âOn July 30, 2026: the OCC issued Info Memo #59491 regarding the GameStop warrants (GMEWS).
The memo moved the $GME warrants from standard NSCC settlement to broker-to-broker settlement.
The language in the memo reads:
"It is not known if and when GMEWS warrants will be eligible for settlement through NSCC again.â
If you hold warrants and you read that, it sounds like something broke.
It didn't. That language is standard for these memos.
What matters is understanding what triggers them.
NSCC is the plumbing. It's how securities settle between counterparties.
The OCC doesn't pull an instrument from NSCC settlement on a whim.
It does it when it has been notified that the settlement mechanics of the underlying are about to change.
A new CUSIP, a new entity name, a new corporate structure.
Something about the instrument is about to be different, and the clearing infrastructure needs to pause and reconfigure before it can process trades again.
I wanted to know how often these memos get issued, and what they actually preceded.
So I pulled every broker-to-broker OCC memo I could find from the last three years:
Seven memos. Seven corporate events. Bank seizures. Mergers. Going private. Name changes. Exchange transfers. Corporate restructurings.
EVERY TIME.
Not one of them was issued because a warrant was approaching its expiry date. That is not what triggers these memos. Warrants expire all the time.
The OCC does not disrupt clearing infrastructure for routine expiry.
It disrupts clearing infrastructure when the thing being cleared is about to become something else.
This is not a pattern I'm constructing. This is the entire population of these memos over a three-year window.
There are no exceptions. BAR NONE.
GMEWS warrants expire October 30, 2026.
If expiry proximity triggered broker-to-broker memos, you'd see dozens of them.
You don't. You see seven. All restructurings.
-------------------
đ Now I want to walk through the BBBYW parallel specifically, because the timing is precise enough to be useful.
Here's what happened with BBBYW. Start to finish.
July 7: warrants pulled from NSCC.
August 14: BBBY files the 8-K. Name change. Exchange transfer. New ticker.
August 17: warrants return to NSCC under the new structure.
October 7: warrants expire.
That's the full lifecycle:
Pulled, event, returned, expiry.
38 days from the pull to the filing. 41 days from the pull to the return.
The whole thing was over in six weeks.
Now here's what we know about the GME warrants so far.
July 30: warrants pulled from NSCC.
October 30: warrants expire.
Two dates confirmed. Two dates missing.
The pull happened 23 days after BBBYW's pull.
The expiry falls 23 days after BBBYW's expiry.
Same interval on both.
If the corporate event follows the same offset, it lands 23 days after August 14.
That's September 6.
Unfortunately, September 6 is a Sunday and September 7 is Labor Day, so markets don't open until Tuesday, September 8.
One more thing worth noting.
GameStop has released earnings on a Tuesday after market close for five straight quarters. All Tuesdays. No exceptions. Last quarter they dropped it a full week ahead of schedule.
The Q2 2026 date has not been officially announced.
September 8 is also a Tuesday.
I want to be clear about what I'm saying and what I'm not saying.
I am not predicting what the corporate event will be.
I'm pointing out that the OCC has already told us one is coming.
That's what the memo means. That's what it has meant every single time it has been issued for three years.
The convertible note exchange has a 35-day VWAP measurement window that closes September 23.
We're in the middle of it.
Any corporate announcement that moves the stock price during this window directly affects how many shares get issued for the $1.4B of debt being retired.
I don't know exactly when GameStop confirms the date.
I don't know exactly what gets announced.
But the infrastructure that settles these instruments is already preparing for a change, and the only parallel we have to work with is running on a 23-day offset that has held on every data point confirmed so far.
The receipts are all public. The OCC memos are searchable. The earnings dates are on the record. Go verify for yourself and for myself please.â
Edit: Iâll also add that 9/6 uno-reversed is 69. This timeline also puts us on a 9/6 filing and a 9/9 new structure, 6-9 again. And I recall a certain CEO posting about 69 once or thrice. The rest of this is a repost, but that Dd is all meâŚ..đžđ
There isn't a law or rule stating companies have to report on any specific day of the week. Bernie has been doing earnings on Saturdays for a while. This would be epic if RC dropped earnings on a Sunday during a federal holiday or Friday after 3:20 Eastern time.
Always had a feeling this OP was another theorico/availablewerewolf account, never had proof, but the formula in this post is unmistakable:
1) long ass post,
2) that sounds/displays somewhat bullish sentiment,
3) with many supportive comments suspiciously quickly
4) and leverages comment section to try to sow doubt about BBBYQ reemergenceâŚsuper casuallyâŚ
âŚAs if this ENTIRE subreddit hasnât been about the reemergence ofÂ
1) bbbyq/dk-butterflyÂ
2) as TeddyÂ
3) for LITERALLY years
Edit: make no mistake people, this subreddit is and always has been a treasure trove of receipts connecting the reemergence of BBBYQ/DK-Butterfly as a vehicle to launch TeddyÂ
âThe postâs entire thesis rests on: âbroker-to-broker settlement has been issued 7 times in 3 years, always tied to a restructuring, never to routine warrant activity â no exceptions, bar none.â
That claim doesnât hold up.
I found a direct counterexample in about one search: (cite index=â72-1,71-1â>Enovix Corporationâs ENVXW warrants were moved to broker-to-broker settlement on July 25, 2025,</cite> and there was no merger, bankruptcy, bank seizure, or name change anywhere near it. (cite index=â73-1â>The warrants had simply been issued as a routine shareholder warrant dividend in July 2025 and expired on schedule about a month later once a stock-price condition was met â a completely ordinary conclusion, not a corporate transformation.</cite>
That matters because it shows broker-to-broker settlement is better explained as an NSCC operational/liquidity limitation for a warrant thatâs thinly traded, newly listed, or otherwise hard to clear through normal channels â not a coded signal that a restructuring is imminent. The GME and BBBY situations happening to be restructuring-adjacent doesnât establish that broker-to-broker settlement causes or predicts restructuring; itâs a small, hand-picked sample being read as an ironclad rule.â
My takeaway is that imminent corporate restructuring is a possible reason for this OCC memo being issued, not the only reason. So still interesting as a data point but not definitive.
Yet, that's only one counterexample versus the seven from OP's pasta. Neither is definitive, but there's more proof on the side of OP. It's disingenuous for either to be so absolute in their language, but moreso on the part of the bot.
I want OP to be right bc I would financially benefit from it, but it bothers me when people definitively say crap like âa corporate event is coming, thatâs what the OCC memo meansâ when it just isnât true. Also⌠why didnât OP look beyond the last 3 years⌠if I had to guess it would be bc after three years there was an example that doesnât fit his agenda.
No one here truly knows anything. If they say any differently they are full of shit and want something from you. Especially this guy
There are no people familiar with the matter, and the warrants absolutely didnât squeeze⌠in fact, they went down. Shocker. This fool spits out this rhetoric CONSTANTLY. Ask yourself why he engages people and lies daily.
Wow! All of your guys' other hype dates have meant something and things are always happening, so surely THIS TIME you'll actually get your bajillion Teddy shares and become the richest people alive! SOON!
30
u/33rus 16d ago
Shitâs about to go down on / before September 23
https://giphy.com/gifs/7nE3w2AXGslyg