2023-01 10-K [PDF]

As of March 22, 2023, there were 197,058 record holders of our Class A Common Stock. Excluding the approximately 228.7 million shares of our Class A Common Stock held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares), approximately 76.0 million shares of our Class A Common Stock were held by record holders as of March 22, 2023 (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares.

2022-10 10-Q [PDF]

As of October 29, 2022, 71.8 million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent.

2022-07 10-Q [PDF]

As of July 30, 2022, 71.3 million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent.

2022-04 10-Q [PDF]

As of April 30, 2022, 12.7 million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent.

2022-01 10-K [PDF]

As of January 29, 2022, 8.9 million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent, ComputerShare.

2021-10 10-Q [PDF]

As of October 30, 2021, 5.2 million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent, ComputerShare.

2021-07 10-Q [PDF]

Nada. Nothing said about directly registered shares.

Nothing about DRS share counts.

2021-05 10-Q [PDF]

Nada. Nothing said about directly registered shares.

2021-01 10-K [PDF]

As of March 17, 2021, there were approximately 1,683 record holders of our Class A Common Stock.

10-Qs for 2020-10 [PDF], 2020-08 [PDF], 2020-05 [PDF] and 2019-11 [PDF]

As you can see below, nothing was said about directly registered shares or record holders for any of the 10-Qs in 2020 and the last 2019 filing. (I didn’t go back earlier, seemed unnecessary.)

2020-10 10-Q

2020-08 10-Q

2020-05 10-Q

2019-11 10-Q

2020-02 10K [PDF]

As of March 20, 2020, there were approximately 1,425 record holders of our Class A Common Stock.

We can plot the various languages used over time on top of ComputerShared.net‘s DRS estimates to get an interesting view.

Early on, GameStop reported “approximately _____ record holders of our Class A Common Stock”. As apes started to DRS, GameStop started reporting “As of _[DATE]_, X.X million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent, ComputerShare.”

Naming their transfer agent, ComputerShare, apparently was problematic so GameStop drops that when reporting their April 2022 DRS numbers. Shortly after that, the DRS rug pull.

Currently, we’re now seeing a new reporting method for record holders and shares held by Cede & Co on behalf of the DTCC.

Record Holders

ComputerShared has data on Account Numbers where we can look at the number of ComputerShare accounts over time (same date range of Sept 2021 start to now).

Notice how as of Sept 2021, there were already 10,800 lower numbered accounts (which includes 1,400-1,700 original record holders from before March 2021)?

211,500 (now) - 10,800 (original) = 200,700 new CS accounts. 

That is pretty damn close to GameStops 10-K officially counting 197,058 record holders within 2%, a reasonable margin of error; especially since some of us record holders may have multiple accounts.

ComputerShare Accounts & Shares Per Account

So if we take the Number of Accounts from ComputerShare, adjust for the original 10,800 accounts, and then apply a 2% cut, we can get the approximate number of record holders. Divide the official GameStop DRS number by the number of record holders and we can estimate the number of DRS’d GameStop shares per record holder.

Before the DRS rug pull in the Oct 29 10-Q, apes reached an astonishing 429 DRS’d shares per record holder with an incredible shares per ape growth rate.

But then the rug was pulled. Despite somewhat slower account number growth, the DRS number plummeted which seems to indicate Wall St had direct registered a number of shares themselves and withdrew them to try and make the DRS number look like it was going down. Didn’t fool apes.

For the current 2023-01 10-K [PDF]

As of March 22, 2023, there were 197,058 record holders of our Class A Common Stock.  Excluding the approximately 228.7 million shares of our Class A Common Stock held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares), approximately 76.0 million shares of our Class A Common Stock were held by record holders as of March 22, 2023 (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares.

That’s a very curious change in reporting. These SEC forms are filed every quarter or year and people are lazy. The easiest way to start off a filing is to simply copy the one filed before (i.e., template) and update things like dates and numbers. So why the change? Wut mean?

The language here is curious as it excludes the Cede & Co shares to arrive at the shares held by record holders. I think this change was done to prevent the true number of shares directly registered at GameStop’s transfer agent, ComputerShare, from being reported. Instead of saying “As of March 22, 2023, __._ million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent”, GameStop says Cede & Co on behalf of DTCC are reporting 228.7M shares held, and the rest “must” be allocated to record holders.

Remember how there’s an entire system to “correct” vote counts when more shareholder votes are received than there should be? That “correction” was put in place to keep the actual number of votes from hitting public record. So, let’s try to work around that “correction”.

What if the true number of Directly Registered Shares is over 84.5M?

If we take the 429 DRS’d Shares per Record Holder from July 30, 2022 (before the rug pull) and multiply that by 197,058 (the most recent official count of record holders), we get an estimate of 84.5M shares directly registered.

429 DRS Shares per Record Holder x 197,058 Record Holders = 84.5M DRS Shares

Extrapolating DRS numbers with record holders and avg shares per record holder

From March 22, 2023, we see this DRS Estimate snapshot [SuperStonk sauce] estimating 85.9M DRS’d shares (Plan + Book).

That’s phenomenally close as using 429 assumes zero growth in the number of shares per record holder since July 30, 2022. (If the DRS Estimate is correct, the approximate number of DRS Shares per Record Holder would have been 436.0 — a modest and reasonable increase from July 2022.)

GameStop’s 2023-01 10K says 304.6M shares are outstanding.

Number of shares of $.001 par value Class A Common Stock outstanding as of March 22, 2023: 304,675,439

But if 84.5M shares are directly registered and Cede & Co is holding onto 228.7M shares, that’s already a total of 313.2M shares meaning an excess of 8.6M shares unaccounted for.

u/ Darkhoof shares (for free!) the below. The 2023-03-29 update is pasted at the bottom.

The 10-K report uses very different wording from previous 10-Q and even the previous 10-K report.

This report does not state the precise number of shares directly registered, as mentioned in the previous report. It mentions the number of shares claimed to be held by Cede & Co on behalf of the DTCC: 228.7 million. And that the remainder is held by record holders.

The use of the name of shares held by Cede & Co is the crucial part here. This is a VERY important detail. And I will show you why later. Lets start with the paragraph on the 10-K form:

Our Class A Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “GME”. As of March 22, 2023, there were 197,058 record holders of our Class A Common Stock. Excluding the approximately 228.7 million shares of our Class A Common Stock held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares), approximately 76.0 million shares of our Class A Common Stock were held by record holders as of March 22, 2023 (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares).

Lets compare this with previous DRS number statements as per the 10-Q forms in Gamestop’s investor relations website:

Q3 2022

As of October 29, 2022 and October 30, 2021 there were 7.3 million and 4.4 million, respectively, of unvested restricted stock and restricted stock units. As of October 29, 2022 and October 30, 2021 there were 311.6 million and 308.0 million, respectively, of shares of Class A common stock that are legally issued and outstanding or are unvested restricted share units that represent a right to one share of Class A Common Stock. As of October 29, 2022, 71.8 million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent.

Q2 2022

As of July 30, 2022 and July 31, 2021 there were 5.5 million and 3.6 million, respectively, of unvested restricted stock and restricted stock units. As of July 30, 2022 and July 31, 2021 there were 309.5 million and 306.0 million, respectively, of shares of Class A common stock that are legally issued and outstanding or are unvested restricted share units that represent a right to one share of Class A Common Stock. As of July 30, 2022, 71.3 million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent.

Q1 2022

As of April 30, 2022 and May 1, 2021 there were 1.4 million and 2.6 million, respectively, of unvested restricted stock and restricted stock units. As of April 30, 2022 and May 1, 2021 there were 77.3 million and 71.9 million, respectively, of shares of Class A common stock that are legally issued and outstanding or are unvested restricted share units that represent a right to one share of Class A Common Stock. As of April 30, 2022, 12.7 million shares of our Class A common stock were directly registered with our transfer agent.

The wording in the 10-K is very interesting. First, they provide us with a precise number of record holders: 197,058. Then, they provide us with the (claimed) approximate number of shares held by Cede & Co on behalf of the DTCC: 228.7M. Finally, the approximate number of shares held by record holders.

Now who is included in the record holders? This is the definition in previous reports: https://investor.gamestop.com/static-files/5a610aaf-6606-4173-86a1-cba6abdb204a

What is a registered shareholder?

Registered shareholders, also known as “shareholders of record,” are people or entities that hold shares directly in their own name on the company register. The issuer (or more usually its transfer agent, such as Computershare) keeps the records of ownership for the registered shareholders and provides services such as transferring shares, paying dividends, coordinating shareholder communications and more. Shares can be held in both electronic (book entry) through the Direct Registration System (DRS) or certificated form (when permitted by the issuer company).

From previous DD we know this includes not only household investors with directly registered shares, but also insiders that hold them with the transfer agent.

However, one important detail is that mutual funds DO NOT HOLD shares with Cede & Co (as stated by the SEC itself). I repeat mutual fund shares ARE NOT HELD at Cede & Co. https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/xdayfk/i_asked_the_sec_if_etfs_index_funds_mutual_funds/

My Question:

Hi, I’ve been looking all over the place for an answer to this question and can’t seem to find a definitive answer. When ETFs purchase shares, are they registered in their own name at the transfer agent, or does it go through Cede & Co like regular brokers? Also, is it the same for other institutions, such as pension funds, mutual funds, index funds, etc..? Thanks!

SEC Answer:

Dear —-:

Thank you for contacting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

You ask whether shares purchased by ETFs, pension funds, mutual funds, and index funds are registered in their own name at the transfer agent or if they go through Cede & Co.

Mutual funds (including index funds) are not DTC-eligible (Depository Trust Company). They are purchased and redeemed (no secondary market) between brokers and mutual fund entities (technically transfer agents, often part of the fund organization, or a third-party processor). The National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) has a platform called Fund/SERV and a related service called Networking that connect brokers placing and settling mutual fund orders with fund transfer agents.

Cede & Co is the nominee name for the DTC but Mutual Funds are not DTC-eligible. What does this mean?

https://www.nasdaq.com/glossary/c/cede

Cede & Co. Nominee name for The Depository Trust Company, a large clearing house that holds shares in its name for banks, brokers and institutions in order to expedite the sale and transfer of stock.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad927cbb-3afa-4df2-820b-53c7e687b4f2

Companies that regularly engage with securities are likely to interact with the Depository Trust Company (DTC). The DTC is the world’s largest central securities depository. Based in New York City, the the company is responsible for electronic record-keeping of securities balances. It also acts as a clearinghouse for securities trade settlements.

The Basics

Founded in 1973, the DTC’s goal is to improve efficiencies and reduce risks in the securities market. Most banks and broker-dealers are DTC participants. The Depository Trust and Clearing Company (DTCC), a holding company, owns the DTC.

The company manages book entry securities transfers. It also provides custody services for stock certificates. Book-entry refers to uncertificated securities. Users employ an electronic tracking system for purchasing, holding, and transferring book-entry securities. This contrasts with certificated securities, which have physical stock certificates associated with them. Most investors who use a broker hold securities in book-entry form. The two major U.S. stock exchanges, NYSE and NASDAQ, require all listed equity securities to be eligible for a direct registration system (DRS), an electronic book-entry system for recording securities ownership.

Cede & Company is the main custodial nominee that the DTC designates to be the holder of record of the securities it manages that are in its custody. Cede & Co. is a specialized financial institution. Securities will be deposited with or on behalf of DTC and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as the nominee of the company.

From the previous quarter where we know that 71.8 million shares were registered by household investors, we know that 32,875,174 are held by mutual funds according to computershared.net and Insiders hold at least 38,513,981. We can assume that some of the insiders hold them with the transfer agent, we just don’t know who does. WE KNOW, PER THE SEC’s OWN WORDS, THAT MUTUAL FUNDS SHARES AREN’T HELD BY THE DTC UNDER ITS CUSTODIAL NOMINEE CEDE & CO. THEY ARE NOT DTC-ELIGIBLE.

What this means is that from the 308 million shares available at least 110.31 million are not held by Cede & Co. But Cede & Co states they hold 228.7 million shares. The float is at 308 million shares. Where is this discrepancy coming from?

TLDR:

Therefore, my interpretation of the 10-K form can only be one: Gamestop with this 10-k form just stated to all the relevant financial authorities and to the entire world that Cede & Co are misreporting the number of shares they hold on behalf of the DTCC. They DO NOT hold Mutual Funds shares as stated by the SEC itself. If you remove mutual funds and household investor shares from the float only 197.69 (nice) million shares that Cede & Co could reasonably claim as being held by them.​

Edit: there’s controversy if mutual funds stock holdings are held at Cede & Co or rather registered at/with the managing fund via the ACATS Fund/SERV system:

https://www.dtcc.com/wealth-management-services/mutual-fund-services/acats-fund-serv

My understanding considering the available information I’ve read and linked in the comments and the SEC’s reply leads me to believe in the later, not the earlier.

We need more DD into ownership structure of mutual fund stock holdings and how can it be abused by our opponents. Hopefully, Dr. Trimbath or Dave Lauer can chime in. Or maybe this is a rabbit hole that might excite some wrinkle brains.

~ * ~ * ~ * ~

2023-03-29 update:

Lawyer ape here. Something doesn’t smell right…. Let’s do some critical reading of the 10-K

The honorable u/  lawdog7 writes:

A lot of trending posts are unequivocally stating that the DTC, DTCC, and/or Cede & Co. is/are the source(s) of the number of shares that are held in the name of Cede & Co as reported in the 10-k. Let’s first look at the only mention of Cede & Co. within the 10-K:

Our Class A Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “GME”. As of March 22, 2023, there were 197,058 record holders of our Class A Common Stock. Excluding the approximately 228.7 million shares of our Class A Common Stock held by Cede & Co on behalf of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (or approximately 75% of our outstanding shares), approximately 76.0 million shares of our Class A Common Stock were held by record holders as of March 22, 2023 (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares).

Source. (emphasis added)

So the (multiple choice) question is: who reported Cede & Co as being the holder of 228.7 million shares?

A.) that data is from Cede & Co, DTC, or DTCC

B.) that data is from GameStop

C.) that data is from the SEC

If you read most of the hot posts about this, you’d think the answer is A. But where does it say that? It doesn’t. If that were the case, Gamestop would/should have said something along the lines of “According to the DTCC” or “As reported by Cede & Co,” yet it is completely silent as to the source of that data so the answer is B.

The 10-k is Gamestop’s report. And unless stated otherwise, Gamestop is the source of the information or is adopting the information as true. That is because Gamestop cannot legally mislead investors or include any information that is materially false. Source (“The company writes the 10-K and files it with the SEC. Laws and regulations prohibit companies from making materially false or misleading statements in their 10-Ks. Likewise, companies are prohibited from omitting material information that is needed to make the disclosure not misleading. In addition, as noted above, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires a company’s CFO and CEO to certify the accuracy of the 10-K.”)

Accordingly, if the data was from the DTC, DTCC, or Cede & Co AND Gamestop knew it was false, it could not legally report it as it did. It would have to include a qualifier, such as “According to the DTCC, Cede & Co is the holder of 228.7 million shares.” This would be a true statement even if Gamestop knew that such a number was inaccurate because it is only stating what was reported by another entity and not vouching for the veracity of such a statement. (Although, if I’m the lawyer advising on this, I’d say they’d have to go a step further and include a disclaimer that they are not representing that such data is accurate and are including it only as reported by the DTC and without verification).

Because Gamestop reported the numbers without any qualifiers, the only conclusion we can draw is that Gamestop believes that number is correct as it would be in breach of a myriad of laws and regulations if it did not.

So why is the baseless conclusion that “Cede & Co is the source of the data” being pushed? I believe that it is being pushed because it is accompanied by the conclusion that DRS numbers are much higher than actually reported. This conclusion is erroneous for the same reasons as above (i.e. Gamestop cannot report information it knows to be false). And it is a dangerous conclusion for us to make because it decreases the motivation to DRS by encouraging social loafing.

WhY DrS whEN wE aLrEADdy HAvE mOrE tHAn eNoUgH sHaReS rEgIsTeREd?

The truth as we know it and as reported by Gamestop is that we have DRS’d about 25% of the shares outstanding. Becuase no other source is cited, that information is either from Gamestop or adopted by Gamestop as true (e.g. from Computershare and then adopted by Gamestop in the 10k). This is a huge accomplishment, and it should not be downplayed with baseless conclusions. The truth is our best friend and the worst enemy of the hedgies and their Mayo Overlord.

BUY, HODL, SHOP, AND DRS!!

Edit: just want to give my theory as to why GameStop changed the reporting language for DRS’d shares. IMO, there could be a good reason for doing so as it emphasizes something that we all know but most people do not: unless DRS’d, your shares are in the name of some obscure company called Cede & Co.

The deal is not yet set in stone..

******************

via u/ Wurmholz

Today: Risks for taxpayers could continue

Keller-Sutter: “Risks for taxpayers could continue” In an interview with Swiss radio SRF, Federal Councilor Karin Keller-Sutter discusses the extraordinary bank rescue and potential consequences for the general public. The Swiss government is supporting a major banking merger with an unprecedented 250 billion CHF, causing outrage among citizens as the state guarantees astronomical sums for a large bank that has steered itself towards disaster.

Keller-Sutter acknowledges the public’s concerns and emphasizes that the government is not providing cash, but guarantees. Already, a significant amount in billions has been claimed under the guarantee granted by the government and the National Bank. The exact figures are unknown to her.

Toxic legacy assets within the bank present a high risk. The first 5 billion CHF is borne by UBS as the acquirer, while the state guarantees the next 9 billion CHF. Keller-Sutter admits that the risks for taxpayers could extend further, and the government is discussing the possibility of recouping future costs through profit-sharing with the merged bank.

Keller-Sutter believes the current solution is the best among bad options, as the risks for taxpayers would have been greater if the bank had been nationalized or declared bankrupt. She also criticizes Credit Suisse’s management for putting the country, the Federal Council, and all authorities in an impossible situation. The Swiss government’s rescue plan has met with criticism from political parties, with some calling for the healthy Swiss business of Credit Suisse to be separated from the new “banking monster.”

https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/finanzministerin-zu-cs-rettung-keller-sutter-risiken-fuer-die-steuerzahler-koennten-weitergehen

^{Will add two more links
Edit:}

************************************************************

Swiss Voters’ Opinion on the CS Takeover According to an SRG survey, the majority of eligible voters are angry and disagree with how the CS takeover was carried out.

Article about polling: SRF 4 News, 24.03.2023, 17:00 Uhr

Last Sunday, federal authorities and the heads of the two major banks held an extraordinary press conference to inform Switzerland and the world that UBS would be taking over troubled Credit Suisse. A representative survey by the GFS Bern research institute on behalf of SRG reveals that the Swiss are predominantly angry and uncertain about this forced merger.

Over half of Swiss voters disagree with how UBS took over CS with federal assistance, and almost no one fully supports the decision. Voters who sympathize with political extremes (Greens, SP, SVP) are more critical than those in the political center (GLP, FDP, Center).

Swiss National Bank (SNB) is considered the most credible actor in the past week, while trust in the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (Finma) is significantly lower. Notably, UBS management ranks second, appearing more credible than the Federal Council.

Among the parties, SP is perceived as the most credible, while less trust is attributed to SVP, the Green Liberals, and especially FDP, which all represent economic interests. Most surveyed voters believe that CS officials should now be held accountable (96%) and that more effective measures against exploitation in the banking sector are needed (93%).

The survey results show a broad perception of SP as a credible actor and unanimous criticism directed at management and those responsible for the crisis. The impact of these numbers on the election year remains to be seen.

https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/srg-umfrage-zur-cs-uebernahme-das-haelt-das-schweizer-stimmvolk-von-der-uebernahme-der-cs

******************************************

Credit Suisse Shouldn’t Completely Disappear

FDP President Thierry Burkart now demands that the Swiss part of Credit Suisse be separated and made independent, arguing that it would be the best solution for Switzerland.

10vor10, 22.03.2023, 21:50 Uhr

The major bank should become much smaller, Burkart says, in order to preserve as many jobs as possible and create a better competitive situation in the Swiss banking sector for the benefit of Swiss customers, particularly SMEs. Additionally, this step would minimize risk for Switzerland if UBS were to falter.

The SVP also wants to prevent the complete downfall of CS. SVP sets conditions for approving the CHF 109 billion loan, according to Thomas Aeschi. “We need to think about how to restore competition,” he says. The SVP parliamentary group president is confident that Burkart’s proposal would restore competition in the Swiss banking sector.

This idea is not new and is provided for in the Too-Big-To-Fail law, which uses the separation banking system as a model. The individual areas of a bank are independent of each other, so if one area, such as investment banking, gets into trouble, it doesn’t drag down the rest of the bank.

Today, the Greens criticize that the opportunity was missed to take preventative action in time. Gerhard Andrey, a National Council member for the Greens, says something like a separation banking system is needed now, and blames conservative politics for failing to implement it.

The SP goes even further: SP President Cédric Wermuth considers the introduction of a separation banking system but concludes that “Switzerland is too small for such large banks. We need to find a way to minimize the risk in the medium term.”

The big question remains whether the political will for reform will still be present once the initial shock has subsided.

https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/cs-uebernahme-durch-ubs-die-credit-suisse-soll-doch-nicht-ganz-sterben

​

These are ChatGPT4 summaries

u/ Exceedingly writes:

Pretty sure Criand showed it’s the large banks / prime brokers acting as the counterparties, so Bank of America, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citibank and all the other ones who are DTCC members and have trillions in derivatives.

Plus there’s something I didn’t realise, in basic accounting principles you follow the equation Assets = liabilities + equity. This basically means any money into your company has to be transferred into some form of asset, if not it comes straight off equity. If equity goes negative, it’s a huge red flag that will prevent investment and the business would probably go under. Shorts are liabilities on a balance sheet, you take money in and keep an open debt, so Ken would have to use that money to buy some form of asset. But swaps mean his GME shorts can become assets, as it’s the prime brokers holding the short position. Ken has no short exposure from swapped GME shorts and they actually go up in value on assets if GME’s price drops.

And the banks holding the swaps have trillions to weather out a price rise in GME. But that’s why the bank collapses are actually bullish for MOASS, since last year $600b has been pulled out of bank deposits. If that trend keeps up and gets worse, then the FED won’t actually be able to print money to bailout banks. Just say for example bank deposits drops from the current $17.5t to just $7.5t. The Fed would have to print $10t just for banks to be able to keep all their current asset positions open, but printing 200% of the money supply just leads to hyperinflation which bankrupts the US. It just isn’t feasible or sustainable.

It sucks, but bank collapses might be the one true catalyst in this saga (other than DRS).

The honorable u/  itsabittricky writes:

Tl;dr I suspect Unicaja and Evo Banco (Bankinter) are holding gme short swaps due to strange and dramatic fluctuations on their balance sheets, similar annual cash flows, proximity to Granada (which mayoman keeps visiting), Evo Banco being owned by Apollo Global Management.

NOTE there is no smoking gun definitive proof, I just want to post this prediction publicly so if I end up being right I got a receipt for the call.

Lately I’ve been trying to educate myself on income statements/balance sheets/cash flow statements for banks and companies, with a blossoming global banking crisis I figure now is a great time to test my understanding by making predictions on which banks are likely to collapse based on their annual statements. If anyone considers themselves good at reading these kinds of reports please let me know if I got anything fucked up or if there’s other points of information I should review.

I’ve been looking at Unicaja bank annual data and noticed some pretty weird data fluctuations, they had a massive pump in earnings in 2021. So massive the total earnings actually eclipsed their total revenue (for people new to this terminology, earnings is revenue minus expenses, so actual company profit). Here is their 2021 earnings visualized courtesy of yahoo finance:

Ordinarily its impossible to make money in a year in excess of what a bank manages to make in revenue (obviously), this can only occur if the bank receives money from somewhere other than its revenue stream, either it makes extra money off of previous years operations / it sells a bunch of assets / it receives an external cash injection. As you can see from that graph, Unicaja with a 900mil revenue manages to make 1,100mil profit in 2021.

Even more interesting, they seemed to have spent all of that money to the point of losing money in Q4 2022.

Quarterly earnings 2022:

You could attribute this earnings loss on the 100mil drop in revenue for the quarter from the previous month.

Cash flow: <image missing>

Some impressive cash burning. Cash position at start of 2021 6.6bil, end of 2021/start of 2022 21.3bil +223%. Cash position at end of 2022 4.6bil – 78%. So it looks to me like Unicaja received a cash of injection of 10-15bil which was spent in a year.

Here is another bank that had a similar boom in earnings 2021 Evo Banco aka Bankinter.

Approx 1.3bil in earnings off 1.55bil in revenue.

What do these banks have in common, apart from similar annual cash booms and declines? Both banks are headquartered in the South of Spain Andalucia (Unicaja in Malaga and Evo Banco in Madrid) which Mayoman has been visiting a lot these past few weeks, check u Bellweirboy posts on Mayoforce track, Mayoman is there right now, was there Tuesday last week March 14, Saturday 25 Feb, and has visited on many other occasions these past two years. It’s possible its a favorite holiday destination Granada is a beautiful city and he just wants to go nuts before the boom but I do not believe he would visit this often these past months, the finance world is too crazy for anyone to be on holiday and my impression of Mayoman is he will struggle until the very end.

Another interesting point of note, Evo Banco is owned by Apollo Global Management. If you’re curious about their involvement in this whole saga I recommend having a read through u BadassTrader’s Billionaire Boys Club series, specifically the Apollo Missions entries. Its a fascinating glimpse into that big old club we’re not apart of (fuck they club the people in it are trash).

The following is straight data from Annual Statements for Unicaja. I’m focusing on 2021 Q2 to Q3 as that’s when the dramatic fluctuations occurred, and 2022 Q4 to give you an idea of where they’re at on these data points today. Note that there wasn’t any huge movement in these balance sheet entries prior to Q3 2021.

Cash and balances at Central banks: 8,855mil (21Q2) to 15,376mil (21Q3) +74%. Now 4,662 (22Q4) -70%

Financial Assets at Amortized Cost (Loans and advances to customers): 27,939mil (21Q2) to 55,386mil (21Q3) +98%. Now 55,316mil -0.1%.

If you’re wondering what amortized cost means I’m also wondering. “You can say that the total cost a business has recorded on its balance for the purchase of a particular asset is the amortized cost of the asset.” https://incorporated.zone/amortized-cost/

So, the price at purchase. Reminds me of this fair value shit. “Fuck our clients are going to skin us alive if they find out these assets we bought with their money is down 90%, lets just record it at amortized cost which just so happens to be the price that doesn’t reflect -90%.” Or “holy fucking shit we shorted this asset at $1 and now its fucking $80 shit fuck shit.”

Investments in joint ventures and associates: 368mil (21Q2) to 1,030mil (21Q3) +180%. Now 976mil -5%.

Tax assets: 2,770mil (21Q2) to 4,760mil (21Q3) +71%. Now 5,063mil +6%.

Financial liabilities held for trading & at fair value through P&L: 24mil (21Q2) to 29mil (21Q3) +20%. Now 53mil +82%.

This fair value price could be $1 for a market value of $100.

Financial liabilities held at amortized cost: 59,916mil (21Q2) to 99,616mil (21Q3) +66%. Now 88,937mil -11%.

Customer deposits: 48,691mil (21Q2) to 82,041mil (21Q3) +68%.

Customer deposits and Loans and advances to customers sections really got me scratching my head, cos retail has barely moved. Retail deposits 91,652mil (21Q2) to 94,726mil (21Q3) now 90,081mil (22Q4). Same lack of movement for retail loans and credit. So all this balance sheet movement was completely unrelated to retail. Wonder who these customer deposits and loans represent.

Other issued securities: 366mil (21Q2) to 1,916mil (21Q3) to 3,329mil (22Q4) +810% over the 18 month period. This is a huge jump.

What do all these numbers mean? I got no idea. The annual reports do not detail exactly what securities/assets/derivatives/liabilities are being traded or held, it could be anything. Maybe these movements are nothing out of the ordinary and I’m just regarded.

I’m pretty confident when I say that something big hit Unicaja’s books in Q3 2021 unrelated to retail and it made big waves.

Some data for Evo Banco aka Bankinter, 2020 Q4 to 2021 Q1:

Financial Assets held for trading: 2.1bil (20Q4) to 4.5bil (21Q1) +110%.

Financial Liabilities held for trading: 1.3bil (20Q4) to 3.4bil (21Q1) +146%.

Derivatives Hedge Accounting ASSETS: 406mil (20Q4) to 303mil (21Q1) -25%.

Derivatives Hedge Accounting LIABILITIES: 520mil (20Q4) to 320mil (21Q1) -38%.

2021Q4 to 2022Q4 (now)

Derivatives Hedge Accounting ASSETS: 216mil to 479mil +122%

Derivatives Hedge Accounting LIABILITIES: 277mil to 421mil + 51%

Non-current assets and disposal groups classified as held for sale 106mil to 262mil +147%

Other financial liabilities 2.1bil to 3.4bil +61%

Accumulated other comprehensive income 115mil to -129mil -212%

Again, no dramatic movements for Evo Banco retail numbers for the periods.

These banks are making crazy moves. Maybe it ain’t related to gme, but these do not look like healthy balance sheet decisions to me. But then again, who the fuck am I but a humble ape?

Unicaja finance reports: https://www.unicajabanco.com/en/inversores-y-accionistas/informacion-economico-financiera/informes-financieros Bankinter finance reports: https://www.bankinter.com/webcorporativa/en/shareholders-investors/financial-information/quarterly-reports/2022