3 ms·

Wouldn't you make the company e.g. more vulnerable to a hostile takeover by running the stock price into the ground? As mentioned in many threads there was no i

Wouldn't you make the company e.g. more vulnerable to a hostile takeover by running the stock price into the ground? As mentioned in many threads there was no inherent reason to think that GME would bankrupt any time soon. I agree that GME don't really benefit by the current stock price. However the benefit from the publicity for sure. What would they lose by sitting this out? It for sure be better for their image than creating "a way out" for the traders sitting on their shorts. You say the will still pay a price.. sure but what price they will pay if GME does nothing is still open. TLDR I am not convinced that this would be their best play. It at least would have a massive loss of image for their customers(many of which currently are invested).

Jackson12 6y ago
That's actually pretty much what happened. Ryan Cohen was able to do what he did (buy a lot of stock and get a board seat) because the stock price was low. But that arguably saved the company. Change of control isn't inherently bad. And it often leads to incompetent CEOs being fired. The firm has an opportunity raise a ton of capital very cheaply that it can use to fund productive investments. That's good for the firm, and its good for the people who work there. I have no sympathy for the short sellers. They're paid a lot of money to understand the game they're playing. And if they lose, that's too f*cking bad. But the same goes for WSB. If they're gonna be pissed off that the company makes what is unequivocally the right decision for the firm, then they're just as hypocritical as the short sellers.
- fileeditview 6y ago
  You may be right about this. However I would expect massive blowback from their target audience which has a big intersection with the WSB movement. Whether justified or not if they get blamed for letting the hedge funds off-the-hook it will not be good for their business.

Jackson12 6y ago

That's actually pretty much what happened. Ryan Cohen was able to do what he did (buy a lot of stock and get a board seat) because the stock price was low. But that arguably saved the company. Change of control isn't inherently bad. And it often leads to incompetent CEOs being fired. The firm has an opportunity raise a ton of capital very cheaply that it can use to fund productive investments. That's good for the firm, and its good for the people who work there. I have no sympathy for the short sellers. They're paid a lot of money to understand the game they're playing. And if they lose, that's too f*cking bad. But the same goes for WSB. If they're gonna be pissed off that the company makes what is unequivocally the right decision for the firm, then they're just as hypocritical as the short sellers.

fileeditview 6y ago
You may be right about this. However I would expect massive blowback from their target audience which has a big intersection with the WSB movement. Whether justified or not if they get blamed for letting the hedge funds off-the-hook it will not be good for their business.