3 ms·
As Matt Levine pointed out in his columns this week, GME would likely attract a huge amount of SEC scrutiny if they tried to take advantage of this obvious insa
by dreamcompiler 6y ago
As Matt Levine pointed out in his columns this week, GME would likely attract a huge amount of SEC scrutiny if they tried to take advantage of this obvious insanity. That doesn't mean they would ultimately be found guilty of anything, but it would be a huge distraction from, you know, adding shareholder value by selling video games.
- dougmwne 6y agoBut that's the thing here. The reason their fundamentals are so terrible is that their business model is going the way of Blockbuster. Selling disks is distracting them from reinventing themselves. Many people buying GME are doing so because they don't want to see a company they have some sentiment for be destroyed by Wall Street. I think of this like a last-ditch public offering or a Kickstarter Hail Mary. They have an opportunity to raise the capital they need to reimagine the company and become worthy of their new valuation and continued existence.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> a company they have some sentiment for Really? I saw a local Software Etc. and Funcoland both get replaced by GameStops. Both times, it was a straight downgrade in terms of customer experience.
- XargonEnder 6y agoI think raising capital by issuing more shares would provide incredible shareholder value if they leverage that money to pivot into a better business model
- stickfigure 6y ago> a huge amount of SEC scrutiny A couple billion dollars in the bank buys you a lot of lawyers. As Matt pointed out, AMC is doing it. I agree with dougmwne, this is the corporate kickstarter opportunity of a lifetime. They should take it. It's also a negative feedback mechanism in a market full of positive feedback mechanisms (ie, the short squeeze). Creating more stock makes the market more stable.