Live data from Hacker News

eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

bloomberg.com

211–220 of 251 posts

Re: eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had two disputes that materially ignored the facts of the dispute, in one case where even the buyer said he didn't and wouldn't do as agreed, and still won, costing me $700+. You can't say "I've had a few disputes that were handled fairly, so when other people say there's weren't, that's not the standard eBay experience".

I've sold on eBay for over 20 years and millions of dollars. I would like to know more about your experience as a seller where you had disputes handled poorly, especially one that cost you $700?

I sold a Mavic 2 Pro drone with 5 batteries. The whole process was a mess. Scammer initially complained that it didn't come with a CrystalSky tablet that was in one picture (that was only added AFTER after he had bid already and asked to see Flight Logs, and was explicitly disclaimed as not being a part of the package, nor was it in the receipts I sent the buyer). After pointing out those details, silence.

Then, three weeks later:

"The batteries don't work. I want a refund."

"Batteries? Any of them? All of them?"

"All of them, none work. I want a refund."

Note that two of the batteries were less than 4 months old, still in warranty.

He then stated he wanted a refund of $800. For five brand-new batteries, that would only be $670.

No evidence was shown, despite multiple requests (like a video of a battery on a charger, or on the drone, failing to power up). I stated I'd like to get the original batteries back, as at least I'd be able to get them replaced under warranty or possibly repaired and recoup some of my money (I was skeptical there was -any- issue, but still, good faith). He "happily" agreed. I asked him to send me a message on eBay (so it was tracked and not avoiding their system) acknowledging that offering a partial refund was contingent on his sending me the batteries back and that he accepts me disputing the refund if not.

He sends a message indicating all of the above.

Refund is sent (for about $700, to include his return shipping costs).

Thirty-five minutes later, I get a message, "USPS says they don't ship damaged batteries, so I will not be returning them". (35 minutes? So what, you were just sitting around waiting for the refund, and then the very moment I sent the money, you jumped in your car, got to the post office, had this discussion, got home, and were able to send me this message? When your home address shows you about 15 minutes from the nearest post office?)

I then suggest we meet in person to exchange them (I live a few hours away, not convenient, but still, $700...). He umms and ahhs, "How will I be able to prove that I gave them to you in person?". I suggest we do it in a police station and point out that his local PD even welcomes people to use their lobby for CL, etc. on their website. More umms and ahhs. "I need to contact eBay support to see if they allow this." I point him to eBay's specific FAQ page describing exactly this and how they recommend doing in person sales, and refunds, documentation thereof, and how they support it. But he ignores that and says, "I never heard back from eBay support, so I'm not sure what to do". I point this page out again, and he goes silent.

I opened a dispute. No evidence was provided for damage or faulty goods, referenced the multiple requests for video, or of anything.) Multiple instances of the buyer trying to show something was problematic with the listing, not abiding by the agreement and refusing/avoiding any method of returning damaged items.

Overnight, no further inquiries.

"We have closed your dispute. Based on our review, the buyer is entitled to keep the partial refund for damage. He is also not required to return the damaged items".

So he ended up with a Mavic 2 Pro, with less than 20 hours flight time, 5 batteries, for in the order of $950, all told.

Re: eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

#212
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GameStop's idea behind using their physical locations isn't for ease of shipping so much as ease of verification. People buying brand-name stuff off eBay (and Vinted, etc) pay for verification services to make sure that it's real. The idea - which is the only good/sane part of this entire takeover proposal - is to have retail locations that do the verification in person instead of shipping items to a central location…

Wouldn't verification for almost anything beyond the extremely basic need specialized people? I don't think it's reasonable to train every Gamestop employee to be able to verify everything from fancy Swiss watches to brand name clothing to playing cards. At least if you do it in a central location you can have actual experts do the verification.

Yup, you save a few dollars per verification on shipping in exchange for spending tens of thousands on training each employee to verify items. Mind you these are retail employees so turnover is going to be high. Also since they need to be able to verify everything they won't have time to be in store since they'll constantly need to be studying new products. That or you just have them work off checklists for each product in which case the value of the verification isn't great since counterfeiters will just buy those check lists and manufacture to them.

The end result is much much higher cost per verification, and a less trusted quality of verification. But you save a few bucks on shipping.

Re: eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

#213
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GameStop's idea behind using their physical locations isn't for ease of shipping so much as ease of verification. People buying brand-name stuff off eBay (and Vinted, etc) pay for verification services to make sure that it's real. The idea - which is the only good/sane part of this entire takeover proposal - is to have retail locations that do the verification in person instead of shipping items to a central location…

Wouldn't verification for almost anything beyond the extremely basic need specialized people? I don't think it's reasonable to train every Gamestop employee to be able to verify everything from fancy Swiss watches to brand name clothing to playing cards. At least if you do it in a central location you can have actual experts do the verification.

The verification I'd be looking for immediately in-store would be "is this [product] or is this a brick?" - that once happened to me, with (for all I see sellers complain about excessively buyer-friendly policies) no recourse or compensation. If there's a more-complicated verification needed, the buyer could request that it be held onto until that's performed (elsewhere, if necessary). Verifiable chain of custody protects both buyers and sellers.

Not that a dodgy Gamestop merger is necessary for this, but I'd be (much) more likely to both buy and sell on eBay if it existed.

Re: eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

#214
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that the incentives actually are aligned. It seems like the incentives are to think short term and do sketchy shit to pump the stock.

>It seems like the incentives are to think short term and do sketchy shit to pump the stock. Its a meme stock, that's what stockholders actually want.

I'm arguing it's not "success". I don't believe that a meme stock is a truly long-term business.

Re: eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

#215
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context this comment misses is Gamestop's secret weapon is their CEO Ryan Cohen who has been sitting around the hoop trying to figure out how to leverage Gamestop's fundraising capabilities to do something big Couple of highlights on Ryan - Built and sold Chewy from a startup to the largest ecomm acq of all time - Became #1 individual shareholder of Apple early on - Bought a 10% share of Gamespot in 2020 becoming…

You should also mention that Cohen never managed to turn Chewy into a profitable business before selling it off. Similarly, his strategic initiatives at Gamestop have all been failure (e-commerce push, NFTs, digital games platform, crypto investments, ...). The only thing that has worked is aggressively cutting costs, mainly by shutting down stores, which was a plan that had already been proposed by BCG before Cohen…

I find it weird that people idolize businesspeople who basically just engage in ponzinomics.

They create businesses that don't make any money, often don't have any plans to ever make money, with the hope that they either get bought out by a BigCo or become public so that it becomes the index funds' problem.

It feels like this has been going on for about as long as Silicon Valley has been a thing, so maybe it actually is sustainable, but it sure feels like we are building our economy on a house of cards.

Re: eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

#216
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've yet to see a convincing vision of what an eBay physical store looks like that doesn't kind of boil down to a UPS store. The vast majority of their business comes from 3rd party listings and the only real stock they have and sell are in the eBay refurbished line. I'm really not convinced of what a successful eBay store would even be there for. I've seen some say for authentication but staffing employees able to p…

>I've yet to see a convincing vision of what an eBay physical store looks like that doesn't kind of boil down to a UPS store. Pawn shop for nerds/the middle class. They could build AI to help authentication and just identifying sellers would help tremendously with fraud.

> Pawn shop for nerds/the middle class.

That's kind of but not really what GameStop was before digital games took over and isn't what eBay is. A majority of Pawn Shop business is in the name pawns and neither eBay nor GameStop have ever done.

> They could build AI to help authentication and just identifying sellers would help tremendously with fraud.

That's a huge step beyond reasonable, there have been billions spent on the current AIs and none of them are up to the task of telling a good fake from a real item. Maybe one day but that's ages away.

And fraud doesn't just happen on the seller side, a big headache for sellers is buyer fraud where they'll claim the item is wrong/broken and there's almost no recourse for sellers to prove that's incorrect. eBay could just as easily partner with UPS stores to implement seller and buyer authentication anyways there's not a huge benefit to GameStop in particular being the partner there. It's always been an option and they haven't taken it.

Re: eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

#217

I thought gamestop was in financial trouble a few years back, how can they afford 56 billion?

They did manage to ride the meme stock insanity to build up $9bn in cash (their market cap is $10bn so it's not worth much more than their cash in hand, because their business has been declining for years).

They propose to borrow $20bn, twice their market cap, to buy a company worth five times their market cap. And 50% of it would be in Gamestop shares, which would be insane for eBay investors to accept. Yes the combined company would now own eBay, but would have the massive baggage of Gamestop's dwindling business plus $20bn of extra debt - a recipe for collapse.

There's no upside for eBay's shareholders, even if Gamestop was capable of pulling off the transaction, which is extremely unlikely even if eBay was crazy enough to be willing to accept it.

Re: eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anyone is interested in learning more here's a great primary source interview with an ebay seller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1ij2nQymtA This is an interview with the GameStop CEO Of course he thinks the takeover is a good idea. I guess the GameStop true believers are out coming out to astroturf this thread?

Yeah that's what a primary source is: words from a principal architect of the deal, not a vague description using emotionally-charged terms. The interviewer is a professional eBay seller, so I think lots of what's mentioned in the interview is relevant to much of the discussion in this thread. If you were interested in learning more about the nuance of the situation you might appreciate the information therein, but y…

Why not get qualified information from a neutral party that can evaluate the merger proposal based on available data?

Patrick Boyle made an excellent video on this. Highly entertaining to watch as well:

https://youtu.be/iBlu45HFruk?si=LdoaCZagpaP0Z4tu

Re: eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

#219
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who wants to go to a physical store in 2026?

Me. I love the experience of getting out of the house. Also, online shopping is an extortionist on certain items. There are so many things that are 1/4 the price in a physical store than they are online due to shipping and logistics.

I like browsing stuff in stores too, but that's not what eBay is for - I'm in Australia, the whole point is I can buy stuff from other states in my country, or from the US or other countries if I need, and in the same way I can sell stuff to people in Europe or the UK or Canada or the US from home.

Seeing stuff in person is cool but for an 'eBay Store' you're only going to have a tiny assortment of items, and likely hardly anything you really want in any one physical location... These kind of things already exist (e.g. pawn shops, or here in Australia we have a chain called Cash Converters but it's mostly disappearing) and eBay's value proposition is different in that it opens that up from just items from people within driving range, to anyone around the world.

So having physical stores doesn't add much value for eBay.

Re: eBay Rejects GameStop's $56B Takeover as Not Credible

#220
post #2

I really thought it was going to be the other way around. I am quite confident that if GameStop bought eBay, they would ruin it in the same way that K-Mart buying Sears ruined that company. I could be wrong, I'm not a business person, but it seems kind of obvious that a company like GameStop, whose current existence appears to be due to a weird short squeeze anomaly, is not a sustainable business.

K mart is at the very minimum a viable business. GameStop is a meme stock attached to the brand of a moribund business model. I just don't see a world where GameStop's core business ever gains relevance again when gamers have shown a strong revealed preference for digital games over physical ones.

This proposal never made any sense and it speaks volumes about the lunacy of the market that anyone takes it seriously at all.

Post reply on HN