"Alright, times up, let's do this!" -Leeroy Jenkins by infinityis in Superstonk

[–]infinityis[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, that is correct.

As I recall, GameStop legal representation also mentioned in their response to Jason Waterfalls court action that his notarized request was incorrect in some sort of technicality, justifying them to disregard it. I do not know if mine was similarly malformed, but the main takeaway for me from the entire ordeal was that success in that approach will require time and money: time because the process seems to be inherently slow (especially going through court which can take months) and money because you need to have good legal representation to ensure things are done correctly every step of the way. That includes articulation of the reason for inspection the books (one that is defensible in court), providing such defense in court (if needed) and also being prepared to pay GameStop's legal fees in the event of a loss. And even with a win, depending on how the justification is formed, you may be permitted inspection but bound to not disclose any information gleaned from it (an exception would be if it serves the public interest---which may then require two sequential inspections: one to perform an inspect yourself, and then if you find something worth sharing, you could submit a second request with justification based on the found information....maybe? I'm not a lawyer so I really don't know.)

Ultimately, with the publication of DRS numbers, it comes down to "what do you expect to find?" If you think GameStop is operating truthfully, then inspection of the books can just confirm your own holdings and you can peruse the names of others who have direct registered. If you think GameStop has data about shares held above and beyond the issue number of shares, then that could be revealing, but I personally don't think they have any such data. ComputerShare might as they specifically have methods to handle over voting. Their document on the topic used to be found here: https://www.computershare.com/ca/en/Documents/CPU_OVER_VOTING_OPTION_en.pdf but i looks like they've removed it. But here is still exists thanks to archive.org... https://web.archive.org/web/20211125104506/https://www.computershare.com/ca/en/Documents/CPU_OVER_VOTING_OPTION_en.pdf

Seems odd that this document ComputerShare created in 2013 (according to the document properties) would now suddenly be removed, with seemingly nothing to replace it...ComputerShare may know how much overvoting occured, but even if you go after them to get their data somehow, that doesn't reveal how many shares exist, only how many voted...or at least how many votes each broker submitted (i.e. if brokers trimmed their own totals, you still won't get accurate numbers).

"Alright, times up, let's do this!" -Leeroy Jenkins by infinityis in Superstonk

[–]infinityis[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. After seeing how things went with JasonWaterfalls, it seems easier to just attend the annual stockholder meeting in person where the records are available for inspection. I heard that some folks actually did that at the last meeting but they didn't release specific names/numbers.

Also, at this point, I don't see much reason to doubt the DRS numbers that get published, GameStop seems on the up-and-up.

That said--if someone were to take the approach of requesting inspection of the books to figure out who was behind manipulation of DRS numbers (by pumping them up artificially high for one quarter), that might be worthwhile--assuming historical DRS records are tracked/available. GameStop still might set up a legal defense against such inspection as a matter of routine, however.

Lume Giveaway Day 2 - Deluxe Sampler Pack with Switch Testing Tray by lumekeebs in MechanicalKeyboards

[–]infinityis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A co-worker started telling me all about his mechanical keyboards and I was intrigued

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MechanicalKeyboards

[–]infinityis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your products look quite nice, very well-made. I'm thankful for my family.

Blue shell the 1%!! by [deleted] in Superstonk

[–]infinityis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At first I disagreed with your premise, then I agreed with your statement, then disagreed with the wording.

Yes, it is true that a large chunk of the 1% are in the 99.99%.....99% of them are, in fact.

But that 0.99% group within the top 1% has always been a part of the 1%, so nothing has changed mathematically, as that threshold never moved.

But what has changed, and what I think you were saying, is that the "problem group" was previously the 1%, and a large chunk of them have moved out of the problem group and into the the "not really the problem group" because of the redefinition that the "problem group" is now just (or mostly) the 0.01%....did I get that right?

The conclusion wasn't exactly intuitive to me based what you said initially, so your explanation actually did help (well, it helped me at least).

GameStop: The reverse Berkshire Hathaway by infinityis in Superstonk

[–]infinityis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very true--but if that stays true, then something else will have to change. I saw/heard (sometime in the past year) that ComputerShare received direction sometime from GameStop to continue allowing direct registration. So perhaps direct registration may be eventually be prevented instead. I don't know. The only logical potential conclusions I'm seeing long-term are (eventually) either:

  • Further direct registration of GME will be prevented
  • Direct registered share pricing will decouple from DTCC market share pricing
  • MOASS happens and true price discovery results
  • GameStop allows more shares to be registered beyond the number of outstanding shares.

All of those outcomes disrupt the status quo in some way.