IntwadHelck

This is y I think all the focus on rule reform is a distraction from booking GME…..can’t even do one little crumb thing the right way, without being held up in court for who the heck knows how long….

4th paragraph under ‘Case Background’ : https://www.cohenmilstein.com/case-study/stock-loan-antitrust-litigation

Woah. Do u know if this paper talks about, or speculates on how large the interest is, serving the perpetuation of the perceived need for beneficial ownership via Cede and Co. (too ironic right?)?

I don’t have hard sources, but it seems very clear that basically in the 60’s, majority of ownership (80/20) of securities was via individuals. By the time the 80s came along, it flipped to institutional ownership being strong majority. Makes u wonder y the wealth gap takes off exponentially once institutions took over majority of ownership? Also, it can basically be traced that this evolution of ownership and networks of institutional middle-men was cooked up by BCG in the 60s. The beginning of BCG and the likes earning their place as some of the most powerful worst of the worst.

Also points to y one of the big 5 banks is on record basically threatening a smaller company that found an angle to making share-lending more ‘fair’ ‘transparent’ etc. “hey, it’s a good business idea, and totally legal to try to shake up the industry. But I’d have someone else start my car from now on”……I’m paraphrasing, and would have to dig to find the exact real happening.

But the point is that the interest to keep things only beneficially owned by individuals is most likely the only real reason we don’t see proper change back to individual ownership (for lack of better words). It’s my opinion that majority institutional ownership is the bread-and-butter to all financial market corruption via ‘this is what enables the club to move markets however they want whenever they want’ essentially.

Things have already been feeling spicy….fun!

U seem to be clearly new, and haven’t watched that counter grow from the very beginning…..I think we may have a live one here folks….or a trusmooth that needs to mirror up and do gutcheck on what this play really is

Edit add: I c ur not new, but maybe just a pompous trusmooth…..dude, this one is symbolic as fuck. Ur realism, is lack of gusto and unnecessarily jaded or just very wrong imo. I recognize we just may be on the opposite sides of the same coin, and I’m alright with that. But I would ask u to check urself, and filter what u think is fact a bit more…cuz I think I could argue lots of what u’ve stated as fact as incorrect

That’s what happens when ur working on changing the game, not doing it the same as the majority.

A % of plan shares are held via ComputerShare’s broker at the dtcc, for operational efficiency. This has been the bottom line argument for booking shares, for over 2 years now.

but it always just gets buried, deeper than Hoffa. Above, is proven fact.

The rest dilutes above, a bit. I believe the heat lamp theory, but the above simple tidbit is the bottom, provable line.

Like I said, eventually if there’s actually the majority of drs’d shares in book, but dtcc is reporting the majority of drs’d shares as on their books because of the “in the plan” loophole…..it’s not going to hold up.

To be clearer on what I didn’t like: there was quite a focus on terminating plan/selling fractionals being this huge quick dagger that would expose super fraud. I think no dingleberries, and not being a part of any parts of the plan are the way to go. But I don’t necessarily think if everyone woke up tomorrow and did so, that there would be fireworks in our favor.

I don’t think anything is going to happen quickly, because of idiosyncratic risk. Too many people, need a controlled blow up or too many good things implode (all the innocent shit that is going to feel the pain via collateral damage)

!! Book em dano!

Part of me liked the heat lamp theory, part of me didn’t. I prefer simpler. At a certain point, if 80% are in book and 20% are in plan, but cuz of loopholes 80% are reported as owned by the dtcc….that’s gonna get blown up/ won’t hold up. Part of it felt like a cointel situation, by putting in large grains of truth and then twisting it into this ultimate spin unnecessarily to actually hurt the book is better convo. Thoughts?

Here’s some good info regarding the plan for more and more control, part of why the DTC began in the first place come early 70’s…pages 17-20 help show something I’ve been squeaking about for a while: it’s no coincidence the wealth gap takes off exponentially come the 80’s…..once the institutions centralized and gained control over….everything….they could really start their shenanigans: https://books.google.com/books?id=xyzEiM1WVnYC&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false

Love it. Thx for resharing.

Hellll yeah, love these thoughts….