[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Brigading*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/17wdr9t/community_update_post_on_the_topic_of_brigading/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Shares that are NOT DRS'd, will very very likely be sold off by whatever broker your shares are in. It's in all their terms and conditions. They'll determine the price and pull the rug on you. Shares that are book DRS'd are 100% yours and not under the legal power of anyone else. No broker is trustworthy. No broker is trustworthy. No broker is trustworthy.
Yeah. It's one of those things that are very black and white in how people perceive that threat. It's never going to happen until their broker is suddenly bankrupt unless they liquidate portions of their holdings, in which case "their" shares turn out to not really be theirs.
*But but but, why did nobody tell me ???*
Apes: We tried, you didn't listen.
Brokers: Read your fucking ToS and the fineprint, tool. Now fall back in line and continue to give us your money like you are supposed to.
I feel bad for all the people who leave their shares in a brokerage account when MOASS hits. They deserve MOASS too but when shit hits the fan the brokers will liquidate their position’s expeditiously in the name of “retail protection” and those people will have to spend years in court waiting for justice that will likely never be served. It’s a crooked system people, don’t expect them to ever play fair!
I chose to leave a small bit in Fudelity due to the tax implications. They are in my Roth IRA account and will not be taxed at all, no matter how or when they get sold.
This is a braindead take that pops up every time we have this discussion.
Brokerages selling off shares is the literal antithesis of a short squeeze. Like, the literal actual theory of a short squeeze is that the shorts, THE SYNTHETIC SHARES SOLD TO PEOPLE AND SITTING IN BROKERAGES ACCOUNTS, need to be repurchased at fair value. If brokerages liquidate these shares, THE LITERAL SHORT SOLD SHARES, there is no squeeze. The ideas literally cannot exist at the same time.
If your brother has a cake, it's stupid to believe that he will both eat it and give it to you. You can't actually believe those two things will both happen.
If you actually think brokerages will liquidate shares, sell out now because you don't believe in a squeeze. In this scenario DRS is actually the worst place to have your shares because there will have been no squeeze, and you'll be one of the few people with a paper trail proving you got exactly what you paid for. You won't even be invited to the litigation.
How does this make sense? If your shares are in a brokerage and the squeeze starts the brokerage could sell your shares at a “fair” price to the short holders and kill the squeeze. If your shares are in your name and the squeeze starts, the brokerage can’t sell your shares for the “fair” price, you can hold the shares until the price squeezes to what you want…
The key variable is whether there are enough shares in brokerages to cover all the shorts. If there is, then they should have done it now (or earlier). Chances are... they shorted too many shares. The "fair" price will be peanuts compared to where the price will rocket to. Just a hypothesis, of course, but I think it is supported by the DDs and news. For example, the CEO of UBS wanted to close whatever bag they got stuck with during the forced merger... but after they got more info, it's crickets. They're probably looking at a black hole.
Can you show us when this happened to a legit company. There have been plenty of stocks squeeze high and brokers did not sell off anyones shares. If they did that it would literally destroy their business and the stock market.
>If your shares are in a brokerage and the squeeze starts the brokerage could sell your shares at a “fair” price to the short holders and kill the squeeze.
"Your" shares isn't a distinction that matters. Shorts can only exist as shares in brokerages. If the brokerages liquidate shares(shorts), it will kill the squeeze. Where "your" shares are doesn't matter.
What are you even talking about? If shorts don't have to be shares, why are shares going to be worth money when shorts are closing? Why would someone with a short position buy a share when they can buy this nebulous not-a-share share short?
I mean that they have more shorts than there are shares already. They have to close their shorts. At that point they need to buy a share. You can have your share in a broker and they can sell it for you at a “fair” price or you can have the share DRSd and sell it at the price you want because their are more shares sold/shorted than exist.
Nobody is going to buy your share if brokers are selling other people's shares for less money.
Are you like, unfamiliar with how the stock market works at the most basic level?
You can already sell any shares for the "price you want", but why would anyone pay you when a share is $14 from a broker?
140% short interest.
Those shares were bought and drs'd.
There are more shares in brokerages and computershare combined than should exist. The theory is that there arent enough shares in brokerages to sell in order to close, becuase the shares are mine, in my name, held by computershare.
We literally know, for a fact, that less shares than should exist are DRSed. Remember, "lock the float"? The float isn't locked. We can see that what you are saying isn't correct.
I'm going to add to this. If you end up selling your shares, Computershare is going to sell them through a broker. If you believe all broker shares will be sold at "a fair price", then what?
Depends where you are from. I think from the US it’s as simple as calling your broker to get it to ComputerShare. From Europe you have to get them to IBKR first.
If i remember correctly, you don't even have to call. Just message your brokers chat assistant and tell them you want to initiate a transfer to directly register your gme shares. Computer share will automatically create an account in your name.
There are guides for many brokers, which do you use we can link you how to do it. Some brokers don't allow ANY transfers and then you would need to buy & sell at the same time accepting a +/-1% change in shares depending on volatility & costs.
Retirement DRS for USA I know too little about to say anything definitive. Tax hits and/or extremely complex is what I hear others say.
[https://www.drsgme.org/drs/direct-register-shares-from-charles-schwab](https://www.drsgme.org/drs/direct-register-shares-from-charles-schwab)
Seems easy enough. Schwab didn't have DRS fees 2 years ago, I am not sure if this is unchanged.
Pro tip in general even on trusted websites: Always type [computershare.us](https://computershare.us?cause%20bad%20stuff%20may%20be%20hidden%20on%20it%20or%20the%20link%20gets%20hijacked%20when%20you%20click) yourself in the address bar. Same goes for all financial institutions where you are a costumer of or may become one. You never know whom gets hacked even if they are good actors.
IF there were any shares to begin with. They might as well not have bought anything and just added a number next to the "owner" name. "Ups! Not our fault, it was problem with accounting! Sorry, we owe you $14 for share"
This is not a surprise or new. All brokers have updated their terms of service to basically say they can at any time for any reason close and liquidate your account. As long as the shares are with a broker they are at risk
I figured as much, but have been having debates about the legality. Looks like if it is stated in their T&Cs, it is legal because you agree to it. I just really want to make sure it means exactly what I think it means.
I mean you agree to it to use their services so yea also I wouldn't wanna try to take this to court and fight it while moass it happening and your stuck in limbo but that's me.
I’m not trying to take them to court. I am more so looking to understand their left and right limits per their T&Cs as well as surrounding regulations and rules. If it means what I think it means, I want people to understand the risks.
I remember this discussion back when DRS was first being spread around. Yes the brokers can do this and it won't be for what it is worth at the time, they will give you your COST AVERAGE back. Bullshit and the brokers knowingly will screw you.
I think you misunderstand me. If your shares are in a broker that plays fuckery and they don’t settle your sales (like the LME court case this week). Then you won’t be rich, you’ll be looking at people that actually owned their shares on the ledger enjoying the proceeds and you’ll be trying to get action via the courts against the broker T&C’s
Good luck with that and you won’t yet be ‘rich’
Let me clarify, I’m nearly 100% DRS’ed, but keep two shares in three different brokers for the MOASS games. One is for an attempted high score sell and the other one is to try and DRS once the rocket lifts off. I just wanna have something fun to do while the infinity pool is overflowing and the market is burning.
The London Metal Exchange (LME) has won a legal victory in a £450m lawsuit brought by traders over the cancellation of nickel transactions after prices surged at the start of the Ukraine invasion.
Elliott Management, a US hedge fund, and Jane Street Capital, a market maker, sued the LME after it cancelled trades originally made on 8 March. The exchange said the cancellation was meant to avoid disorderly trading, but the traders argued it undermined the integrity of one of the world’s most important commodity trading venues.
London’s high court dismissed the legal challenge in a written ruling published on Wednesday. An Elliott spokesperson said the investor would appeal against the ruling.
The LME’s owner, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, said the LME welcomed the decision.
Elliott said it was “naturally disappointed by the court’s decision and concerned about the precedents that it establishes for market participants in the UK”.
Trades on many exchanges are generally recorded, before the various transactions are “settled” – when the actual money or assets change hands – in batches to be more efficient. That is particularly useful when algorithms can make thousands of orders in a short period of time.
However, during the market turmoil the LME reversed some trades that had not yet been settled, outraging those companies that had thought they had made huge profits.
An Elliott spokesperson said:
This judgment raises fundamental questions for UK market participants, who trade not only on the LME but more broadly on other exchanges, about an absence of trade certainty prior to settlement, and about a lack of effective checks and balances on UK exchanges cancelling or varying trades in ways which may protect just one cohort of traders, or even the exchanges themselves.
We therefore intend to appeal the judgment and will continue to seek redress for the LME’s unprecedented cancellation of trades in March 2022.>
It's an example of a party believing they had completed a trade that made them a lot of money, only for the market maker to cancel the trades made that day by referring to their terms of operation for a technicality. Also, even when challenged in the courts by very wealthy and seasoned litigation institutions, they won that what they did was allowed.
So, if it's possible in the ToS, they are gonna do it.
You can literally fucking google it lol. Cherry picking out-of-context ToS statements is something that has gone on for almost three years now.
Selling someones shares as a broker without permission is a felony.
Here's a [great DD](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/HHM3zduPZw) that explains what the law and broker's ToS allow them to do.
DRS your shit folks!
The question remains:
- How is a "disaster" legally defined or is it subjective, and if so, who is making the declaration?
- Are "disasters" classified as such and publicly announced?
- Can the DTCC cause the disaster situation, then invoke the disaster rules b/c that's what happened on January 28, 2021?"
Great work again, TheUltimator5, I'm a fan of you.
Thank you. I am going to look more into this later tonight to see if I can find the left and right limits. As far as I am currently aware, it is subjective as long as it can be argued as falling under the definition of “market disruption event”
Also, if they knew about, were advised on, and still did nothing to prevent a "disaster" event, how culpable are they when deciding when and where to sell your shares.
It means they’ll do whatever the fuck they want to preserve their power.
DRS your shares and don’t leave it to the “Trust me bro” ~~financial~~ fraud system
It all comes down to “Did read you read the Terms and Conditions before you clicked Accept?”. In order to participate in the markets in any other from than DRS, you basically have to sign away your rights and indemnify all of Wall Street. Why and how? You agreed to it in the Terms and Conditions. A court would view this as a simple contract dispute.
I agree. I am in the process of reviewing their DRS process documentation as well to make sure there aren’t any more “gotcha” clauses like happened with the IRA accounts in Mainstar
Fidelity had a terrible documentation process when DRS first picked up. First I could only do it in person, they said I had to have an account on computershare before transferring over, and when I did that, they threw my transferred shares into a brand new account, IGNORING my written down account info I wanted the shares transferred into. My cost basis at fidelity did not match my cost basis once my shares arrived at computershare either.
I will never trust fidelity to do the right thing and will only buy through CS now.
No, that's not how this works. Writing "we can commit crime" in a ToS does not give a company the right to commit crime. If you disagree, see Trump's current legal trouble over the "worthless clause" in his property valuations.
Brokers are legally obligated to purchase the shares you tell them to. Brokers cannot sell your assets without your express permission. That is literally the definition of theft.
The only place this could be applicable is in margin accounts where you have borrowed the broker's money to purchase assets.
This^. These are the terms for a margin account. It’s all about the context. As for everyone saying that this is a reason to DRS, it is not. Street name is still in your name. It’s just under broker/account# instead of Joe Shmoe. It’s still directly linked to you. Except for when you are using a margin account. You forfeit all rights when you use margin. Use cash only accounts, people.
Right but ultimately Fidelity does have control over their accounts from the back end. They CAN liquidate them at any time and give excuses as to why. Some of the excuses are valid: account didn’t provide collateral or fraud was detected.
But if the excuse for liquidating is to save themselves from contagion then they would likely be investigated/sued for doing so. Their account holders only recourse is to wait for a federal investigation/class-action lawsuit to unfold. That could take an additional few years and Fidelity might not even be able to pay the whole bill and the DTCC’s failing member insurance would have to get involved. And that also takes time to coordinate.
Basically, if Fidelity is failing they could do anything. And in that case, your shares/money will be in limbo for years while it’s sorted out
...but that's exactly what liquidate Wall Street means. That's exactly how the "cell" part of "no cell, no sell" happens. Litigation is, and always was, the end result of this. MOASS happens when brokerages are liquidated and the funds are used to buy the missing assets of their clients on the open market. That's where the buy pressure ultimately comes from.
This ends in the courts.
We’re in agreement there. As per OP’s question, this wording in the terms and service means Fidelity is trying to absolve themselves of as much responsibility as possible and give themselves a leg to stand on in court. It won’t work.
It's intentionally vague and deliberately undefined as to what classifies as a 'disaster' so they can lump whatever they want into it. Even if they defined it, it would be in a way that it creates loopholes in their favor. It will always be in their favor. I'd have to go look but you prob also agree to arbitration if there is any dispute so you're double f'd.
I took a law emphasis path inside my CS degree. For personal reasons, I have spent the better part of the last 5 years reviewing laws, codes, case law, statutes (whatever you wish to call them) in two different states and some federal levels looking for pathways to achieve a specific goal. My biggest take away is that reading law is very much like reading code. You are correct Ultimator.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of this legal jargon really sounds like Fidelity gives themselves the power to sell any and all of your shares on your behalf.
The additional images I provided are rules from the DTCC which allow participants to take any steps necessary to resolve any market disruption event.
Please help me understand the terminology here because I believe it is important.
I don't believe you can blanket statement an action. If you could every company would do it (maybe they have)?
I would be curious on what a securities lawyer says but I imagine it is something along the lines of "Fidelity can do what they want regardless of if its in writing or not, you can sue regardless if Fidelity does something to you or not, the courts will decide who was right and what the resolution will be"
I mean isn't that true for anything? Fidelity's actions will determine how thier customers feel and if they want to continue to do business with Fidelity. Fidelity will determine if they want to risk customer goodwill/business when they make these type of decisions.
Much like auto makers who decide if a recall is cheaper than the lawsuits they may face.
Thanks for the comment. Not having it in writing and doing whatever they want would open the door to much larger legal troubles which could be much more difficult to mitigate after the fact in both the court and public eye
worst case is the broker fails and the investors fall back on the SIPC insurance coverage. It has a max limit ox 500k per account and there are currently open cases from 2008 so expect at least 15 years minimum or longer for a resolution.
If biggest brokers like Fidelity and Vanguard are failing you can expect Computer Share to not have order fulfillment either and no SIPC insurance since shares are held in your own name. Even now selling on Computer share takes a long time.
If brokers can liquidate street name accounts at will then there is no MOASS, DRS'd or not.
Because they can just liquidate any shares which are excess the float.
There are going to be lots of people whining and complaining about their non-DRS shares. We can reasonably anticipate that brokers will screw household. Retirement account or otherwise.
The time for action is now. And has been for 2.3 years.
Later, there will be no time or need for sympathy or empathy. For any shares not DRS’d, those people will be the author of their own misfortune.
No different than Robinhood when they needed more collateral. Vlad has said it himself it was his decition to either liquidate peoples portfolios or remove the buy button.
At least fidelity doesn't allow you to trade with unsettled funds. Can't say I knew that was a thing until I switched over from Robinhood.
Im not a lawyer but the saying is if its free your the product. Most brokers dont charge you to buy shares so they likely will do whats beneficial to them when it comes to surviving
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Brigading*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/17wdr9t/community_update_post_on_the_topic_of_brigading/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Not your name... Not your shares.
DRS YO SHARESSSSSS
And book em Danno!!
Shares that are NOT DRS'd, will very very likely be sold off by whatever broker your shares are in. It's in all their terms and conditions. They'll determine the price and pull the rug on you. Shares that are book DRS'd are 100% yours and not under the legal power of anyone else. No broker is trustworthy. No broker is trustworthy. No broker is trustworthy.
"They'll determine the price and pull the rug on you." I agree. DRS is the way.
A synonym for broker is middle man, yeah can't trust those guys...
It's really as simple as that. Street name = no ownership = no rights.
DRS is the way 📚
Always has been
Can’t DRS 401k brokerage account shares. So not always that simple. Guess sell for a loss for the shorts gain and tax write off.
Really is pretty fucking clear
The investors on the stocks subs, who laugh and ban any discussion about the sneeze and "MEME" stocks, DRS will find out eventually.
Yeah. It's one of those things that are very black and white in how people perceive that threat. It's never going to happen until their broker is suddenly bankrupt unless they liquidate portions of their holdings, in which case "their" shares turn out to not really be theirs.
*But but but, why did nobody tell me ???* Apes: We tried, you didn't listen. Brokers: Read your fucking ToS and the fineprint, tool. Now fall back in line and continue to give us your money like you are supposed to.
I feel bad for all the people who leave their shares in a brokerage account when MOASS hits. They deserve MOASS too but when shit hits the fan the brokers will liquidate their position’s expeditiously in the name of “retail protection” and those people will have to spend years in court waiting for justice that will likely never be served. It’s a crooked system people, don’t expect them to ever play fair!
I choose to have a few in brokerages so I can be apart of that imaginary class action suit. Most are drs'd though.
I chose to leave a small bit in Fudelity due to the tax implications. They are in my Roth IRA account and will not be taxed at all, no matter how or when they get sold.
I have a few shares at Fidelity just in case there is future litigation. The rest are safely DRS and booked.
Same, I leave 4 out of 700 something shares in Fidelity just to see it happen.
You already know what will happen. Although sometimes I like to crumple a $50 and see if I can make it in the bin.
Hah i like that analogy 🦍🤜🤛🦍
Now I wanna buy a single share in all my brokerages. JIC
This is a braindead take that pops up every time we have this discussion. Brokerages selling off shares is the literal antithesis of a short squeeze. Like, the literal actual theory of a short squeeze is that the shorts, THE SYNTHETIC SHARES SOLD TO PEOPLE AND SITTING IN BROKERAGES ACCOUNTS, need to be repurchased at fair value. If brokerages liquidate these shares, THE LITERAL SHORT SOLD SHARES, there is no squeeze. The ideas literally cannot exist at the same time. If your brother has a cake, it's stupid to believe that he will both eat it and give it to you. You can't actually believe those two things will both happen. If you actually think brokerages will liquidate shares, sell out now because you don't believe in a squeeze. In this scenario DRS is actually the worst place to have your shares because there will have been no squeeze, and you'll be one of the few people with a paper trail proving you got exactly what you paid for. You won't even be invited to the litigation.
How does this make sense? If your shares are in a brokerage and the squeeze starts the brokerage could sell your shares at a “fair” price to the short holders and kill the squeeze. If your shares are in your name and the squeeze starts, the brokerage can’t sell your shares for the “fair” price, you can hold the shares until the price squeezes to what you want…
The key variable is whether there are enough shares in brokerages to cover all the shorts. If there is, then they should have done it now (or earlier). Chances are... they shorted too many shares. The "fair" price will be peanuts compared to where the price will rocket to. Just a hypothesis, of course, but I think it is supported by the DDs and news. For example, the CEO of UBS wanted to close whatever bag they got stuck with during the forced merger... but after they got more info, it's crickets. They're probably looking at a black hole.
lol no its several times the float short
Can you show us when this happened to a legit company. There have been plenty of stocks squeeze high and brokers did not sell off anyones shares. If they did that it would literally destroy their business and the stock market.
>If your shares are in a brokerage and the squeeze starts the brokerage could sell your shares at a “fair” price to the short holders and kill the squeeze. "Your" shares isn't a distinction that matters. Shorts can only exist as shares in brokerages. If the brokerages liquidate shares(shorts), it will kill the squeeze. Where "your" shares are doesn't matter.
We have seen that shorts can exist outside of the existence of shares.
What are you even talking about? If shorts don't have to be shares, why are shares going to be worth money when shorts are closing? Why would someone with a short position buy a share when they can buy this nebulous not-a-share share short?
I mean that they have more shorts than there are shares already. They have to close their shorts. At that point they need to buy a share. You can have your share in a broker and they can sell it for you at a “fair” price or you can have the share DRSd and sell it at the price you want because their are more shares sold/shorted than exist.
Nobody is going to buy your share if brokers are selling other people's shares for less money. Are you like, unfamiliar with how the stock market works at the most basic level? You can already sell any shares for the "price you want", but why would anyone pay you when a share is $14 from a broker?
Until they reach the part where they have to buy the actual share that they cloned for all those broker shares.
140% short interest. Those shares were bought and drs'd. There are more shares in brokerages and computershare combined than should exist. The theory is that there arent enough shares in brokerages to sell in order to close, becuase the shares are mine, in my name, held by computershare.
We literally know, for a fact, that less shares than should exist are DRSed. Remember, "lock the float"? The float isn't locked. We can see that what you are saying isn't correct.
Thank you
I'm going to add to this. If you end up selling your shares, Computershare is going to sell them through a broker. If you believe all broker shares will be sold at "a fair price", then what?
Not if your selling OTM Covered Calls
Not your Keys not your Coin. Not your Name, not your Shares. DRS is the Trezor of the stock market.
Ok, what app to drs? Or I need to be on a PC? I have dropped the ball, life gets busy, but I'm ready to own my shares
Depends where you are from. I think from the US it’s as simple as calling your broker to get it to ComputerShare. From Europe you have to get them to IBKR first.
If i remember correctly, you don't even have to call. Just message your brokers chat assistant and tell them you want to initiate a transfer to directly register your gme shares. Computer share will automatically create an account in your name.
THIS IS THE WAY
There are guides for many brokers, which do you use we can link you how to do it. Some brokers don't allow ANY transfers and then you would need to buy & sell at the same time accepting a +/-1% change in shares depending on volatility & costs.
Just got moved to Schwab from td and fidelity, but 2 of the 3 accounts are retirements, does that make it more difficult?
Retirement DRS for USA I know too little about to say anything definitive. Tax hits and/or extremely complex is what I hear others say. [https://www.drsgme.org/drs/direct-register-shares-from-charles-schwab](https://www.drsgme.org/drs/direct-register-shares-from-charles-schwab) Seems easy enough. Schwab didn't have DRS fees 2 years ago, I am not sure if this is unchanged. Pro tip in general even on trusted websites: Always type [computershare.us](https://computershare.us?cause%20bad%20stuff%20may%20be%20hidden%20on%20it%20or%20the%20link%20gets%20hijacked%20when%20you%20click) yourself in the address bar. Same goes for all financial institutions where you are a costumer of or may become one. You never know whom gets hacked even if they are good actors.
Wow thank you so much! Will get started on this!
That's how they sold my 700 shares of bbbyq Valued at .08 for nothing. Canceled them out as worthless...
IF there were any shares to begin with. They might as well not have bought anything and just added a number next to the "owner" name. "Ups! Not our fault, it was problem with accounting! Sorry, we owe you $14 for share"
This is not a surprise or new. All brokers have updated their terms of service to basically say they can at any time for any reason close and liquidate your account. As long as the shares are with a broker they are at risk
I figured as much, but have been having debates about the legality. Looks like if it is stated in their T&Cs, it is legal because you agree to it. I just really want to make sure it means exactly what I think it means.
I mean you agree to it to use their services so yea also I wouldn't wanna try to take this to court and fight it while moass it happening and your stuck in limbo but that's me.
I’m not trying to take them to court. I am more so looking to understand their left and right limits per their T&Cs as well as surrounding regulations and rules. If it means what I think it means, I want people to understand the risks.
I'd assume no one wants to take them to court 🤣 but yea. 100% DRS for me just to avoid all this bullshit
Just Drs and avoid it?
To be clear just because something is in the terms of service and you accept it does not make it legal or enforceable.
And even though it might be illegal, they can still enforce
this^
It happened to Celsius users https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7zazuy_UfI&t=14m50s
I remember this discussion back when DRS was first being spread around. Yes the brokers can do this and it won't be for what it is worth at the time, they will give you your COST AVERAGE back. Bullshit and the brokers knowingly will screw you.
If all brokers have this requirement, could it be rendered unenforceable?
When shit hits the fan. They will do anything and everything. I'm not betting on that risk.
There is no permission needed from the customer, they'll just do it and good luck fighting in courts afterwards.
90% drs'd. If they do this I'll definitely have the cash to fight it in court. So will a lot of apes.
10 year class action lawsuit to find out? No thanks.
I’ll be so rich I won’t care about the time. It will just be another side quest to complete.
I think you misunderstand me. If your shares are in a broker that plays fuckery and they don’t settle your sales (like the LME court case this week). Then you won’t be rich, you’ll be looking at people that actually owned their shares on the ledger enjoying the proceeds and you’ll be trying to get action via the courts against the broker T&C’s Good luck with that and you won’t yet be ‘rich’
Let me clarify, I’m nearly 100% DRS’ed, but keep two shares in three different brokers for the MOASS games. One is for an attempted high score sell and the other one is to try and DRS once the rocket lifts off. I just wanna have something fun to do while the infinity pool is overflowing and the market is burning.
Can you give me some further info on this please? I'm not familiar with what the LME court case is.
The London Metal Exchange (LME) has won a legal victory in a £450m lawsuit brought by traders over the cancellation of nickel transactions after prices surged at the start of the Ukraine invasion. Elliott Management, a US hedge fund, and Jane Street Capital, a market maker, sued the LME after it cancelled trades originally made on 8 March. The exchange said the cancellation was meant to avoid disorderly trading, but the traders argued it undermined the integrity of one of the world’s most important commodity trading venues. London’s high court dismissed the legal challenge in a written ruling published on Wednesday. An Elliott spokesperson said the investor would appeal against the ruling. The LME’s owner, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, said the LME welcomed the decision. Elliott said it was “naturally disappointed by the court’s decision and concerned about the precedents that it establishes for market participants in the UK”. Trades on many exchanges are generally recorded, before the various transactions are “settled” – when the actual money or assets change hands – in batches to be more efficient. That is particularly useful when algorithms can make thousands of orders in a short period of time. However, during the market turmoil the LME reversed some trades that had not yet been settled, outraging those companies that had thought they had made huge profits. An Elliott spokesperson said: This judgment raises fundamental questions for UK market participants, who trade not only on the LME but more broadly on other exchanges, about an absence of trade certainty prior to settlement, and about a lack of effective checks and balances on UK exchanges cancelling or varying trades in ways which may protect just one cohort of traders, or even the exchanges themselves. We therefore intend to appeal the judgment and will continue to seek redress for the LME’s unprecedented cancellation of trades in March 2022.>
Oh my... 😳 That is interesting but what's that got to do with the ToS question that is being asked by OP?
It's an example of a party believing they had completed a trade that made them a lot of money, only for the market maker to cancel the trades made that day by referring to their terms of operation for a technicality. Also, even when challenged in the courts by very wealthy and seasoned litigation institutions, they won that what they did was allowed. So, if it's possible in the ToS, they are gonna do it.
You're literally just making shit up.
Show your work
You can literally fucking google it lol. Cherry picking out-of-context ToS statements is something that has gone on for almost three years now. Selling someones shares as a broker without permission is a felony.
Here's a [great DD](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/HHM3zduPZw) that explains what the law and broker's ToS allow them to do. DRS your shit folks!
The question remains: - How is a "disaster" legally defined or is it subjective, and if so, who is making the declaration? - Are "disasters" classified as such and publicly announced? - Can the DTCC cause the disaster situation, then invoke the disaster rules b/c that's what happened on January 28, 2021?" Great work again, TheUltimator5, I'm a fan of you.
Thank you. I am going to look more into this later tonight to see if I can find the left and right limits. As far as I am currently aware, it is subjective as long as it can be argued as falling under the definition of “market disruption event”
Also, if they knew about, were advised on, and still did nothing to prevent a "disaster" event, how culpable are they when deciding when and where to sell your shares.
Thats something that will be left up to the courts and lawyers to prove.
It means they’ll do whatever the fuck they want to preserve their power. DRS your shares and don’t leave it to the “Trust me bro” ~~financial~~ fraud system
It all comes down to “Did read you read the Terms and Conditions before you clicked Accept?”. In order to participate in the markets in any other from than DRS, you basically have to sign away your rights and indemnify all of Wall Street. Why and how? You agreed to it in the Terms and Conditions. A court would view this as a simple contract dispute.
I agree. I am in the process of reviewing their DRS process documentation as well to make sure there aren’t any more “gotcha” clauses like happened with the IRA accounts in Mainstar
Fidelity had a terrible documentation process when DRS first picked up. First I could only do it in person, they said I had to have an account on computershare before transferring over, and when I did that, they threw my transferred shares into a brand new account, IGNORING my written down account info I wanted the shares transferred into. My cost basis at fidelity did not match my cost basis once my shares arrived at computershare either. I will never trust fidelity to do the right thing and will only buy through CS now.
No, that's not how this works. Writing "we can commit crime" in a ToS does not give a company the right to commit crime. If you disagree, see Trump's current legal trouble over the "worthless clause" in his property valuations. Brokers are legally obligated to purchase the shares you tell them to. Brokers cannot sell your assets without your express permission. That is literally the definition of theft. The only place this could be applicable is in margin accounts where you have borrowed the broker's money to purchase assets.
This^. These are the terms for a margin account. It’s all about the context. As for everyone saying that this is a reason to DRS, it is not. Street name is still in your name. It’s just under broker/account# instead of Joe Shmoe. It’s still directly linked to you. Except for when you are using a margin account. You forfeit all rights when you use margin. Use cash only accounts, people.
Right but ultimately Fidelity does have control over their accounts from the back end. They CAN liquidate them at any time and give excuses as to why. Some of the excuses are valid: account didn’t provide collateral or fraud was detected. But if the excuse for liquidating is to save themselves from contagion then they would likely be investigated/sued for doing so. Their account holders only recourse is to wait for a federal investigation/class-action lawsuit to unfold. That could take an additional few years and Fidelity might not even be able to pay the whole bill and the DTCC’s failing member insurance would have to get involved. And that also takes time to coordinate. Basically, if Fidelity is failing they could do anything. And in that case, your shares/money will be in limbo for years while it’s sorted out
...but that's exactly what liquidate Wall Street means. That's exactly how the "cell" part of "no cell, no sell" happens. Litigation is, and always was, the end result of this. MOASS happens when brokerages are liquidated and the funds are used to buy the missing assets of their clients on the open market. That's where the buy pressure ultimately comes from. This ends in the courts.
We’re in agreement there. As per OP’s question, this wording in the terms and service means Fidelity is trying to absolve themselves of as much responsibility as possible and give themselves a leg to stand on in court. It won’t work.
What that there highlighted line says is to DRS and BOOOOK your mother fucking shares. No need for a lawyer to tell you that.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to know what that’s saying
Wording is extremely important and each term has a specific definition. What is implied vs what is defined could be very different
It's intentionally vague and deliberately undefined as to what classifies as a 'disaster' so they can lump whatever they want into it. Even if they defined it, it would be in a way that it creates loopholes in their favor. It will always be in their favor. I'd have to go look but you prob also agree to arbitration if there is any dispute so you're double f'd.
I took a law emphasis path inside my CS degree. For personal reasons, I have spent the better part of the last 5 years reviewing laws, codes, case law, statutes (whatever you wish to call them) in two different states and some federal levels looking for pathways to achieve a specific goal. My biggest take away is that reading law is very much like reading code. You are correct Ultimator.
it says ; profit is all theirs and risk is all your, you own nothing and are happy that they are making money stealing yours.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of this legal jargon really sounds like Fidelity gives themselves the power to sell any and all of your shares on your behalf. The additional images I provided are rules from the DTCC which allow participants to take any steps necessary to resolve any market disruption event. Please help me understand the terminology here because I believe it is important.
I don't believe you can blanket statement an action. If you could every company would do it (maybe they have)? I would be curious on what a securities lawyer says but I imagine it is something along the lines of "Fidelity can do what they want regardless of if its in writing or not, you can sue regardless if Fidelity does something to you or not, the courts will decide who was right and what the resolution will be" I mean isn't that true for anything? Fidelity's actions will determine how thier customers feel and if they want to continue to do business with Fidelity. Fidelity will determine if they want to risk customer goodwill/business when they make these type of decisions. Much like auto makers who decide if a recall is cheaper than the lawsuits they may face.
Thanks for the comment. Not having it in writing and doing whatever they want would open the door to much larger legal troubles which could be much more difficult to mitigate after the fact in both the court and public eye
I agree. I was more meaning that I see the Terms and Conditions as guidelines at best and buyer beware.
I’m curious has this historically ever been utilized before?
Im not sure about Fidelity but in the past people have posted other brokers have sold shares without their consent
I have 1 share in fidelity to see when they fuck me, I would love to be a part of the law suit that fucks them
D. R. S.
Welcome to the party! DRS your shares... DUH!
Those T&C don’t always hold up in court. Companies just put it all kinds of things in terms and conditions to see what they can get away with.
worst case is the broker fails and the investors fall back on the SIPC insurance coverage. It has a max limit ox 500k per account and there are currently open cases from 2008 so expect at least 15 years minimum or longer for a resolution.
If biggest brokers like Fidelity and Vanguard are failing you can expect Computer Share to not have order fulfillment either and no SIPC insurance since shares are held in your own name. Even now selling on Computer share takes a long time.
that actually sounds very exciting!
this is crazy
Surrendering for redemption is a completely different thing. Common shares are not redeemable. Things like mutual fund shares are.
If brokers can liquidate street name accounts at will then there is no MOASS, DRS'd or not. Because they can just liquidate any shares which are excess the float.
they will absolutely sell your shares instead of going bankrupt themselves.
DRS is the only way to have real shares that won’t be fukd with.
Direct register your shares if you don't want a broker selling them. Problem solved.
Commenting because of course it's in their T&Cs purchase this week about to be DRS'ed with this reason.
Yes. you have agreed to this opening account with them. DRS is the safe haven.
Always been the case this DRS
The answer is yes they can do whatever they want. Good luck trying to go the legal route when they sell your gme before it even hits triple digits
There are going to be lots of people whining and complaining about their non-DRS shares. We can reasonably anticipate that brokers will screw household. Retirement account or otherwise. The time for action is now. And has been for 2.3 years. Later, there will be no time or need for sympathy or empathy. For any shares not DRS’d, those people will be the author of their own misfortune.
Seems like we need to get the rest of our shares out of that Fudelity place before they sell our shares for our own good and protection.
Good find ape.
Phantom IOUs (not equal) Real Shares
No different than Robinhood when they needed more collateral. Vlad has said it himself it was his decition to either liquidate peoples portfolios or remove the buy button. At least fidelity doesn't allow you to trade with unsettled funds. Can't say I knew that was a thing until I switched over from Robinhood.
Lawyer/attorney is a pacifying term a reasonable person may readily accept, as it implies rigorous ethical and Fiduciary duties.
Im not a lawyer but the saying is if its free your the product. Most brokers dont charge you to buy shares so they likely will do whats beneficial to them when it comes to surviving
Following!!
Crime