421–430 of 731 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worth also pointing out though that if you can sell new shares above intrinsic value that is accretive to existing shareholders. Dilution isn’t always a bad word. (It’s bad for the people buying new shares.)
Basically a ponzi at that point
Long-time ebay seller here. I'm seeing comments floating towards the top that are essentially positing that the physical GameStop locations can be used as hubs where people can buy or sell their stuff in general (especially items that are 'pick-up only'). A pawn shop, basically. Thing is, GameStop is, well, for videogames and videogame paraphernalia. It's not a general store. Doing this would turn them into a thrift…
FY2024: $718 million
FY2025: $1.06 billion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who would down vote this? It’s true. Can people here really not keep their emotions in check enough to admit clearly obvious facts?
> Who would down vote this? It’s true. It's not an answer to the question of a turnaround, and therefore low quality information? How much you have in assets does not correlate with the ongoing success of the business. Examining the day to day business of Gamestop and excluding the memestock shenanigans leaves a very bad business. The core business has declining revenue - net sales 2016 $8.6b, 2025 $3.5b and still in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over time, eBay has become the middleman - with international shipping centres, basically escrow service with buyer protection, and rather high fees for promotion and of course, the actual sale. No middleman is something like Craigslist or FB Marketplace.
eBay has also started doing strongarm middleman things as well. If you list an item, it strongly "suggests" a price. Sounds innocuous, right? However, when every seller knows they would be stupid to list a product for less than the suggested price, that means that eBay is enacting a collusion process on their sellers to regulate prices for products sold on their platform. I don't think this is illegal in any way, but…
eBay let someone scam me out of $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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you give the friend the money as a gift, you have nothing to do with it, right? if you give it to him as a loan to inflate his assets and don't disclose that then you are committing a Federal crime.
I didn't give any money in that hypothetical. Rather, I convinced a lot of other people to give them the loan. That is, largely, exactly what fundraising is. You convince other people to give money to someone or something. If people are regularly doing this at my request, and it is constantly going to someone that just burns the money, how are people still taking my requests?
Important background: https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/202... CEO gets paid "only if GameStop achieves a market capitalization of $20 billion." Buying a $55bn company would certainly achieve that quickly. I'm not sure how they'd manage that (buy with what? Memes?), other than the should-be-illegal process of putting debt on the acquired company's balance sheet.
Of course the market may move the price up or down based on how much they like the merger. If they think there is some synergy here, they may move things higher. If they think the debt is too burdensome or have other issues with it, they will move the price lower. But all things being equal, any market cap increase of a buyout should be offset by the dilution that was incurred to finance the deal.
What looks like a "hack" here though, is that Cohen tied his incentive structure to market cap and not share price. The fact that his award is in the form of options and not RSU's does add some incentive for a higher share price, but at the end of the day, it looks like he can get 100% of his award by simply buying companies using dilutive stock issuance. Not sure how much the GME faithful appreciated that at the time of the vote. I think Elon did something similar in his incentive package.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends. If Gamestop is able to find the efficiencies that the CEO is claiming, EPS jumps between 50 and 100 percent. Gamestop shareholders get diluted down to owning a smaller piece of a much bigger earnings pie. That's if you don't engage in any conspiracy theories about how many shares retail traders really own (don't go down that rabbit hole). Suffice it to say, the Gamestop's price floor has gone up each time…
True, that is why I said "very possibly". The market seems mildly positive about i so far. its a big promise. Is Ebay really THAT badly run that they can find such efficiencies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> should-be-illegal process of putting debt on the acquired company's balance sheet This is a basically a leveraged buyout (LBO). All private equity works this way. Yes, it should be illegal, or at least heavily limited. I highly recommend this book: "Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America"
I read that book, and my recommendation is to skip the third act, which is painfully repetitive. In fact, coming from a finance background, I didn't find the book in general to be particularly insightful, and much more ragebait / policy oriented (which makes sense given the author was a DOJ Antitrust prosecutor)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't give any money in that hypothetical. Rather, I convinced a lot of other people to give them the loan. That is, largely, exactly what fundraising is. You convince other people to give money to someone or something. If people are regularly doing this at my request, and it is constantly going to someone that just burns the money, how are people still taking my requests?
That's soliciting, which is regulated at least for soliciting non-accredited investors.
The hypotheticals being pushed on this thread have a foregone conclusion that the arranging party is completely free of any hit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, it is functionally the same as home loans? Would you be proposing a carve out that buying a house or car is ok this way, but nothing else?
Say you take out a mortgage, then rent the house to a series of meth dealers to extract the rent while devaluing the property, and then default: you're still personally on the hook for any post-foreclosure deficiency judgment. One issue with LBOs is that, after extracting cash and fees, PE funds have various ways to extinguish liabilities that individuals don't, both by shielding the PE fund from debts and the use of…
Depends on the state: https://www.financialsamurai.com/non-recourse-states-walk-aw...
>both by shielding the PE fund from debts and the use of bankruptcy and restructuring of the acquired company to discharge liabilities, including those from litigation.
Who's extending credit to these companies? Individuals can do something similar by declaring bankruptcy. I think banks can be considered sophisticated enough that if they got hosed on a LBO deal, that it's hard to feel sympathy for them.