Forgive me for sticking my nose in, but has anyone explored the meaning of the words indirect ownership?

All the shares that were traded have the listing indirect ownership attached to them. These shares in question could belong to anyone. Many people allow Lori to manage their shares, or hold them in trust just like you would hold an account through the bank for a child, or other family member who does not have the capacity to make reasonable decisions about their funds. I am not saying the owners of these shares are slow, but they just might find it easier to have someone else hold their shares. Now with times being tough as they are, they might feel that the shares are easier to trade if the ownership belongs to them personally. It stands to reason that if Lori is so hard to get ahold of these days, people might want to forgo the hassle of trying to get ahold of Lori just to make their shareholding decisions known.

That being said, hope and faith within the company may or may not even be a factor. Because Lori's name is attached to these shares being traded, we all asume that it are Lori's shares that are being traded. This may or may not be true. Of course these shares could just be shares that Lori put into her own personal money handling company (forgive me for not remembering the name of it) and Stewie could be 100% correct in questioning the actions of our CEO. My point is that we just don't know for sure. For that matter, are the shares just being transfered between the rightful owner and Lori or are these funds truly being traded because of all the reasons stated by Sculpin in relation to the rightful owners of these shares.

Of course this is all just speculation. Just thought I would add some more food for thought.