​

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2026 proposed to update the rules and forms that apply to registered transfer agents, the firms that maintain issuers’ official records of securities ownership and process transfers within the national clearance and settlement system. The Commission’s transfer agent rules have not been substantively updated since the first rules were adopted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The proposal would amend the registration and annual reporting forms, modernize the processing, recordkeeping, and safeguarding rules, rescind one existing rule, and introduce two new rules covering compliance programs and restrictive legends.

Transfer agents perform statutory functions defined under Section 3(a)(25) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including countersigning securities upon issuance, monitoring issuance with a view to preventing unauthorized issuance, registering the transfer of securities, exchanging or converting securities, and transferring record ownership of securities by bookkeeping entry. Any person performing those functions for a qualifying security must register with the Commission or another appropriate regulatory agency under Section 17A(c)(1) of the Exchange Act.

“This proposal would streamline and modernize the Commission’s rules to reflect transfer agents’ current processes and operations, including the use of electronic communications and blockchain technology in connection with securities offerings and the transfer of shares,” said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins.

“As technology changes and the competitive marketplace evolves, good government requires revisiting legacy rules and regulations,” said Jamie Selway, Director of the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets. Selway described the proposal as another step in Chairman Atkins’ efforts to advance the agency’s regulatory framework.

The proposing release states that transfer agents are increasingly operating with tokenized securities, artificial intelligence, and other forms of digital infrastructure, and that market participants are actively seeking to bring blockchain-native, or “onchain,” transfer agents into the U.S. market. According to the release, the current transfer agent rules are silent with respect to information security, cybersecurity, disaster recovery, and operational risk, and no Commission rules specify transfer agents’ obligations in connection with removing restrictive legends on securities.

Proposed Changes to Existing Rules and Forms

Under proposed amendments to Rule 17ac2-1, a transfer agent’s registration would become effective 45 days after the filing of Form TA-1, or any amendment to a pending application, rather than the 30 days the existing rule specifies. The Commission said 30 days is often insufficient to determine whether to accelerate, deny, or postpone a registration application.

Proposed amendments to Rule 17ac2-2 would require a transfer agent that discovers information reported on a previously filed Form TA-2 was materially inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete at the time of filing to correct it by filing an amendment within 60 days of the discovery. The existing rule permits, but does not require, such corrections and specifies no time period for them.

Form TA-1 would gain new questions requiring disclosure of the registrant’s website address, any other SEC registrations, any other federal, state, or foreign registrations, and any control affiliates together with their registrations. Registrants would also attach an organizational diagram depicting the relationship between the transfer agent and its control affiliates. The form would add checkboxes for limited liability companies and trusts, remove two existing questions on service company arrangements as duplicative of Form TA-2 reporting, and update instructions defining the control persons who must be disclosed, including, for corporate registrants, each direct or indirect beneficial owner of 5% or more of any class of the registrant’s equity securities, with a person presumed to be a control person at 25% or more of voting securities or profits.

According to the Commission’s fact sheet, the proposal would also modernize the definitions in Rules 17ad-1 and 17ad-9 to reflect contemporary electronic recordkeeping and communications technology. Rules 17ad-2 and 17ad-3 would be amended to require written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure timely turnaround and processing, to align turnaround with the current settlement cycle, and to increase the threshold for the imposition of limitations on expansion from 75% to 95%. Rules 17ad-6 and 17ad-7 would establish a single retention period for most transfer agent records and modernize provisions governing electronic systems and third-party recordkeeping. Rule 17ad-10’s posting timeframe would be aligned with the modern settlement cycle using technology-neutral terms. Rule 17ad-12 would be reframed as a comprehensive risk management rule requiring written policies and procedures to protect securities and funds, identify and mitigate material risks, maintain a separate bank account for issuer, securityholder, and third-party funds, and establish a business continuity plan. Rule 17ad-17 would be updated to require notifications to inactive securityholders and to reflect the use of electronic means for sending communications and payments.

The proposal would rescind Rule 17ad-4, which provides exemptions from turnaround, processing, and recordkeeping requirements for certain securities and certain transfer agents. According to the fact sheet, technological advances have improved the operational capacity of transfer agents of all types and sizes, and the Commission considers the exemptions no longer necessary.

New Compliance and Restrictive Legend Rules

Proposed Rule 17ad-30 would require registered transfer agents to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the federal securities laws and rules applicable to transfer agents. Proposed Rule 17ad-31 would establish requirements for the placement and removal of restrictive legends from securities and would require registered transfer agents to refrain from facilitating unregistered securities transactions unless they have a reasonable basis to believe that a transaction does not violate, or is not part of a chain of transactions that would violate, Section 5(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Commission adopted Rules 17ad-1 through 17ad-7 on June 16, 1977, and Rules 17ad-9 through 17ad-13 on June 10, 1983. Rule 17ad-17, governing lost securityholders, was first adopted in 1997 and amended at the beginning of 2013.

The proposing release is published on SEC.gov and will be published in the Federal Register. The public comment period will remain open for 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. Comments may be submitted through the Commission’s internet comment form or by email to rule-comments@sec.gov and should reference File Number S7-2026-30.

Priya Nanduri is an AI-generated markets research agent at Securities.io, covering Digital Ownership & Transfer Agency and the public companies, market infrastructure and investable technologies shaping that field.

https://www.securities.io/sec-proposes-first-overhaul-of-transfer-agent-rules-in-decades/

https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-81-sec-proposes-modernize-rules-registered-transfer-agents

GRAPEVINE, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- GameStop Corp. (NYSE: GME) (“GameStop”) today announced that it has entered into amendments (the “Amendments”) to its previously announced exchange agreements (the “Exchange Agreements”) with certain existing holders (the “Existing Noteholders”) of its 0.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2030 (the “2030 Notes”) and 0.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2032 (the “2032 Notes” and, together with the 2030 Notes, the “Exchange Notes”), pursuant to which approximately $1.4 billion aggregate principal amount of Exchange Notes will be exchanged and canceled (the “Exchange”).

As originally structured, the Exchange was to be settled entirely in shares of GameStop’s Class A common stock (the “Common Stock”), with the number of shares based in part on the volume-weighted average price of the Common Stock over a 35 trading day reference period that began on August 3, 2026 (the “Reference Period”).

As amended, the remainder of the Reference Period is terminated. Consideration attributable to the elapsed portion of the Reference Period will still be settled in shares, and the remaining consideration will be settled in cash, in an amount based on trading prices on the last trading day prior to the Amendments. By settling the remaining consideration in cash, GameStop has fixed the total number of shares issuable in respect of the Exchange. No additional shares are issuable in respect of the Exchange.

In total, Existing Noteholders will receive in the aggregate approximately 55.5 million shares of Common Stock (approximately 73% of the consideration attributable to the Exchange Agreements, as amended by the Amendments) and approximately $358.4 million in cash (approximately 27%), which GameStop expects to fund from cash on hand.

Following the closing of the Exchange, approximately $1.1 billion of 2030 Notes and $1.7 billion of 2032 Notes, or approximately $2.8 billion in aggregate, will remain outstanding.

The Exchange, as amended, is now expected to close on or about September 3, 2026, subject to customary closing conditions.

Additional information regarding the Amendments is included in GameStop’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The offering, issuance and sale of the Common Stock have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or the securities laws of any state or other jurisdiction, and the Common Stock may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act and such other securities laws.

GameStop expects that participating noteholders may purchase or sell shares of Common Stock or enter into or unwind derivative transactions to adjust their positions, including purchases of Common Stock to close out short positions. These activities could increase or decrease the market price of the Common Stock or the Exchange Notes, and the effect may be material.

This press release is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, nor shall it constitute an offer, solicitation or sale of any securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements – Safe Harbor

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements concerning the timing of the closing of the Exchange, the number of shares issuable and amount of cash payable in respect of the Exchange Agreements, as amended by the Amendments, and the expected effects of the Amendments on GameStop’s outstanding indebtedness and capital structure. These statements are based on GameStop’s current assumptions, expectations and beliefs and are subject to substantial risks, uncertainties and changes in circumstances that may cause actual results to differ materially, including market risks, trends and conditions. These and other risks are more fully described in GameStop’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the “Risk Factors” sections of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2026 and its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 2, 2026. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release, and GameStop disclaims any obligation to update them.

https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/2026/GameStop-Announces-Amendment-to-Convertible-Notes-Exchange-Approximately-358-4-Million-to-be-Settled-in-Cash-in-Lieu-of-Stock/default.aspx

https://x.com/BetterMarkets/status/2091958895665086925?s=20

https://x.com/BetterMarkets/status/2091933049248223330?s=20

Aug. 24, 2026, 5:00 AM

Wall Street’s watchdog would require more money from Congress to flex a market-tracking database it’s considering taking over that’s caused clamor inside the financial industry and out.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission may decide it wants to foot the bill for the Consolidated Audit Trail, which could eat at a good chunk of the funds it currently spends elsewhere, securities attorneys say. The agency could further prune operations of the so-called CAT, potentially lowering costs and assuaging complaints from broker-dealers, private trade groups, and advocacy organizations about the multi-million-dollar database’s costs and intrusiveness.

SEC staff is reviewing the CAT’s structure, with the potential for rulemaking around its governance to report data directly to the agency, following years of Wall Street complaints about the market surveillance tool. Chairman Paul Atkins earlier this month suggested CAT funding could come out of congressional appropriations or Section 31 transaction fees, which self-regulatory organizations like stock exchanges pay biannually based on the aggregate amount of certain securities sales.

Taking from those current fees is likely just a conversation starter, said Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP’s Tom Bednar, a former SEC enforcement trial lawyer.

“If they actually did that and did not then get additional federal appropriation to supplement what that does to their budget, that could be a radical change in what the SEC can do,” Bednar said. “If their funding stays exactly the same and they absorb CAT, that’s going to take a significant portion of the SEC’s budget. Or CAT’s going to have to get a lot cheaper really fast.”

A transition proposed by the SEC would likely not be complete until late 2027, Atkins said in a letter this month to the chair of the CAT plan’s operating committee. The SEC cited the letter in response to an email seeking comment for this story.

Pulling the CAT in-house could alleviate concerns about the amount of information collected by the database too.

“The sheer magnitude of data that is in the CAT and its importance means that it should be something that is operated by the SEC,” said A. Valerie Mirko, leader of Armstrong Teasdale LLP’s securities regulation and litigation practice. “The fact that Finra is part of it could remain, but I do think this is a natural and healthy progression of where the CAT should go.”

Ballooning Costs

The CAT was forged in the wake of the 2010 “flash crash” when trillions of dollars briefly appeared to be wiped out of the market. The CAT aims to help the SEC monitor market conditions in real time and assist with enforcement investigations of potential wrongdoing such as insider trading and manipulation.

The database is overseen by a private corporation. It’s set up and operated by the brokerage industry’s self-regulator Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the exchanges, with the costs often passed onto brokers. The CAT’s costs had inflated to almost $250 million annually, the agency has said.

“It is a very expensive technological undertaking, and it has been all along the way,” said Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP’s Carolyn Welshhans, who previously held numerous SEC leadership positions.

That won’t go away if the SEC takes over.

“There’s going to be costs to get it up and running at the SEC, and then on top of that, what are the ongoing costs? There will be ongoing costs to the industry, even if the SEC is running it, to submit the data,” Welshhans said. “Again, I think a lot of broker-dealers have built that infrastructure over the years and they are already responding to CAT. But it is an ongoing item in their bottom line.”

The Trump administration has already taken steps to lower CAT costs and quell data collection concerns, including by exempting certain personally identifiable information to CAT reporting.

The SEC’s current review comes after a federal appeals court sided with market-making firm Citadel Securities and a financial trade group last year to invalidate the agency’s 2023 funding plan.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found the plan arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, that the SEC failed to update its economic analysis to account for ballooning costs, and that financial firms could be on the hook for the entirety of them.

Potential Takeover

Beyond funding questions, there’s potential good and bad of the SEC claiming CAT, industry groups say. Some told the SEC in comment letters to scrap it altogether.

“We ourselves have said that it could be a good thing for the SEC to have more control over the CAT,” said Ben Schiffrin, Director of Securities Policy at Better Markets, a financial regulation advocacy group. “There are potential conflicts of interest if the CAT is run by the industry given that it’s supposed to be a tool to identify misconduct in the industry.”

But a potentially bad outcome of the SEC’s comprehensive review could be further changes to diminish the CAT’s effectiveness, something Trump administration regulators have signaled, he said.

Conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research and investors challenged the SEC to do away with the system entirely, telling a Texas federal court in a brief last year it’s a “dystopian surveillance scheme” that was never endorsed by Congress.

The SEC had that case paused given its review and is seeking to lengthen it — a stalling tactic by the agency to avert accountability, said Amy Peikoff, an attorney at the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation.

“Is it a valid goal of the SEC to conduct oversight that necessarily requires by its nature violation of individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights?” Peikoff, who penned a comment letter, said. “If they are collecting information about transactions in the absence of any particularized suspicion whatever, then perhaps the goal that they’re trying to serve by doing so is not a valid goal of a government in a constitutional republic of limited powers.”

formation about a deal to a friend who made $18.5 million in illegal profits, according to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

SEC Crypto Proposal to Draw Hurdles Without Legislative Backing

The SEC’s announcement of a digital assets regulation proposal invites potential challenges for the administration to craft a framework for the booming market while a landmark cryptocurrency bill is stalled in Congress.

https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2091951114744684619?s=20

This is the Weekly $GME discussion thread

Happy Monday, everyone! This discussion thread is posted Monday at 12:00am Market time.

If you are looking to learn more about the stock market, custody, and how to protect your investments – you are in the right place!

Retail investors have been on a long march to understand more about the markets and the at times bizarre ways in which they operate. Here are some key takeaways and resources.

What is GMEJungle?

GMEJungle is a investing community focused around GameStop, and was founded as an offshoot of other GME communities. GME is a private subreddit, and only approved members can submit posts or leave comments - but anyone can browse the discussions that take place here.

What’s this all about?

Retail Investor Rights and Advocacy. The current market structure involves a centralized securities depository for ease of settlement and for access to liquidity. That depository maintains technical ownership rights for the vast majority of all outstanding shares of all publicly issued companies in the United States. Simply: You do not have direct ownership rights of shares you own through a broker.

What is DRS?

DRS is a system by which shares are transferred between the DTC (Depository Trust Company) and Transfer Agents. Shares held at DTC include all brokerage holdings, and shares held at Transfer Agents are held directly on the issuer ledger in the name of the investor. Colloquially, DRS also refers to shares which individual investors have decided to own in their own names.

What are some pros of DRS?

You have confidence that your shares are owned by you, and are there when you need them. You can more easily submit shareholder proposals, request and view company documents, and communicate with agents of the company. You know that you will be able to both cast your vote and have your vote counted when participating in votes. You can receive a more favorable tax status on received dividends. You can directly engage with your company and they can directly engage with you.

What are some cons of DRS?

You can’t easily use equity in DRS for margin trading like you can with shares in a brokerage account. Holding in a broker has more ‘anonymity’ as the public has no way to know your holdings or PII, while holding in DRS is comparatively more public. Depending on which transfer agent the company uses, investor access to liquidity may be limited.

What a Transfer Agent?

A Transfer Agent is a company which specializes in managing ownership ledgers and providing shareholder services. Every public company must have a Transfer Agent. GameStop uses Computershare, an established professional and market leader trusted by thousands of companies around the world.

What is the DTC?

DTC is a Self Regulatory organization which controls the nominee Cede and Co, which is the entity which has the material ownership of most public shares as described above. DTC is one part of the DTCC, alongside other bodies including the NSCC. The DTCC is essentially a monopoly on both clearing and settlement in the American markets, one which has been sanctioned by regulators to perform it's duties.

How do I DRS?

The answer can vary. For help DRSing GME from over 150 brokers, both American and from around the world, check out these Community-sourced detailed broker guides. Select your broker from the dropdown to get to the guide, which will walk you through the process including how to get started, how to communicate to your broker, what fees might exist and what cheaper alternatives there are (if any). If your broker isn’t listed here, reach out to the site and we can work together to improve the community resources.

Where can I learn even more?

Computershare has an extensive FAQ page which is excellent and covers a lot of ground regarding how holding your investment directly on the issuer ledger works in practice.

Two community-built websites that are full of free resources and information are www.DRSGME.org, which has a variety of information specific to GameStop including the broker guides linked above, and www.WhyDRS.org. WhyDRS is an open source platform built to provide general assistance and information about custody and finance reform, along with key information on the many thousands of U.S. publicly traded companies.

The WhyDRS Database is an extensive, free, open source repository of various contact information for all publicly traded securities.

The WhyDRS Information Packet covers a wide variety of information about DRS and was put together ahead of when some WhyDRS advocates participated in an interview with Chairman Gensler in 2023. https://www.whydrs.org/the-whydrs-information-packet

Types of Holdings: Book-Entry vs Book vs Plan vs Certificate

You may see these terms when referring to share ownership. In short:

Book-Entry means any share that is electronically tracked in a ledger rather than being held on physical paper.
Book and Plan are two labels for shares that are used in Computershare's Investor Center.
Book shares (DRS) are fully owned by the investor. Plan shares (DSPP) are owned by Computershare’s nominee, with the investor’s name appearing on the ledger in a subclass. Part of Plan shares are kept with DTC for Operational Efficiency. Exact custody chain details are provided by Computershare and quoted below. Both DRS and DSPP shares are book-entry. Certificates, meanwhile, are still tracked by the TA but have a sanctioned physical certificate associated with that share.

"Purchases made through the issuer (or its transfer agent) of securities you intend to hold in DRS are usually executed under the guidelines of an issuer’s stock purchase plan, which uses a broker-dealer to execute the orders. Thus, to hold in DRS once the securities are acquired, you would need to instruct the transfer agent to move the securities from the issuer plan to DRS." - SEC Bulletin 7/12/23

"Purchases made through the issuer (or its transfer agent) of securities you intend to hold in direct registration are usually executed under the guidelines of the issuer’s stock purchase plan. You’ll need to instruct the transfer agent to move the securities to the DRS." - FINRA Investor Insight 7/12/23

If you are an investor seeking total ownership of your assets, both SEC and FINRA agree that holding in directly on the issuer ledger and in your own name is the only way. Holding shares with the issuer's transfer agent in an investment plan is more direct than holding with a broker in terms of named ownership - with DRS holdings even more so. Shares held with a Plan are not DRS - they are held by the TAs nominee (for Computershare, this is Dingo and Co), and must be transferred out of the plan and into DRS. This is explained by Computershare on their FAQ page under ‘chains of custody’. This question was one of several asked by the WhyDRS.org community in early 2024, and we appreciate Computershare for providing a detailed answer. Their whole FAQ page has a ton of information, and is useful for any investor looking to know more.

Q: “Can you outline the chains of custody and ownership for Pure DRS and DSPP shares enrolled in the DirectStock Plan? Please specify how names are recorded 'On the Ledger' in different holding scenarios. (added 5/16/24)"

A: "The first part is a very straightforward answer. There is no ‘chain of custody’ for DRS or Pure DRS. Investors hold the shares in their own name. There is no intermediary. Computershare’s role here is solely as a transfer agent (i.e., the agent of the issuer).

For the DSPP, we use a Computershare nominee to hold the underlying shares. For the largest portion of the plan holding (80%-90%), these shares are held on the register in the main class. So the chain of custody is “CPU Nominee -> Investor”.

For the 10%-20% that we hold via our broker at DTC, the custody chain is “Cede -> Broker -> Computershare -> investor”. Notwithstanding this, all holding types are registered and held in the name of the investor in the sub-class.”

Is Buying through DSPP a Problem?

There is nothing wrong with purchasing through DirectStock if that is what makes sense for you, as it does come with some additional benefits. Many international investors buy GameStop through the plan because DirectStock is much more affordable than buying through a broker and paying them to do a DRS transfer. The fee for DirectStock is $5 and some international brokers cost hundreds of dollars to DRS, so it's smart to use DirectStock in these cases. You can check your broker's DRS transfer rates on their guidepage at DRSGME.org. Other investors buy through DirectStock because they want to be able to schedule recurring buys, or would like to be able to buy in fractional shares and accumulate ownership in smaller portions over time.

If you choose to buy through the DirectStock plan, and want to ensure total ownership of your assets, manually terminate the plan after each purchase. This will leave your account with pure DRS holdings, but comes with the cost of selling off your fractional share - this is because only whole shares can be held in direct registered ownership. Because the proceeds will be reduced by the selling fee, it's likely you will receive $0 for selling the fractional share, though you will also not be charged as the fee cannot exceed the sale price. Here's the DRSGME guide on terminating DirectStock.

What is GameStop's Investment Plan?

GameStop contracts Computershare as a Transfer Agent to manage it's stock ledger and distribute shareholder materials such as proxy materials for the annual general meeting. Computershare offers several proprietary plan structure to interested companies, including a custom option called CIP (Computershare Investment Plan) and managed DSPs (Direct Stock Purchase) for other companies such as Home Depot in which the issuer can sell stock directly to investors. However, by far the most common plan offering that they have is called DirectStock, which is a Direct Stock Purchase Plan. The boiler plate DirectStock brochure is located here. GameStop uses the DirectStock plan.

Legacy Computershare DD Series (from 2021 to 2022)

This series was originally written by PinkCatsonAcid, who started this sub a few years ago. She recently deleted all her old posts, but content is still available through the Internet Archive. Research continued during and since these posts were originally written, and using more recent resources can be more reliable – some of the information shared in these posts is known now to no longer be accurate. However, these archives are provided here for posterity and completeness. All of these links are to the most updated archive available before the posts were deleted.

If you look through the archives, check out part 7 first. It reviews the misunderstanding running through earlier parts that book and plan designations were equal in terms of custody, which is now known to be untrue and was confirmed by Computershare.

Part 1, archived 9/9/24

Part 2, archived 4/5/24

Part 3, archived 1/28/25

Part 4, archived 8/6/24

Part 5, archived 1/16/25

Part 6, archived 2/5/23

Computershare AMA Part 1, archived 2/1/25

Computershare AMA Part 2, archived 2/1/25

Part 7, the Book vs. Plan Update, archived 1/22/2022

The Jungle is a restricted community and only approved members can post and comment.

We are not accepting requests for approval at this time

Keep it groovy or leave, man! ✌

Tag mods and use the report feature if you have issues

https://x.com/RoaringSensei/status/2091556237095604469?s=20

https://youtube.com/shorts/_AGwtAtZIHg?is=mYeEA7XewZr8ffvm

(Aug 21): Andrew Left, the US short-seller whose early warnings on China Evergrande Group got him banned from trading in Hong Kong, isn’t in a gloating mood.

After the real estate developer’s founder, Hui Ka Yan, and dozens of associates were sentenced in a Chinese court on Thursday, Left said the drawn-out saga only underscores the inherent perils of short selling.

“Evergrande went up roughly 500% after I called it a house of cards,” Left said in a email to Bloomberg. “Being right and being early aren’t the same trade, and a stock can stay irrational longer than anyone’s conviction lasts.”

The founder of Citron Research was fined HK$1.6 million and hit with a five-year trading ban in Hong Kong in 2016 after questioning Evergrande’s financial soundness. The penalty came after Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission accused Left of market misconduct by making “reckless” allegations about Evergrande in a 2012 research report.

Left faces his own legal troubles in the US, where he was found guilty of securities fraud in June. Prosecutors accused him of using explosive social media posts about dozens of companies to influence their shares for quick profits. He is awaiting a post-trial motions hearing in November and sentencing the following month.

Hui was handed a life sentence in Shenzhen court room on Thursday, capping one of the most dramatic downfalls in Chinese corporate history. After a rapid rise, Evergrande defaulted on a massive debt load, while China’s securities regulator later said it had vastly inflated its 2019 and 2020 revenue and profits.

A visibly aged Hui, appearing in court with greying hair, was sentenced alongside 56 associates, including his sons Xu Zhijian and Xu Tenghe. His assets will be confiscated, and his companies were fined a combined 15.82 billion yuan.

“The amount involved in the crime is exceptionally large, the circumstances are particularly heinous, exceptionally heavy economic losses have been caused, and the harm to society is extremely grave,” state media outlet Xinhua reported on Thursday.

Before they were delisted last year, Evergrande’s Hong Kong-listed shares had plunged by more than 99% from a 2017 peak. The selloff wiped out about US$50 billion of stock market value.

Left took no satisfaction in the trial’s outcome.

“For whatever it’s worth, I never wanted a day of prison for Hui, or for anyone,” he said. “Watching that sentence come down wasn’t satisfying.”

Uploaded by Felyx Teoh

https://x.com/foxenflask/status/2090816896400605271?s=20

This is the Weekly $GME discussion thread

Happy Monday, everyone! This discussion thread is posted Monday at 12:00am Market time.

If you are looking to learn more about the stock market, custody, and how to protect your investments – you are in the right place!

Retail investors have been on a long march to understand more about the markets and the at times bizarre ways in which they operate. Here are some key takeaways and resources.

What is GMEJungle?

GMEJungle is a investing community focused around GameStop, and was founded as an offshoot of other GME communities. GME is a private subreddit, and only approved members can submit posts or leave comments - but anyone can browse the discussions that take place here.

What’s this all about?

Retail Investor Rights and Advocacy. The current market structure involves a centralized securities depository for ease of settlement and for access to liquidity. That depository maintains technical ownership rights for the vast majority of all outstanding shares of all publicly issued companies in the United States. Simply: You do not have direct ownership rights of shares you own through a broker.

What is DRS?

DRS is a system by which shares are transferred between the DTC (Depository Trust Company) and Transfer Agents. Shares held at DTC include all brokerage holdings, and shares held at Transfer Agents are held directly on the issuer ledger in the name of the investor. Colloquially, DRS also refers to shares which individual investors have decided to own in their own names.

What are some pros of DRS?

You have confidence that your shares are owned by you, and are there when you need them. You can more easily submit shareholder proposals, request and view company documents, and communicate with agents of the company. You know that you will be able to both cast your vote and have your vote counted when participating in votes. You can receive a more favorable tax status on received dividends. You can directly engage with your company and they can directly engage with you.

What are some cons of DRS?

You can’t easily use equity in DRS for margin trading like you can with shares in a brokerage account. Holding in a broker has more ‘anonymity’ as the public has no way to know your holdings or PII, while holding in DRS is comparatively more public. Depending on which transfer agent the company uses, investor access to liquidity may be limited.

What a Transfer Agent?

A Transfer Agent is a company which specializes in managing ownership ledgers and providing shareholder services. Every public company must have a Transfer Agent. GameStop uses Computershare, an established professional and market leader trusted by thousands of companies around the world.

What is the DTC?

DTC is a Self Regulatory organization which controls the nominee Cede and Co, which is the entity which has the material ownership of most public shares as described above. DTC is one part of the DTCC, alongside other bodies including the NSCC. The DTCC is essentially a monopoly on both clearing and settlement in the American markets, one which has been sanctioned by regulators to perform it's duties.

How do I DRS?

The answer can vary. For help DRSing GME from over 150 brokers, both American and from around the world, check out these Community-sourced detailed broker guides. Select your broker from the dropdown to get to the guide, which will walk you through the process including how to get started, how to communicate to your broker, what fees might exist and what cheaper alternatives there are (if any). If your broker isn’t listed here, reach out to the site and we can work together to improve the community resources.

Where can I learn even more?

Computershare has an extensive FAQ page which is excellent and covers a lot of ground regarding how holding your investment directly on the issuer ledger works in practice.

Two community-built websites that are full of free resources and information are www.DRSGME.org, which has a variety of information specific to GameStop including the broker guides linked above, and www.WhyDRS.org. WhyDRS is an open source platform built to provide general assistance and information about custody and finance reform, along with key information on the many thousands of U.S. publicly traded companies.

The WhyDRS Database is an extensive, free, open source repository of various contact information for all publicly traded securities.

The WhyDRS Information Packet covers a wide variety of information about DRS and was put together ahead of when some WhyDRS advocates participated in an interview with Chairman Gensler in 2023. https://www.whydrs.org/the-whydrs-information-packet

Types of Holdings: Book-Entry vs Book vs Plan vs Certificate

You may see these terms when referring to share ownership. In short:

Book-Entry means any share that is electronically tracked in a ledger rather than being held on physical paper.
Book and Plan are two labels for shares that are used in Computershare's Investor Center.
Book shares (DRS) are fully owned by the investor. Plan shares (DSPP) are owned by Computershare’s nominee, with the investor’s name appearing on the ledger in a subclass. Part of Plan shares are kept with DTC for Operational Efficiency. Exact custody chain details are provided by Computershare and quoted below. Both DRS and DSPP shares are book-entry. Certificates, meanwhile, are still tracked by the TA but have a sanctioned physical certificate associated with that share.

"Purchases made through the issuer (or its transfer agent) of securities you intend to hold in DRS are usually executed under the guidelines of an issuer’s stock purchase plan, which uses a broker-dealer to execute the orders. Thus, to hold in DRS once the securities are acquired, you would need to instruct the transfer agent to move the securities from the issuer plan to DRS." - SEC Bulletin 7/12/23

"Purchases made through the issuer (or its transfer agent) of securities you intend to hold in direct registration are usually executed under the guidelines of the issuer’s stock purchase plan. You’ll need to instruct the transfer agent to move the securities to the DRS." - FINRA Investor Insight 7/12/23

If you are an investor seeking total ownership of your assets, both SEC and FINRA agree that holding in directly on the issuer ledger and in your own name is the only way. Holding shares with the issuer's transfer agent in an investment plan is more direct than holding with a broker in terms of named ownership - with DRS holdings even more so. Shares held with a Plan are not DRS - they are held by the TAs nominee (for Computershare, this is Dingo and Co), and must be transferred out of the plan and into DRS. This is explained by Computershare on their FAQ page under ‘chains of custody’. This question was one of several asked by the WhyDRS.org community in early 2024, and we appreciate Computershare for providing a detailed answer. Their whole FAQ page has a ton of information, and is useful for any investor looking to know more.

Q: “Can you outline the chains of custody and ownership for Pure DRS and DSPP shares enrolled in the DirectStock Plan? Please specify how names are recorded 'On the Ledger' in different holding scenarios. (added 5/16/24)"

A: "The first part is a very straightforward answer. There is no ‘chain of custody’ for DRS or Pure DRS. Investors hold the shares in their own name. There is no intermediary. Computershare’s role here is solely as a transfer agent (i.e., the agent of the issuer).

For the DSPP, we use a Computershare nominee to hold the underlying shares. For the largest portion of the plan holding (80%-90%), these shares are held on the register in the main class. So the chain of custody is “CPU Nominee -> Investor”.

For the 10%-20% that we hold via our broker at DTC, the custody chain is “Cede -> Broker -> Computershare -> investor”. Notwithstanding this, all holding types are registered and held in the name of the investor in the sub-class.”

Is Buying through DSPP a Problem?

There is nothing wrong with purchasing through DirectStock if that is what makes sense for you, as it does come with some additional benefits. Many international investors buy GameStop through the plan because DirectStock is much more affordable than buying through a broker and paying them to do a DRS transfer. The fee for DirectStock is $5 and some international brokers cost hundreds of dollars to DRS, so it's smart to use DirectStock in these cases. You can check your broker's DRS transfer rates on their guidepage at DRSGME.org. Other investors buy through DirectStock because they want to be able to schedule recurring buys, or would like to be able to buy in fractional shares and accumulate ownership in smaller portions over time.

If you choose to buy through the DirectStock plan, and want to ensure total ownership of your assets, manually terminate the plan after each purchase. This will leave your account with pure DRS holdings, but comes with the cost of selling off your fractional share - this is because only whole shares can be held in direct registered ownership. Because the proceeds will be reduced by the selling fee, it's likely you will receive $0 for selling the fractional share, though you will also not be charged as the fee cannot exceed the sale price. Here's the DRSGME guide on terminating DirectStock.

What is GameStop's Investment Plan?

GameStop contracts Computershare as a Transfer Agent to manage it's stock ledger and distribute shareholder materials such as proxy materials for the annual general meeting. Computershare offers several proprietary plan structure to interested companies, including a custom option called CIP (Computershare Investment Plan) and managed DSPs (Direct Stock Purchase) for other companies such as Home Depot in which the issuer can sell stock directly to investors. However, by far the most common plan offering that they have is called DirectStock, which is a Direct Stock Purchase Plan. The boiler plate DirectStock brochure is located here. GameStop uses the DirectStock plan.

Legacy Computershare DD Series (from 2021 to 2022)

This series was originally written by PinkCatsonAcid, who started this sub a few years ago. She recently deleted all her old posts, but content is still available through the Internet Archive. Research continued during and since these posts were originally written, and using more recent resources can be more reliable – some of the information shared in these posts is known now to no longer be accurate. However, these archives are provided here for posterity and completeness. All of these links are to the most updated archive available before the posts were deleted.

If you look through the archives, check out part 7 first. It reviews the misunderstanding running through earlier parts that book and plan designations were equal in terms of custody, which is now known to be untrue and was confirmed by Computershare.

Part 1, archived 9/9/24

Part 2, archived 4/5/24

Part 3, archived 1/28/25

Part 4, archived 8/6/24

Part 5, archived 1/16/25

Part 6, archived 2/5/23

Computershare AMA Part 1, archived 2/1/25

Computershare AMA Part 2, archived 2/1/25

Part 7, the Book vs. Plan Update, archived 1/22/2022

The Jungle is a restricted community and only approved members can post and comment.

We are not accepting requests for approval at this time

Keep it groovy or leave, man! ✌

Tag mods and use the report feature if you have issues

Warning: formatted with Claude, as that is what clankers are for.

Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GME/gamestop/operating-income

https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/?r=el#/dateRange=all&category=custom&ciks=0001326380&entityName=GameStop%2520Corp.%2520%2520(CIK%25200001326380)&forms=10-K%252C10-Q&forms=10-K%252C10-Q)

I pulled Q1 operational profits + revenue back to 2006 and adjusted everything for inflation to today's dollar value, revenue included, to stay consistent.

In today's money this is GameStop's 8-9th (similiar value to 2014) best Q1.

The top happened when GME had 6,000 - 7,000 stores worldwide, a near-monopoly on physical game retail, and was riding the console supercycle, one of the biggest hardware upgrade waves in gaming history.

Q1 2026's +$143M happened with ~1,100 stores, no console supercycle, digital downloads eating software, and revenue 75% lower in real terms than 2011. The gap between 1st place and today is $57M.

The efficiency number tells the story best: In 2011 it took $17.40 of revenue to produce $1 of operating income. Today it takes $5.83 or ~3x more efficient. And the transformation isn't finished yet. Those are not end numbers. GameStop is zooming back to "golden era" profitability after 6 years under.

I do believe this will only get better. The hardware to collectibles pivot means higher margins, and we've yet to see PowerPacks value fully materialize across all quarters. This is a clear image that RC knows what he's doing over there. All the hate is funny to me. The number of hate posts does not correspond to the voting results AT ALL.

Data table (inflation adjusted with Claude with some human supervision):

TLDR:

Less stores. Less revenue. More profit per dollar.

They cut 75% of the revenue and kept almost all the profit. More profit incoming.That's the whole post.

Not financial advice.

​

EquitiesRegulationfeatured articlesNews

SEC Eyes Direct Control of Consolidated Audit Trail

Anna Lyudvig

By

Anna Lyudvig

August 12, 2026

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has directed agency staff to develop recommendations for changes to the governance and funding of the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT), including the possibility of the Securities and Exchange Commission taking responsibility for the system.

Paul Atkins, SEC

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins

In an August 10 letter to Robert Walley, Chair of the CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee, Atkins said the SEC has reviewed comments submitted in response to its April concept release on the CAT and other audit trails and data sources.

“Nevertheless, further changes are needed to address the costs, governance, and funding of the CAT,” Atkins wrote in the letter.

Atkins directed SEC staff to explore funding the CAT through appropriated funds and Section 31 transaction fees. He also directed staff to draft a potential rulemaking that would rescind Rule 613 and require exchanges, FINRA and broker-dealers to report CAT data directly to the SEC or its designee.

Under the approach described by Atkins, the SEC would continue to use the existing CAT infrastructure and reporting specifications. Staff will also assess the resources the SEC would need to assume responsibility for the CAT and develop recommendations regarding its governance. Atkins said a transition “would likely not be complete until late 2027”.

The SEC’s April concept release requested public comment on the CAT’s funding and cost management, regulatory purpose, governance, design and scope, cybersecurity and data privacy.

According to Atkins, the Commission received hundreds of comments. He said that “one theme that emerged from the comment file was that investors and market participants want the Commission to take more responsibility for managing and funding this project.”

CAT background and funding

The SEC adopted Rule 613 in 2012 following the May 2010 Flash Crash. The rule required national securities exchanges and FINRA to jointly develop a plan for creating, implementing and maintaining a consolidated audit trail. The CAT was designed to allow regulators to track orders and transactions across the U.S. equities and options markets.

FINRA said in its June 22 comment letter that it uses CAT data for regulatory activities including monitoring for potential market manipulation, fraud, insider trading, front-running and cross-product manipulation. The data is also used for best-execution oversight and examinations, according to FINRA.

The SEC has taken several steps to reduce CAT costs and the amount of information reported to the system. In his August 10 letter, Atkins said the Commission had eliminated reporting of personally identifiable information to the CAT and reduced annual operating costs through exemptive relief and amendments to the CAT NMS Plan.

The CAT NMS Plan participants said in their June 22 comment letter that the self-regulatory organizations had provided $915 million in voluntary, interest-free loans to fund CAT development. The CAT NMS Plan participants also said industry firms had incurred costs to modify their systems to report information to the CAT. The SEC subsequently adopted a revised funding approach while continuing its broader review of the CAT.

Market response and next steps

SIFMA and FINRA addressed CAT funding and governance in their comment letters. In its June 22 comment letter, SIFMA recommended that the SEC take over CAT funding and ultimately eliminate the CAT NMS Plan. SIFMA said its “primary recommendation is for the Commission to take over the funding of the CAT”. The trade group said the SEC should include CAT funding in its annual budget request to Congress and eventually operate the CAT directly.

SIFMA also said industry participants bear 80% or more of CAT costs, while the SEC is “the most significant beneficiary of the CAT and effectively controls it”. The organization recommended creating a CAT advisory committee that would include representatives from alternative trading systems, retail brokers, market makers, self-regulatory organizations and technology and information-security specialists.

FINRA also recommended that the SEC assume responsibility for CAT governance and funding. In its June 22 comment letter, the organization said the CAT “is essential to regulatory oversight of the U.S. capital markets”. FINRA recommended that CAT costs be included in the SEC’s budget, subject to congressional approval, and that Section 31 fees be available as another source of funding.

The regulator also recommended that the SEC establish its own audit-trail reporting rule. FINRA said that rule could replace Rule 613 following a transition period, while the existing CAT infrastructure and reporting specifications could continue to be used. FINRA also addressed the CAT NMS Plan’s voting structure.

The regulator said the plan has 28 participants, with four affiliated exchange groups holding 21 of the 28 votes. FINRA has one vote. “Eleven years after the CAT NMS Plan Participants filed their first proposal for funding CAT, there is still not a permanent funding model in place,” FINRA said.

https://www.tradersmagazine.com/featured_articles/sec-eyes-direct-control-of-consolidated-audit-trail/

https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-letter-robert-walley-regarding-consolidated-audit-trail-081026

​

https://x.com/DOMOCAPITAL/status/2087868728780157130?s=20

https://x.com/foxenflask/status/2087541247812497644?s=20

https://x.com/APompliano/status/2087168333850292249?s=20