-
But it was a stock split. 4-to-1
Not sure I understand what you're saying. Or is this something different to the split?
Apparently there have been issues where brokers have been acting without client approval and selling them or not issuing them is my understanding. So I assume the authorities had to step in.
-
(Disclaimer: I've never really done equities operations, so could be talking bollocks).
It's a stock split performed by issuing dividends in the form of additional stock. Market cap cap should remain the same, as the share value of the stock drops proportionally with the increase in issue.
How they should be booked, or how they are managed from a repo / reverse repo / SBL / short selling perspective? Buggered if I remember. It's certainly ripe for more conspiracy lunacy though.
You are reading a single comment by @dicki and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
ChainBreaker
NotThamesWater
@dicki
so the gme " stock dividend "
it appears as though the dtc have issued a notice telling brokers this is a stock split even though it was a stock dividend. surely the dtc can't be that incompetent can they ?
why aren't they acting on the instructions of gme and telling custodians to book it correctly ? they have been given the correct amount of shares to distribute amongst the holders of record. have they found out there aren't enough shares to go round or something ?