CTCC Reddit Mentions | ChartExchange

[Power To The Shareholders](https://preview.redd.it/1bywktugdbkg1.jpg?width=1350&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa457b092344c38716b1f69e54ba113e9d3cc160)
TLDR: ALL shares are Directly Registered regardless of whether you choose to DRS. Every share that isn’t registered in the name of individuals is registered in the name of “Cede & Co.”, the DTC’s nominee. When you DRS, you’re removing company-issued certificates from “Cede & Co.” and registering them in YOUR name. This transfers ownership FROM the DTC to YOU as an individual investor.
Computershare isn’t some shitty company that’s inferior to brokers. They’re the largest transfer agent in the industry and potentially the safest place to hold your shares. Decide for yourself what percentage of your holdings you would like to keep there, but keeping at least a portion in DRS will protect you from counterparty risk when MOASS finally begins.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shoutout to ISayBullish for putting together this gem of a post:
Because of all the FUD in the comment section, I figured I'd do an actual deep dive, like the good old days, and lay out the facts about Transfer Agents like Computershare vs. Brokers.
This is not an opinion post.
Everything is backed by sources for you to verify for yourself.
There’s already plenty of DD out there about DRS, so I won't spend too much time on the basics…but a brief overview for newcomers may be helpful.
If you want to go back and read previous posts on the subject, here are a few links:
* [When You Wish Upon A Star](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) \- doom\_douche
* [Computershare and DRS](https://fliphtml5.com/bookcase/kosyg) \- criand
* [Transferring Shares to Computershare Step-by-Step Guide for Most Brokers](https://fliphtml5.com/bookcase/kosyg) \- da\_squirrel\_monkey
* [Computershare DD Series Compilation](https://fliphtml5.com/bookcase/kosyg) \- PinkCatsOnAcid
There’s also: [https://www.whydrs.org/](https://www.whydrs.org/)
As an individual investor, you have [three choices](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins-9) when it comes to holding securities:
**Street Name Registration** \- The securities you purchase are registered on the issuer’s books in the name of "Cede & Co.", but your broker-dealer will maintain records showing you as the “beneficial” owner. **The securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. are held in book-entry form through direct registration at the transfer agent.**
**Direct Registration (DRS)** \- The security is registered in your name on the issuer’s books and is held for you in book-entry form by a transfer agent.
**Physical Certificates** \- The security is registered in your name on the issuer's books, and you have an actual, physical/hard copy stock or bond certificate representing your ownership. (This is not an option for GameStop.)
[https:\/\/www.securitieslawyer101.com\/2017\/03\/17\/transfer-agent-direct-registration-system-drs\/ ](https://preview.redd.it/svvel8ivebkg1.png?width=634&format=png&auto=webp&s=0f11b32c90631b8315129c566a24de71bb12c39f)
https://preview.redd.it/muyn6yn1fbkg1.png?width=626&format=png&auto=webp&s=e4ea290c54a7aac642144daeddaffbb8b4667892
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Computershare is the largest transfer agent in the industry
Several posts have already covered this, but I’ve decided to add in updated numbers as of 2024, since it’s been 84 years since we started this journey.
Computershare is the transfer agent that represents the most SEC registrant clients. **They serve 2,419 clients and hold just over 25% of the transfer agent market.**
[https:\/\/go.ideagen.com\/transfer-agent-market-share-2024-report?\_gl=1\*1ld33xy\*\_gcl\_au\*NDEwMTg1MDA3LjE3NzA5NDQxNDA.](https://preview.redd.it/tj5pzk8wnbkg1.png?width=652&format=png&auto=webp&s=a38ebfe8a1018ecd3edf94da27df826add3733a4)
**Computershare dominates the S&P 500 index**, serving 292 clients and 58% of the 500 largest U.S. companies.
Computershare once again shows its dominance in terms of advising larger companies with a **total client market capitalization (market cap) of $37.76 trillion, accounting for 55% of the total client market cap.**
Computershare holds notable clients including **Walmart, Apple, Amazon, and Exxon Mobil Corp.**
[https:\/\/go.ideagen.com\/transfer-agent-market-share-2024-report?\_gl=1\*1ld33xy\*\_gcl\_au\*NDEwMTg1MDA3LjE3NzA5NDQxNDA.](https://preview.redd.it/sct5eua5nbkg1.png?width=732&format=png&auto=webp&s=d73fd27349cb9bc09ec4e41190352a0028296d02)
When we first learned about transfer agents in 2021, Computershare was mainly a clunky and outdated boomer service. To an extent, this is still true when you compare them to brokers…
But apes have become a major player, and to Computershare’s credit, they’ve actually taken our feedback and implemented changes to their UI and processes since we’ve gotten involved.
**They’ve updated the Investor Center dashboard:**
[https:\/\/www.computershare.com\/us\/business\/transfer-agent-services\/technology-for-shareholders](https://preview.redd.it/3hpdu3k0nbkg1.png?width=2586&format=png&auto=webp&s=68fdae93ecfff30a538ff3550a8f38a53645580b)
**And even created an app that you can download from the Apple or Android App Store:**
[https:\/\/www.computershare.com\/us\/business\/transfer-agent-services\/technology-for-shareholders](https://preview.redd.it/oqgquhwvmbkg1.png?width=2634&format=png&auto=webp&s=b77a3748659f699cba2a13b34e92405ef0acd12a)
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Let’s break down Computershare’s process
ISayBullish is correct in pointing out the TOS for brokers. Each broker has slightly different wording, but ALL brokers will act in their own best interest when shit hits the fan. We saw this very clearly during the sneeze, as well as how little power retail has after the fact to recoup losses.
That being said, **these TOS also apply to Computershare’s brokers**. To sell your shares, Computershare needs to route your order to a broker. Computershare explicitly states that it “does not transact directly in the market” and instead passes customer orders to \*\*counterparties with which we have an established contractual relationship to provide us with execution services,” which it calls its “**Panel of Brokers**.”
* [https://www.computershare.com/je/broker-selection-policy](https://www.computershare.com/je/broker-selection-policy)
* [https://www.computershare.com/uk/broker-selection-policy](https://www.computershare.com/uk/broker-selection-policy)
This is from their [FAQ](https://www.computershare.com/us/personal/shareholders/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies):
**What brokerage firm does Computershare use to execute orders?**
“The brokerage firm we work with can depend on the circumstances of the order, including to enable us to accommodate the preferences of specific clients. In most instances, however, we work with Bank of America Merrill Lynch (also known as Merrill).”
**When you initiate a sell order through Computershare’s “Investor Center”, your shares stay registered in YOUR name, and your ownership rights stay intact.** They utilize a nominee called “Dingo & Co” to transact on your behalf within the DTCC’s system.
* *“Dingo is used for operational purposes. As a nominee, Dingo & Co has no interest in and no rights to the property it holds in its name on behalf of Computershare. In other words, Dingo holds assets but does not own any of them.”*
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# So, if Computershare utilizes a broker to sell, and they have similar TOS agreements, why not just use Fidelity, IBKR, or whichever broker you prefer?
The answer to this is simple. **Ownership.**
To explain the difference, I’m gonna use Fidelity as an example because it’s the broker that I use. The following is how my order worked its way through the system:
1. Initiate a buy order
2. The order gets routed to NYSE ARCA
3. The order is internalized by a market maker (Citadel)
4. The market maker (Citadel) most likely FTD’s
5. The broker (Fidelity) FTR’s (fails to receive)
6. You receive an IOU or “phantom share” in your account
Below is a post from Dr. T explaining that retail is 8x more likely to be holding phantom shares in brokerage accounts than institutions.
[https:\/\/x.com\/SusanneTrimbath\/status\/1917707718246424956?s=20](https://preview.redd.it/3wrho409mbkg1.png?width=1190&format=png&auto=webp&s=120f3ac8f13c104760ca8d7c132309937406b97c)
In a functioning market with ample liquidity, this system works fine.
You become a beneficial owner/entitlement holder of the security, your brokerage account shows the cost basis and number of shares held, and on the surface, everything looks great!
**But what happens in a MOASS scenario where the market ISN’T functioning normally, and a liquidity crisis begins?**
In a broker, you’re not the owner of the securities, which exposes you to counterparty risk from the intermediary.
[https:\/\/heartland.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/2025-UCC-tip-sheet-1.pdf](https://preview.redd.it/xf0v1bs0mbkg1.png?width=394&format=png&auto=webp&s=ef855362e0f0ba58884d6ae5d09ea67def9c2b4f)
Read that one more time... 👆
The system provides SIPC insurance for each brokerage account, reassuring investors that they have a backstop.
SIPC protects the assets held and returns their market value as of the failure date. For example, if you deposited $100,000 that grew to $200,000 in stocks, SIPC aims to restore the full $200,000, not just the original deposit. **Limits are $500,000 per customer** (including $250,000 max for cash).
SIPC’s most recent [Annual Report (2024)](https://www.sipc.dev/media/annual-reports/2024-annual-report.pdf) states that “the SIPC Fund … amounted to $4.83 billion at year end, an increase of $362 million during 2024.”
SIPC’s bylaws set a target level for the fund of $5.0 billion in unrestricted net assets. In addition to the fund itself, SIPC also has a $2.5 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, which can be used if needed.
In total, that’s roughly $7.5B max that the SIPC has to cover ALL brokers.
While it’s impossible to know the true total AUM, it can be assumed that this number is <0.1% of total assets if we saw a chain of brokerage failures.
[https:\/\/x.com\/SusanneTrimbath\/status\/1961473396711305577?s=20](https://preview.redd.it/mge61nktlbkg1.png?width=1194&format=png&auto=webp&s=0da96c9cd3e91bc9a787b55365e8999965f93b38)
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Does Computershare hold SIPC insurance?
When you DRS, you become the legal OWNER of the securities. There’s no need for SIPC insurance or any other backstop because there’s no intermediary between you and the issuer (GameStop). **The only risk you face is the issuer (GameStop) becoming insolvent.** There is no counterparty risk.
This is from their [FAQ page](https://www.computershare.com/us/personal/shareholders/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies):
**Do you hold SIPC insurance (or any other insurance to protect shareholders)?**
SIPC is not relevant in the context of transfer agents, as investors' assets are on the register, and the register would be taken on by a successor agent in the event Computershare were to ever become insolvent. Computershare carries professional indemnity insurance as cover for other issues.
**If an investor moves their shares to DRS via Computershare, is their account insured (for example through FDIC) if Computershare became insolvent?**
No. Registered shareholders do not need SIPC insurance to underpin Computershare’s transfer agent function or protect against any insolvency of Computershare, since their shares are recorded on the company’s register, and held directly by them subject to relevant corporate law and regulation. Unlike a broker-dealer (where SIPC insurance may apply), Computershare does not hold the shares as an intermediary on the shareholder’s behalf. Computershare does not lend securities.
There are no FTD’s when it comes to DRS.
Settlement is guaranteed, and you hold the equivalent of a paper certificate.
Computershare DOES NOT hold your securities; YOU DO.
They’re simply the registrar, chosen by GameStop, that you use to interact with your shares.
This is similar to a cold storage wallet for crypto. Your crypto isn’t held in the physical wallet you buy; it’s held on the blockchain, and the physical wallet you have allows you to interact with your holdings.
With DRS, your shares are held in YOUR NAME, directly with GameStop, on the company's register.
Computershare is simply the access point.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# What happens if Merrill Lynch, Computershare’s main broker, goes bust during MOASS?
https://preview.redd.it/zr348yx9lbkg1.jpg?width=1094&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a108d5025a0347d284f0aaf455176dd2bed803b5
This is where Computershare shines.
They’re able to access ANY broker they want. This includes a “**panel of brokers**” with whom they already have a working relationship.
Merrill is just their preferred partner for executing customer orders.
Direct registration through Computershare and the executing broker (Merrill Lynch) sit in two different parts of the plumbing, so a Merrill bankruptcy and your DRS shares are linked only indirectly.
**What happens to your DRS shares if Merrill fails?**
Your shares are legally recorded in your name on the issuer’s (GME) register, which Computershare maintains as transfer agent. The executing broker (Merrill) does not own those shares; it only handles trades when you choose to buy or sell.
**If Merrill went bankrupt, that would affect:**
* Open or in‑flight trades routed through Merrill (sale orders submitted but not yet settled).
* Cash or securities actually sitting at Merrill as part of those trades.
* It would not erase or encumber your DRS position, because the definitive record of your ownership is on the issuer’s books via Computershare, outside Merrill’s balance sheet. **As long as the issuer (GME) and Computershare are functioning, those registered shares are still yours.**
**A helpful way to see it**
Think of Computershare/DRS as the “deed office” for your shares, and Merrill as just a courier you sometimes hire to deliver them to a buyer. If the courier fails mid‑job, that doesn’t retroactively delete your deed.
**Selling in the wake of a Merrill bankruptcy**
**Short‑term**, there are two realistic frictions.
Orders already sent to Merrill:
* If you submitted a sale right as Merrill became distressed, an order might be delayed, cancelled, or caught up in whatever resolution process regulators impose. You could have to resubmit through a new channel once Computershare switches brokers.
Temporary disruption of Computershare’s normal routing:
* Computershare would need to stop routing new orders to Merrill and shift to another executing broker. In practice, big intermediaries plan for this and regulators push for continuity, but there could still be a pause or degraded service.
**Medium/Longer‑term**, Computershare would re‑point its order flow to different contracted brokers (they already indicate that the firm used “**a panel of brokers**”). Your ability to sell from DRS would resume through the new broker relationship.
Large transfer agents like Computershare and their corporate clients have strong incentives to maintain continuity of settlement and trading services for shareholders.
**So, in a hypothetical scenario where you hold 1000 shares in Computershare and Merrill fails:**
Your 1,000 DRS shares remain recorded in your name with Computershare and the issuer.
**A Merrill bankruptcy might disrupt or delay orders in flight and temporarily slow your ability to sell directly through Investor Center, but it would not confiscate or void your DRS holdings.**
Once Computershare has another broker in place, new sale orders from your DRS position would be routed through that firm instead.
**Bottom line**
A Merrill bankruptcy creates friction for executing trades through Computershare, but **your DRS shares stay yours, untouched by Merrill’s estate**. Computershare would pivot brokers quickly, given its infrastructure and market position.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# So, if my shares are in a cash account at a broker I like, what’s the problem?
I’m not here to fearmonger or spread FUD over brokers.
**Large brokers that are well capitalized and have TRILLIONS under management, such as Fidelity, Vanguard, etc., SHOULD be just fine.**
But this all relies on how they’ve handled this situation.
If they’ve done everything above board, haven’t been internalizing trades, followed share lending laws, and properly marked trades, then they should be fine during MOASS.
If they’ve done shady shit behind the scenes for the last 5 years, nobody really knows how this will play out.
We’re in uncharted territory here guys…
**Here’s a short list I found of share lending violations from brokers:**
[Apex Clearing ($3.2M FINRA fine, 2025)](https://www.finra.org/media-center/newsreleases/2025/finra-fines-apex-clearing-32-million-violations-relating-fully-paid) \- From 2019-2023, Apex violated FINRA Rule 4330 by borrowing fully paid or excess margin securities from retail customers without reasonable grounds to believe the loans were appropriate, specifically because those customers received no loan fee despite risks like loss of voting rights, SIPC protection, and higher dividend taxes.
[M1, Open to the Public, SoFi, & SogoTrade ($2.6M FINRA fine, 2025)](https://www.finra.org/media-center/newsreleases/2023/finra-orders-four-firms-pay-26-million-violations-relating-fully) \- Violations related to fully paid securities lending, including failure to obtain proper consent.
[Goldman Sachs ($15M SEC fine, 2016)](https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016-9) \- The firm violated Regulation SHO by providing “locates” for short sales without adequate review to confirm shares could be borrowed, and it inaccurately logged those locates.
[Interactive Brokers ($5.5M FINRA fine, 2018)](https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/finra-fines-broker-dealer-55-million-for-violations) \- From 2011-2014, failed to properly close out short positions on fails-to-deliver (FTDs), accepted short sales of restricted securities, displayed them at restricted prices, and lacked adequate supervision of its short-sale and borrowing systems.
[Morgan Stanley ($7.5M SEC fine, 2016)](https://www.hflawreport.com/2552266/morgan-stanley-settles-sec-charges-stemming-from-the-use-of-customer-cash-to-finance-a-brokers-hedge-positions.thtml#:~:text=As%20the%20collapse%20of%20Lehman,7%2C%202016) \- The firm was found to have used customer cash to finance its own hedge positions through internal transactions with an affiliate, improperly reducing the amount of cash it was required to segregate for customers.
[Morgan Stanley ($5M SEC fine, 2020)](https://www.investmentnews.com/wirehouses/sec-gives-morgan-stanley-a-5-million-slap-over-short-sales/197614) \- Morgan Stanley’s prime brokerage swaps business violated the rule by separating its hedged synthetic exposure into two aggregation units. One holding only long positions, and the other holding only short positions. According to the order, Morgan Stanley was able to sell its hedges on the long swaps and mark them as “long” sales without concern for Reg SHO’s short-sale requirements.
[Nomura Securities International ($625K FINRA fine, 2025)](https://fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/finra-imposes-625k-fine-on-nomura-securities-international-for-alleged-rule-violations/#:~:text=News/%20Regulatory%20News-,FINRA%20imposes%20$625k%20fine%20on%20Nomura%20Securities%20International%20for,some%20short%20sales%20where%20required) \- Over a six-year period, the firm improperly included the securities positions of two affiliates in the net position calculations of an independent trading unit, leading to inaccurate order marking and failures to locate securities for short sales.
[Robinhood ($45M SEC fine, 2025](https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-5#:~:text=The%20SEC%20)) - In January 2025, Robinhood agreed to pay a $45 million civil penalty to the SEC to settle a wide range of regulatory violations, which included significant failures in its stock lending and short-selling operations.
[Wedbush Securities ($900K FINRA fine, 2022)](https://www.erezlaw.com/blog/wedbush-securities-inc-900k-fine-trading-violations/) \- FINRA fined Wedbush for violations tied to failed-to-deliver positions, specifically failing to close them out within the required timeframes.
**When the fine for committing a crime is less than the money you generate from committing the crime, it becomes a cost of doing business.**
**Until this changes, brokers will continue violating lending laws and putting you at risk because it’s just smart business.**
https://preview.redd.it/kydl877tjbkg1.jpg?width=1350&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c53415d55bf644f035efef092831caa4226f6d24
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Has Computershare received any fines related to Investor Protection Violations that would put investors at risk?
According to [Violation Tracker](https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/computershare-limited), Computershare and its subsidiaries have been fined 6 times as it pertains to Investor Protection Violations:
[Computershare Trust Company of Canada ($1.1M SEC fine, 2006)](https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker/-computershare-trust-company-of-canada) \- between June 2000 and April 2004, CTCC acted as a transfer agent for at least 260 public companies and as a broker for approximately 100 issuers without SEC registration.
[Georgeson Securities Corporation ($650K FINRA fine, 2016)](https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker/-georgeson-securities-corporation) \- failed to establish and maintain a reasonable supervisory system for its asset reunification business.
[Georgeson LLC ($4.5M USAO fine, 2017)](https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker/-georgeson-llc) \- kickbacks and bribery
[Computershare, Inc., Georgeson Securities Corp., & Georgeson LLC (2.25M MD-SEC fine, 2025)](https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker/md-computershare-inc-and-georgeson-securiti) \- failed to disclose to Shareholder CleanUp program participants the existence of the option to update their shareholder records for free through Respondent Computershare.
These two are listed separately but look to be the same charge split between parties:
* [Computershare, Inc. ($1.5M MD-AG fine, 2025)](https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker/md-computershare-inc)
* [Georgeson Securities Corporation ($1.5M MD-AG fine, 2025)](https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker/md-georgeson-securities-corporation) \- required participants in its Shareholder CleanUp Program to pay program fees and had not advised them of the option to update their shareholder registration for free through Computershare.
**None of these are related to improper share lending.**
**None of these are related to the improper use of customer assets.**
None of these put you at risk during MOASS.
Once again, let’s hit up the [FAQ page](https://www.computershare.com/us/personal/shareholders/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies), this time to see what they say about share lending:
**Can Computershare ‘lend’ shares that are registered in my name?**
No. This is not an authorized function of a transfer agent for shares held in registered form.
**Does Computershare lend out shares held in registered form?**
No. Computershare does not lend out registered shares as these shares are owned by the registered holder. For operational efficiency, a small portion of the aggregate number of DSPP shares is held on Computershare’s behalf (for the benefit of plan participants) by arrangement with our broker. These particular shares are maintained by the broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants) in DTC. Our broker is not permitted to lend out any of these shares.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Selling through Computershare
Computershare states that as long as there is sufficient liquidity in the marketplace, **market orders execute promptly**. During MOASS, there will be an unlimited amount of buy pressure…buy side orders won’t be an issue.
**A market order** is defined as a request to sell shares promptly at the current market price; orders received during market hours are submitted “promptly” to Computershare’s broker. The broker then routes them to the market like any other broker. **If there is normal liquidity and no halt, that usually means execution in seconds, the same as at a retail broker.**
[https:\/\/cda.computershare.com\/content\/2e057813-c4c1-442d-b204-72e81bf37863](https://preview.redd.it/n4fjk3dnibkg1.png?width=1316&format=png&auto=webp&s=89f948f0467acb1332e88d5a6f5d9d1666a28075)
**However, the same documents also say:**
*“Market orders may be only partially filled or not filled at all on the trading day, depending on trading volume and the number of shares being sold.”* \- As I stated earlier, there will be an unlimited number of buy-side orders during MOASS, so trading volume and liquidity on the lit exchange won’t be an issue.
*“Orders can be cancelled by the stock exchange, by Computershare at its discretion, or may simply be unfilled and cancelled at day‑end.”* \- This is just legal speak to cover their ass because they can’t control the order book on the lit exchanges. It’s not Computershare’s problem if nobody wants to buy your shares.
**Putting that together:**
For a true market order placed online or by phone during market hours, Computershare behaves much like a broker: **they submit it promptly to a partner broker, and in normally liquid conditions, the execution will generally be near‑instant, in line with what you’d expect anywhere else.**
So it’s fair to interpret Computershare’s market sell order process as: “When you place a market order during normal hours in a reasonably liquid stock, it will usually execute very quickly, just like at a normal retail broker.”
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Why do checks from Computershare come from BNY Mellon?
Many apes, including Richard Newton during DFV’s return in 2024, when it seems like every shill claims to have been locked out of their accounts, have sold shares from Computershare and received checks from BNY Mellon.
Because of this, it would make sense to look into how BNY plays into this whole equation.
Checks from Computershare show BNY Mellon because **BNY is acting as the underlying bank / paying agent for the cash disbursement**, even though Computershare is your transfer agent and recordkeeper.
**Computershare’s role**
* Maintains the shareholder register.
* Calculates what you’re owed (dividends, sale proceeds) and initiates payment instructions.
**BNY Mellon’s role**
* Acts as a global transaction bank that actually sends the money: prints checks, handles ACH/wire rails, and manages large cash flows.
* Because the funds move through BNY’s banking infrastructure, the checks are drawn on BNY accounts and therefore show Bank of New York Mellon as the issuing bank even though the payment was initiated by Computershare as plan administrator.
**This setup is normal:** many transfer agents and corporate trustees use big custody/transaction banks (like BNY Mellon) behind the scenes for payment processing, so the bank’s name appears on the check while the shareholder interface remains Computershare.
**Computershare isn’t a bank OR broker.**
**They have NO skin in the game, which eliminates any incentives to fuck over investors.**
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# So how does Computershare make money?
Once again, let’s hit up the [FAQ page](https://www.computershare.com/us/personal/shareholders/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies):
**What fees does Computershare charge shareholders/how does Computershare make money from share ownership?**
Companies hire Computershare to undertake transfer agent/registry services on their behalf, which includes providing services to their registered shareholders directly. Although some of these services are free to registered shareholders, such as maintaining the record of a shareholding through Investor Center, we do charge shareholders themselves when they ask us to process specific transactions, including buying and selling shares. You can find out more information on these charges [here](https://www-us.computershare.com/Investor/#DirectStock/Summary?IssuerId=SCUSGME&PlanId=SPP1&sv=t).
[https:\/\/www-us.computershare.com\/Investor\/#DirectStock\/Details?PlanId=SPP1&IssuerId=SCUSGME&sv=t](https://preview.redd.it/0dudqn7fhbkg1.png?width=1814&format=png&auto=webp&s=285cd06c0a53a8e208002b41ac0f2066a2ff7ae3)
Computershare charges you $25 per sell order + $0.12 per share.
Remember, nothing is free in life.
**If your broker is free, then you’re the product, and they’re making money off you somewhere else.**
This fee structure is what allows Computershare to eliminate the conflicts of interest that exist throughout the current brokerage model.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If DRS is so important, why doesn’t RC or GameStop come out and tell us to DRS?
[https:\/\/x.com\/SusanneTrimbath\/status\/1803889383109726430?s=20](https://preview.redd.it/uih7dv57hbkg1.png?width=1194&format=png&auto=webp&s=53b2f2347c358276f5322c99aa48c88e421a7594)
The company has included updated DRS counts/information in each quarterly/annual filing since 2021. You can find this information under “other information” in the company's SEC filings. Below is a screenshot of the latest 10Q:
[https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/ix?doc=\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/1326380\/000132638025000098\/gme-20251101.htm#ie688f3bace884e6cb8627dcccf7c4042\_109](https://preview.redd.it/cnnwwl31hbkg1.png?width=2830&format=png&auto=webp&s=8fc09e61b47b58755c2a45496920e9f7d0ebb506)
RC also Tweeted a literal Computer Chair at us…
[https:\/\/x.com\/ryancohen\/status\/1418751218566918146?s=20](https://preview.redd.it/zroe3klqgbkg1.png?width=404&format=png&auto=webp&s=cc28a50701cf6d833428913cd1136c580e624a15)
There’s only so much he and the company can legally do to steer us in the right direction without it being considered financial advice.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# RC and DFV didn’t DRS, so why should I?
This seems to be the most popular FUD currently, so let’s address it.
**RC and insiders** are on a completely different playing field than retail. How do you think it would look if RC’s broker (Charles Schwab) announced they mishandled the largest insider's position?
Comparing retail to RC and insiders is completely foolish. Trust in the system would evaporate instantly if insider shares held in street name were mishandled.
Outside of this basic logic, **high-net-worth individuals like RC and DFV have the ability to prenegotiate terms with a broker**, providing them a safer and more well-insulated account than the average person.
They can negotiate very strong credit and custody terms (dedicated custody accounts, limits on rehypothecation, tailored margin triggers, etc.), protections that the average pleb like us aren’t afforded in the click-through retail contract.
[For clients to qualify for these types of contracts](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/primebrokerage.asp), an account size of $50 million in equity is a likely starting point.
**DFV** is technically a “retail” investor, but once again, this is a false equivalent. He has fuck you money to defend himself, and as I just stated, he has the capital to negotiate terms with his brokers.
On top of this, the dude is an options GOD.
**If you have the ability to consistently trade your position or win via options, then Computershare probably isn’t the best option for you.**
The truth is, the large majority of retail investors don’t have the skills to beat this rigged game.
[https:\/\/medium.com\/@chetanya.837\/why-93-of-retail-investors-lose-money-in-options-trading-5d37f99634d3](https://preview.redd.it/jmssgp13gbkg1.png?width=758&format=png&auto=webp&s=2918b1e9b1791c3452cca8ca170c11c0f2c426dc)
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Let’s finish this up by listing the benefits of DRS
* Provides certificate ownership in YOUR name with legally binding ownership rights
* Eliminates ALL counterparty risk
* Guarantees settlement - No FTD’s
* Shares can’t be lent out or used as locates
* Ensures your votes are accurately tallied (bypasses broker overvoting)
* First in line for the delivery of dividends
* First in line for company communications
* Forces Wall Street to acknowledge ACCURATE retail ownership
Below is a letter from Warren Buffet to Berkshire investors in 1981 talking about the benefit of having stock registered in your name to bypass intermediaries:
[https:\/\/www.berkshirehathaway.com\/letters\/1981.html ](https://preview.redd.it/un71f1sqfbkg1.png?width=761&format=png&auto=webp&s=92e835102bf03bca7354e5183088e6e1b89fb600)
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call us a cult.
Call us conspiracy theorists.
Call us whatever you want…lol
I’ve laid out nothing but the facts, and everyone can decide for themselves what they believe is the best way to hold/manage their position moving forward.
After all the legendary DD of old, 5 years of nonstop fuckery, and enough evidence to sufficiently prove the system doesn’t give a shit about us, I personally believe legal ownership is the best way to protect myself when this thing finally begins to unwind.
The SEC already told you that GameStop is an “idiosyncratic risk” to the system.
If this plays out in the open market, **I own REAL shares and have NO counterparty risk.**
If this ends up in court, **I own my shares.**
**Happy Hunger Games Hedge Fucks.**
[Buy, Hodl, DRS](https://preview.redd.it/g82g7fmcfbkg1.jpg?width=625&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a2d5e6f47ec4e6df0be7d6910a05c9e8e0d9d34)

.dark-mode .Xm9bK2{ color: white; background-color: #333333; border: 2px solid white; }.light-mode .Xm9bK2{ color: #333333; background-color: white; border: 2px solid #333333; }CTCCCITY CAPITAL CORPstock OTC

CTCC
CITY CAPITAL CORP
stock OTC