What advantage is there to forgo the ability to immediately liquidate your share position? Why would someone not deposit their certs?
Seriously please educate me so I can believe the notion that there are many certs yet deposited after several months or years of collecting dust in someones attic next to their 1960's IBM shares.
Here is a link to some info from another source as quoted below: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2006-11-07-owning-stocks_x.htm "2. Paper certificates. This is where you ask your broker to mail the stock certificates to you. There are some advantages to this, because when you own stocks this way, you are listed as the owner on the issuing company's books. All company materials will be sent directly to you. This could speed up the receipt of materials, but not always. You can also more easily use your stock as collateral for a loan.
But there are some huge disadvantages to owning stock certificates. Some brokers charge a fee to send certificates to you, which would drive up your transaction costs. The biggest disadvantage, though, is that you're responsible for safeguarding the stock, which is just like cash. Usually, people keep them in a safe or safe deposit box. If you mail them, you have to send them by registered or certified mail, and insure them. U.S. Stock Transfer Corp. says, "When mailing stock certificates, we suggest you ... insure them for 2% of the market value, which is the approximate cost to replace the certificates if they are lost."
If you lose the certificates, it can be hard to prove you were the owner. And even if you do prove it, there are costs involved in getting certificates replaced."
So how come these shareholders of non deposited certificates aren't listed on the company books?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
