcha Doing In There?A big black box is a pretty good description of the DTC which does not want us to know the ins and outs of what’s going on. Black holes are a pretty good example of a big black box and, most importantly, we know a lot about black holes even though they can’t be directly observed. Just as we learned about black holes without direct observation, we can similarly learn a lot about the Operational Efficiency shares even though we can’t directly observe them in the DTC habitat.Even though we can’t look inside the DTC’s big black box, it turns out we don’t really have to in order to identify some benefits from these operational efficiency shares taking their roundabout trip to nowhere. Locates A few commenters have suggested that OE shares could be used for locates so I’ll address this first. Possible, yes. But I don’t view this as the most interesting use for OE shares. Brokers are supposed to “locate” securities available for borrowing before short selling. [Wikipedia)] Basically, before selling short a broker is supposed to find a source to borrow. The “locate” requirement does NOT require the security to be borrowed before short selling which can result in a legal naked short. You may be wondering why I don’t view “locates” as particularly interesting for OE shares if short sellers need to locate shares to borrow before shorting. Well, market makers are also exempt from this requirement as long as they’re market making. 🙄 On top of the market maker exemption, remember House Of Cards? In House Of Cards 3 [SuperStonk], we learned about the now 🤦♂️ hilarious F**3 key **- yeah, the one on a keyboard. Brokers like Goldman found the locate requirement simply too much work so they would press the F3 key and their system would auto-approve the locate requirement based only on the number of shares available to borrow at the beginning of the day; regardless of whether those shares were still available to borrow or not. House Of Cards 3 Meaning as long as there were some shares available to borrow at the beginning of the day for their share copying system, brokers could just smash the F3 key to make as many copies of shares as they need. Even if only 1 share was available to borrow at the beginning of the day, a broker could simply smash the F3 key 100 times to approve the locate requirement for 100 shares. So while OE shares could be used for locates, they wouldn’t need many shares each day to make an unlimited number of copies - even just 1 is enough. Lending shares on the other hand… Rehypothecation Rehypothecation is the reuse of customer collateral for lending. Per a 2010 IMF Working Paper, The (sizable) Role of Rehypothecation in the Shadow Banking System, Rehypothecation occurs when the collateral posted by a prime brokerage client (e.g., hedge fund) to its prime broker is used as collateral also by the prime broker for its own purposes.This IMF paper defined a “churning factor” to measure how many times an asset may be reused; and then estimated a churning factor of 4 noting that it could be higher because international banks (e.g., HSBC and Nomura) were not sampled. This IMF paper found a single asset may be lent and borrowed 4 times, or more; an average which could be higher globally. https://preview.redd.it/ymr3j03zri0d1.png?width=795&format=png&auto=webp&s=1555314cefd520658a4f78dc4745867063e3bf34 Churn Factor Could Be Higher Globally How much higher? We may have seen a churn factor as high as 10 for a less idiosyncratic meme stock per my prior post, Estimating Excess GME Share Liquidity From Borrow Data & Churn Factor. Presumably, the idiosyncratic meme stock would have a higher churn factor (but not that important for this post). More recently (2018), the Federal Reserve published this Fed Note on The Ins and Outs of Collateral Re-use studying how often collateral is reused (i.e., rehypothecated) for Treasury & non-Treasury securities [3] with a beautiful figure illustrating how “for any given moment in time, one security can be attributed to multiple financial transactions” where a share could be posted multiple times through Security Financing Transactions (SFTs) and sold short. [4] Sounds familiar, right? https://preview.redd.it/zsztmji4si0d1.png?width=1530&format=png&auto=webp&s=f222dfe50929f668af8f8f0b39514a7d862db9c9 Figure 6c of this Fed Note shows a Collateral Multiplier over time illustrating how “PDs [Primary Dealers] currently re-use about three times as many securities as they own for non-Treasury collateral and seven times as many securities as they own for U.S. Treasury securities”. AKA \"Money Multiplier\" The Fed Note describes their Collateral Multiplier as a “money multiplier” (Seriously, I couldn’t have made this up in a million years.), In a sense, our Collateral Multiplier is akin to a "money multiplier," as it compares private liabilities created by a firm with the amount of specific assets held to create those liabilities. [The Ins and Outs of Collateral Re-use]And, of course, the Collateral Multiplier aka “money multiplier” ratio goes up when there’s less collateral available and down when there’s more collateral available. (Can I get one of these multipliers?) Intuitively, we expect the ratio to increase when collateral is scarce and to decrease when collateral is more abundant.Which means Primary Dealers [Wikipedia has a list of familiar names including Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Nomura, BofA, Citigroup, TD, UBS, and Wells Fargo; amongst others] can simply kick securities around a few extra times (e.g., with SFTs and short sells) to effectively multiply the amount of money and/or collateral they have any time they need it. (Within limits, I hope…) Thus, rehypothecation is a very interesting use of Operational Efficiency shares from ComputerShare as various primary dealers can simply “multiply” the number of shares they have – a concept that we’re already quite familiar with. As rehypothecation, short sells, and securities financing transactions are all perfectly legal, rehypothecating more GameStop shares provided to the DTC via operational efficiency satisfies Ground Rule #2 [defined in (1/n) in this series], We can update our conceptual model to include rehypothecation to more clearly illustrate how Operational Efficiency shares held in the DTC can be rehypothecated (e.g., with SFTs and short sells) until a watered down share is delivered to ComputerShare’s broker to hold FBO ComputerShare, who holds the watered down share FBO DSPP Plan Participants. https://preview.redd.it/bt3gnx99si0d1.png?width=4764&format=png&auto=webp&s=7b0b72b935f740e8a3036f88e1a4e1dfb57dd46c You might notice from this illustration that ComputerShare has been telling the truth satisfying Ground Rule #1 [defined in (1/n) in this series]. Neither ComputerShare’s nor their broker lend or need to lend shares. All the rehypothecation happens “upstream” amongst other DTCC and NSCC Participants until shares are finally delivered to ComputerShare’s broker at the end of the “Churn Chain”. ComputerShare has made no representations about what the DTC can or can not do with the shares in their possession. And, realistically, ComputerShare is in no position to make any representations about what happens within the DTCC system – ComputerShare is only responsible for themselves and, to some extent, their broker. The Fed Note and IMF paper found assets may be churned and reused 3-4 times (overall market average) which means the end of the chain is typically around D3 or D4. (If my prior DD estimates are correct, there were signs a less idiosyncratic meme stock may be churned up to 10 times ending the chain at D10 which suggests a potentially longer chain for GME, the idiosyncratic meme stock.) If there is no collateral reuse for an asset, the chain would have zero length meaning Operational Efficiency shares go straight from the DTC directly to ComputerShare’s broker. (Programmers almost certainly understand zero length chains very well – go find one if you need an explanation.) GameStop is idiosyncratic, thus atypical. Per the IMF paper, collateral reuse increases when collateral is scarce and decreases when collateral is abundant (quoted above). If we consider GameStop investors have been direct registering shares (i.e., DRS) and registering shares (e.g., DSPP) thereby removing title and/or possession of shares from the DTC/DTCC/Cede & Co, then GameStop share availability has been becoming more scarce and the “Churn Chain” for GME should be longer than average representing a higher collateral multiplier and churn value. While we may not know the exact length of the Churn Chain for GameStop shares, we can pretty well surmise that it’s not a zero length Churn Chain where there is no collateral reuse based simply on scarcity. After all, a shortage of available shares is, by definition, required for any short squeeze (including MOASS). Requests by brokers to enable Share Lending [5] is another example indicator that GameStop shares are scarce. In addition, according to Investopedia [6], “Banks, brokers, or other financial institutions may navigate a liquidity crunch and access capital by rehypothecating client funds” and we’ve seen indicators showing us banks are in deep trouble:
There are also leverage considerations that increase that risk of default. Overleveraged investments often face covenants; when specific conditions are met, trading accounts may receive a margin call or face debt default. As a row of dominos fall after a single collapse, a single margin call may cause other debts to fail their account maintenance requirements, setting off a chain reaction that places the institution at higher risk of overall default. [6]This risk for rehypothecation sounds exactly like what the Options Clearing Corporation was complaining about to the SEC when the OCC Proposed Reducing Margin Requirements To Prevent A Cascade of Clearing Member Failures [SuperStonk] early 2024. If the OCC can eliminate margin calls, then no dominos get knocked down. (Thankfully, apes have done a phenomenal job in convincing the SEC that this OCC proposal is a very bad idea. Support the SEC’s rejection of this as Simians Smash SEC Rule Proposal To Reduce Margin Requirements To Prevent A Cascade of Clearing Member Failures!) Most importantly, it may be tough to regain possession of an asset when someone in the rehypothecation chain defaults. Remember from the prior DD the expression about possession: Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Clients must be aware of rehypothecation as it is technically their own assets that have been pledged for someone else's debt. This creates complicated creditor issues where an investors shares may longer be in their possession due to their custodian's default. [6]We know assets are rehypothecated 3-4 times on average, GameStop shares are scarce, banks are in trouble, stock loan volume is skyhigh, and the risks of rehypothecation are real. So it’s pretty clear that rehypothecation is happening generally with pretty darn good reason to expect GameStop’s Churn Chain is at least of non-zero length (i.e., GameStop stock is being rehypothecated). Breaking The ChainsWhile some may like chains and being tied up, I’m not one of those apes. Especially as a Churn Chain waters down my shareholder rights and may make regaining possession of DSPP stock difficult in the event of a cascade of defaults, as warned by the OCC. (If you like chains, feel free to skip this section.)As it turns out, we don’t need to know exactly how long the Churn Chain is for GameStop stock. Simply knowing a Churn Chain exists with non-zero length means there is a chain. Where there is a chain, it’s possible to break the chain. (Even if you don’t know how much health) your enemy has in a game, you still try to take your enemy out. Right?) A churn chain that starts from ComputerShare holding DSPP shares in DTC for operational efficiency can easily be broken as “[a]n investor can, at any time, withdraw all or part of their shares in DSPP book-entry form and have them added to their DRS holding”. [ComputerShare] See also [7]. Quite possibly one of the easiest chains in the world to break as the Churn Chain is weak to DRS. Simply DRS the DSPP shares to take away the head of the chain and the rest of the chain falls apart. (And, DRS-ing "street name" shares cuts chains into pieces too!) One side effect of breaking a Churn Chain is that all shares attributed to transactions in a broken chain (e.g., SFTs and short sells) need to be reallocated to other chains, effectively making other chains longer and increasing the risks from a default. Analogy: Think of the shares as a deck of cards. If you deal 52 cards to 4 players (A, B, C and D), each player gets 13 cards. Each stack of 13 cards is basically a Churn Chain. But if you take out a stack by removing the bottom card from A and distribute the remaining 12 cards from A to B, C and D then B, C and D each now have 17 cards. If at any given time a card can cause a player to lose the game, it's better to have fewer cards than more. And, the players who get out early won't lose. Any party in the Churn Chain who defaults will make it hard for the original owner to regain possession. Longer chains include more transactions and more parties so there’s more risk of default on longer chains than shorter chains. Thus we see another vicious cycle setup where incentives are aligned such that DSPP and beneficial shareholders may want to avoid the impending default and rehypothecation risk from their shares being held in DTC. In order to avoid the impending default and rehypothecation risks, shareholders are incentivized to Directly Register shares to ensure having both title and possession. (Shares held in “street name” have little or no protection from rehypothecation risk and simply registering shares in DSPP doesn’t guarantee possession [1].) As with the other vicious cycle, any remaining shareholders in DTC share a shrinking pie of diluted ownership so it is in their best interest to get out and DRS; thereby shrinking the diluted ownership pie even more which is more reason for remaining shareholders to get out. These vicious cycles will eventually leave few, if any, remaining shares at the DTC for beneficial shareholders. Nobody knows what will happen if this ♾️🏊 happens. Footnotes[1] If you haven’t already, please read the prerequisite DD in this WalkThrough Series to understand how ownership of property is separated into two concepts: title and possession. [See, e.g., StackExchange] Understanding the differences between title and possession are particularly important here where it’s worth being extra careful identifying how an entity is in control of an asset.
[3] Footnote 16 of the Fed Note itemizes various classes of non-Treasury collateral which includes equity which, per Investopedia, is a synonym for stocks. [4] While short selling is pretty well known, Security Financing Transactions (SFTs) may be more obscure despite discussion of them in the past so here’s some historical SuperStonk links for you (where you may notice some well known OG DD apes):
[6] https://www.investopedia.com/ REMOVE_FOR_AUTOMOD terms/r REMOVE_FOR_AUTOMOD /rehypothecation.asp [7] Withdrawing whole DSPP shares into DRS seems to make a lot of sense as doing so guarantees possession. Selling fractionals, less so. If you intend to keep buying, I would think adding to the fractionals to later withdraw whole shares makes more sense. As for the concern about fractionals tainting the whole account, I’ll cover that in another post. For now, you do you. |
2024.05.15 05:14 mmilad Need more attention on the rules proposed by the NSCC/OCC to the SEC
2024.05.15 04:09 MousseSensitive4044 ASK AND THOU SHALL RECEIVE!!! Unorthodox Gameplay 4: The Kitchen is on fire!
2024.05.10 18:10 juarcho98 Trabajo como líder en finanzas de una empresa y trabajo +15 hrs diarias
2024.05.10 00:51 JKREDDIT75 Kelsey Heather (Randi Rah Rah 2.0) vs. Emily Locke vs. Kaitland Alexis, "SHINE 77", OCC Roadhouse, Clearwater, FL, January 28, 2024.
submitted by JKREDDIT75 to QueensoftheRing [link] [comments] |
2024.05.10 00:50 JKREDDIT75 Kelsey Heather (Randi Rah Rah 2.0) vs. Emily Locke vs. Kaitland Alexis, "SHINE 77", OCC Roadhouse, Clearwater, FL, January 28, 2024.
submitted by JKREDDIT75 to WOW_wrestling [link] [comments] |
2024.05.03 23:11 T-W-H94 MEME
submitted by T-W-H94 to XCOM2 [link] [comments]
2024.05.02 05:44 TimHendel My Gift To You, RTX4000 Optimized INI files after 24-48 combined hours of researching and tweaking
2024.05.01 19:18 Sychamis Lotus 1 theme port to my sequencer
2024.05.01 17:00 PikachuLovet saw this in a library and found it beautiful
submitted by PikachuLovet to junjiito [link] [comments]
2024.05.01 01:36 WhatCanIMakeToday DSPP is technically different from DRS [WalkThrough] (1/n)
Put your pitchforks down, the title is from ComputerShare: submitted by WhatCanIMakeToday to Superstonk [link] [comments] https://preview.redd.it/lztqhiwm0pxc1.png?width=621&format=png&auto=webp&s=035fb124c426ee39489dce2c2bcd024cd82bcf6c When someone tells me two things are technically different, but for many practical purposes are the same; I want to know the differences. Let me give you a contrived example: US Currency bills. Unlike many other currencies, US money is all the same size and shape with minor technical differences in color and design. For example, the printed designs may vary between bills and some numbers, like serial numbers, may be different between bills. For many practical purposes, all US Currency bills are the same, allowing you to purchase goods and services with legal tender for all debts, public and private. Money Money Money. Similar or Different? See what I did there? We all know better that a $100 bill is worth more than a $10 bill; despite my contrived example. But someone who didn’t know and relied only upon the example might not recognize the value differences. I remember when Beneficial Ownership of shares was perfectly fine; until we figured out Registered Ownership. The technical differences between DSPP and pure DRS are very interesting and will challenge some preconceptions. This is the first in a series of posts; slowly reviewing evidence step-by-step to walk through evidence that has been staring us in the face so that we can all (hopefully) end up on the same page together with a better understanding of DSPP and DRS. Ground RulesWe’re going to set some ground rules for this series of posts (none of these should be contentious):
Directly Registered Shares, DefinedAs much as we think we understand this term, AFAIK, we have never defined the meaning of Directly Registered Shares. We know that when we tell our broker to directly register our shares they end up in ComputerShare. But what does Directly Registering Shares really mean? FINRA and the SEC can help us out:A third way to hold securities is through direct registration. This means that the securities are registered directly in your name on the issuer’s books and are held for you in book-entry form by either the issuer or its transfer agent. The transfer agent—hired by the issuer to maintain shareowner records—must be eligible and admitted to the Direct Registration System (DRS) by the Depository Trust Company (DTC). [FINRA]Thus, according to FINRA and the SEC, we can identify three (3) defining characteristics of “directly registered” shares:
https://preview.redd.it/myn40ncg1pxc1.png?width=3492&format=png&auto=webp&s=b11704bca944f3958843a95f05c3d735fc1c61cc We also know from ComputerShare and Westlaw) that shares registered to your name on the issuer’s books are also known as shares held of record (i.e., registered shareholders are “shareholders of record” or “record holders” pursuant to Rule 240.12g5-1 Definition of securities “held of record”), with direct title to the shares. Record HODL is BEST HODL. We can thus map the 3 characteristics of directly registered shares against ComputerShare’s description of DSPP and pure DRS to identify technical differences as shown by this table: https://preview.redd.it/e0zmblo84pxc1.png?width=3304&format=png&auto=webp&s=1fc087f76eee4f244a8345fb07d4ad38b4dc3801 Both DSPP and pure DRS record the names of the investors on the issuer's register (i.e., books) satisfying (1) and also are book entry means of holding shares checking off (2). However, the technical difference for requirement (3) on who holds the shares. Notably, ComputerShare discloses that a portion of the DSPP shares may be held in DTC rather than held by the transfer agent; and these DSPP shares held in DTC are eligible to be withdrawn from DTC. Thus, by ComputerShare’s own documentation, DSPP shares may not meet all three requirements for directly registered shares. According to Paul Conn, 10-20% of DSPP shares are typically held in DTC for operational efficiency. Typically, 80-90% of DSPP shares are held by the transfer agent while 10-20% of DSPP shares are held in DTC. Thus, the shares in DTC taint the DSPP “pot” containing the aggregate collection of DSPP shares so that the aggregate doesn’t meet all three requirements for directly registered shares. GameStop, of course, is idiosyncratic which is the opposite of typical. Thus, it stands to reason that either 0-9% or 21-100% of GameStop DSPP shares will be held in DTC for operational efficiency. Of those atypical extremes, only absolute 0 (0.0%) shares held in DTC for operational efficiency (i.e., all DSPP shares are held by the transfer agent) allows the entire DSPP “pot” of shares to qualify as Pure DRS. Any other amount, including the typical 10-20% of shares used for operational efficiency, means that the DSPP “pot” has some shares held by the DTC which necessarily means that the aggregate collection of DSPP shares can’t meet all three requirements for directly registered shares. The odds of all DSPP shares being at the transfer agent is simply extremely low; especially when we know there's an abundant need for shares with shorts today becoming buyers tomorrow. Why Could Where Shares Held Be Important?First, imagine this scenario as an analogy: You own a car that is registered to you at the DMV to your home address. Normally, your car is on your property at your home (e.g., garage or driveway). You have direct title to your car and direct access to your car. In case shit happens (e.g., zombie apocalypse), you can run out to your car and drive away.But what if your wife drove the car over to her boyfriend’s place? You still own the car and have direct title to the car. However, access to the car is now limited as it’s over at your wife’s boyfriend’s place; and he (or both) could be zombies wanting to eat your brains. The car being at your wife’s boyfriend’s place isn’t usually a problem, but in the event shit happens (e.g., zombie apocalypse) you’re going to have to do the standard “let’s go get our car” mission to get the car from your wife’s boyfriend’s place. Bringing this analogy back to the real world, the concepts here are enshrined in law as title and possession. Title is distinct from possession), a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it []. In many cases, possession and title may each be transferred independently of the other. [Wikipedia: Title (property))]Car registration is analogous to a title demonstrating ownership of the car. The location of the car illustrates possession. If your car (i.e., registered to you) is at your house, you have both title and possession. If your car is at your wife’s boyfriend’s house, then you have title but not possession. And, in this case, your wife’s boyfriend has possession of your car, but not title. Successfully repossessing your car from your zombie wife and her boyfriend results in you having both title and possession again. ComputerShare is correct that for "many practical purposes" there won’t be any difference between DSPP and pure DRS as both are recognized as held by registered shareholders with direct title to the shares. HOWEVER, MOASS is special. MOASS has never happened before; much like the zombie apocalypse analogy. When MOASS happens, if DSPP shares are held by the DTC instead of the Transfer Agent, you might have to go on a mission to get your shares back to regain possession. To repo your shares, basically. This would probably means lawsuits, protracted litigation, and expensive lawyers. By contrast to DSPP where Plan Participants have title and maybe possession, Pure DRS has your shares safely at the Transfer Agent guaranteeing you both title and possession.
Third, understanding the technical differences between share holding methods allow us to make better informed decisions about how we want to hold our stonks. "Street Name" vs "Registered" vs "Directly Registered"Returning to the FINRA and SEC definitions, we can identify defining characteristics for “street name” and “registered ownership” with the same highlighting and color coding process, as shown:https://preview.redd.it/7t1txmv08pxc1.png?width=3524&format=png&auto=webp&s=82101b2355a2fc4749dc6191d00e2002ec05e737 There are, essentially, 3 classifications for holding stock: street name (e.g., in a brokerage), registered or record (i.e., as defined by Rule 240.12g5-1 Definition of securities “held of record”), and directly registered (i.e., registered/record AND held by the transfer agent).
Now that we understand the definition of directly registered, we can understand GameStop’s SEC filings better as GameStop has reported counts of shares "directly registered with our transfer agent", "held by record holders", and "held by registered holders with our transfer agent". Delving deeper into those will be for another DD post. [Part 2] TADR\"Street Name\" vs \"Registered\" vs \"Directly Registered\"Footnotes[1] See, e.g., Definition, Regulatory Failure 101: What the Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank Reveals [ProPublica], and Regulatory Failure: A Review of the International Academic Literature.[2] Kenny & Wall St have armies of fancy suited lawyers each paid hundreds or even thousands of dollars per hour. Apes have each other. As examples of Wall St rewriting the regulations for their own benefit, you may remember when the OCC Proposed Reducing Margin Requirements To Prevent A Cascade of Clearing Member Failures, the time derivatives holders almost got deemed as beneficial owners, and how The UK Government is trying to remove DRS (credit to kibblepigeon for raising awareness and helping battle that monster). |
2024.04.24 15:03 lbabinz [PSN] May Savings Sale
2024.04.23 20:35 astrospleen Trimps
2024.04.18 23:59 silvanshade Differences between the XuanTie C906, C910, and C920?
2024.04.16 23:56 Dark_Alpha Virtus Max hit changes - Underwhelming?
I have calculated the max hit wearing Virtus (assuming ancients are used) with different combinations of other gear (slayer helm was omitted) for each barrage spell as a way of comparing the current changes to the new changes. I've also done calculations with augury. Each number in a row corresponds to smoke, shadow, blood and Ice barrage respectively and each row corresponds to a different gear loadout which I've printed below. Calculations were doing for both using a 5% and 15% magic strength weapon. submitted by Dark_Alpha to 2007scape [link] [comments] https://preview.redd.it/yr3ttkr4qwuc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=895123553f063a37d227839e3e6b231c7c44bb42 Conclusions: Generally a nerf without Augury or a buff (many times neutral) with augury. Without Augury it's usually a nerf. The buffs to virtus are outweighed by the nerfs to occult, as we've already known. While occult needed a nerf and the % magic dmg bonus on Augury is nice, Virtus alone seems a bit underwhelming for ancients compromising it's identity as the set to use for ancients. This is assuming that the flat % magic damage bonus is the same as it gets from the live game (+3% on each piece). As others have suggested on the subreddit, I believe an additional +1% on each piece (specifically if using ancients) would be good for the set. If you're curious what the damage would look like before and after I've printed the output below. ***This is comparing LIVE max to my proposed change*** https://preview.redd.it/zhdlk7qtvwuc1.png?width=787&format=png&auto=webp&s=44f045b9fa3aa9509212d6a21053e03a8e6b86bc It is important to note that with a 5% and 15% dmg wep and no Augury there is no buff when compared to the live game, which is good since this is not damage creep. Augury will be a buff the same way it is a buff with Ancestral, this means Augury will be the buff not virtus. Code to play around with: import numpy as np virt = [12,15] occ = [10,4] aug = [0,4] brace = 5 wep = [5,15] off = [3,5] ring = 2 cape = 2 masterArr = [] masterArrAug = [] barrage = [27,28,29,30] #in level order for v in virt: for w in wep: if v == 12: t1 = v + cape + w t2 = v + cape + w + occ[0] t3 = v + cape + w + occ[0] + brace t4 = v + cape + w + occ[0] + brace + off[0] t5 = v + cape + w + occ[0] + brace + off[0] + ring t6 = v + cape + w + occ[0] + brace + off[1] + ring t1a = v + cape + w + aug[0] t2a = v + cape + w + occ[0] + aug[0] t3a = v + cape + w + occ[0] + brace + aug[0] t4a = v + cape + w + occ[0] + brace + off[0] + aug[0] t5a = v + cape + w + occ[0] + brace + off[0] + ring + aug[0] t6a = v + cape + w + occ[0] + brace + off[1] + ring + aug[0] if v == 15: t1 = v + cape + w t2 = v + cape + w + occ[1] t3 = v + cape + w + occ[1] + brace t4 = v + cape + w + occ[1] + brace + off[0] t5 = v + cape + w + occ[1] + brace + off[0] + ring t6 = v + cape + w + occ[1] + brace + off[1] + ring t1a = v + cape + w + aug[1] t2a = v + cape + w + occ[1] + aug[1] t3a = v + cape + w + occ[1] + brace + aug[1] t4a = v + cape + w + occ[1] + brace + off[0] + aug[1] t5a = v + cape + w + occ[1] + brace + off[0] + ring + aug[1] t6a = v + cape + w + occ[1] + brace + off[1] + ring + aug[1] ''' print("w =", w, " v =", v , " t1 =" , t1 , " t1a =", t1a) print("w =", w, " v =", v , " t2 =" , t2 , " t2a =", t2a) print("w =", w, " v =", v , " t3 =" , t3 , " t3a =", t3a) print("w =", w, " v =", v , " t4 =" , t4 , " t4a =", t4a) print("w =", w, " v =", v , " t5 =" , t5 , " t5a =", t5a) print("w =", w, " v =", v , " t6 =" , t6 , " t6a =", t6a) ''' barrageMax1 = [] barrageMax2 = [] barrageMax3 = [] barrageMax4 = [] barrageMax5 = [] barrageMax6 = [] barrageMax1a = [] barrageMax2a = [] barrageMax3a = [] barrageMax4a = [] barrageMax5a = [] barrageMax6a = [] for h in barrage: barrageMax1.append((np.fix((1+t1*0.01)*h))) barrageMax2.append((np.fix((1+t2*0.01)*h))) barrageMax3.append((np.fix((1+t3*0.01)*h))) barrageMax4.append((np.fix((1+t4*0.01)*h))) barrageMax5.append((np.fix((1+t5*0.01)*h))) barrageMax6.append((np.fix((1+t6*0.01)*h))) barrageMax1a.append((np.fix((1+t1a*0.01)*h))) barrageMax2a.append((np.fix((1+t2a*0.01)*h))) barrageMax3a.append((np.fix((1+t3a*0.01)*h))) barrageMax4a.append((np.fix((1+t4a*0.01)*h))) barrageMax5a.append((np.fix((1+t5a*0.01)*h))) barrageMax6a.append((np.fix((1+t6a*0.01)*h))) ''' print("barrage1: ", barrageMax1 , "Barrage1 /w Aug:", barrageMax1a) print("barrage2: ", barrageMax2 , "Barrage1 /w Aug:", barrageMax2a) print("barrage3: ", barrageMax3 , "Barrage1 /w Aug:", barrageMax3a) print("barrage4: ", barrageMax4 , "Barrage1 /w Aug:", barrageMax4a) print("barrage5: ", barrageMax5 , "Barrage1 /w Aug:", barrageMax5a) print("barrage6: ", barrageMax6 , "Barrage1 /w Aug:", barrageMax6a) ''' masterArr.append(barrageMax1) masterArr.append(barrageMax2) masterArr.append(barrageMax3) masterArr.append(barrageMax4) masterArr.append(barrageMax5) masterArr.append(barrageMax6) masterArrAug.append(barrageMax1a) masterArrAug.append(barrageMax2a) masterArrAug.append(barrageMax3a) masterArrAug.append(barrageMax4a) masterArrAug.append(barrageMax5a) masterArrAug.append(barrageMax6a) print("Format: [Smoke Barrage, Shadow Barrage, Blood Barrage, Ice Barrage]") print("Row 1 gear: Full Virtus, Imbued God Cape, weapon") print("Row 2 gear: Full Virtus, Imbued God Cape, weapon, occult") print("Row 3 gear: Full Virtus, Imbued God Cape, weapon, occult, tormented brace") print("Row 4 gear: Full Virtus, Imbued God Cape, weapon, occult, tormented brace, eldinis ward") print("Row 5 gear: Full Virtus, Imbued God Cape, weapon, occult, tormented brace, eldinis ward, magus ring") print("Row 4 gear: Full Virtus, Imbued God Cape, weapon, occult, tormented brace, eldinis ward (fortified), magus ring") print("\n") print("5% wep w/o Aug Max hit difference new vs old virtus") for i in range(6): print(np.array(masterArr[(i+12)]-np.array(masterArr[i]))) print("\n") print("5% wep + Aug Max hit difference new vs old virtus") for j in range(6): print(np.array(masterArrAug[(j+12)]-np.array(masterArrAug[j]))) print("\n") print("15% wep w/o Aug Max hit difference new vs old virtus") for t in range(6,12): print(np.array(masterArr[(t+12)]-np.array(masterArr[t]))) print("\n") print("15% wep + Aug Max hit difference new vs old virtus") for q in range(6,12): print(np.array(masterArrAug[(q+12)]-np.array(masterArrAug[q]))) |
2024.04.09 18:21 doudousteve I'm losing my mind in the weald and need help!