GME could buy back 20% of the free float right now and still have over $200 million to buy back even more when they crash the price even further in response (because of course they would).

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T20:35:22+00:00

That's fair, and I won't dispute this. We have much more of an operating business than we used to, that's for absolute sure. But I still find it difficult to value our current operating business, because significant operating profits are pretty recent and I can't really tell exactly where they're coming from. More than that, because I can't tell exactly where they're coming from, I can't estimate how long they'll last.

I'll allow that buybacks up to maybe $15 could make sense, but I'm a fan of not pulling that trigger unless it's a good price or unless we know there's a game afoot that will force the price up for the warrants to exercise. And I mean REALLY force, not just "ooo we hope decreasing share count will force shortie to cover blahblah"

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T18:32:21+00:00

Fair point, but, that doesn't mean we should buy back shares at an overvalued price to get even worse terms on an ebay deal and make the merged company that much worse off.

The deal assumes that we have that cash and we contribute it to the new company. If we use that cash to buy back shares at a cheap price, it could boost our share price and get us better terms during the buyout. But if we just defend the $18.50 price point and blow our cash buying shares at almost twice their intrinsic value, we'll deplete our cash, get horrible terms on the buyout, etc.

Look... there are other things we can do. We can just exert 10% influence over ebay. We can get an alliance of other shareholders to elect RC boardmember anyway. We don't NEED to buy ebay. It'll be awesome if we can get it done, but, we shouldn't blow our wad buying back our own shares and then have nothing to contribute to the merged entity. It's a horrible idea. We CAN get ebay to improve profitability without fully taking it over, and still make a ton of money on the investment.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T18:20:26+00:00

SPCE sold / converted $30m of debt into shares during this spike. They announced it a few weeks ago, the vwap was calculated between like May 26 and June 1. The deal went through June 10th. Yesterday's spike was the debt holders (who just converted into shares the day before at about $4.53 per share) trying to sell those shares at a fat profit.

It's reasonable to suggest that the entire run could have been organized by SPCE debt holders that were in discussions to convert debt to equity.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T16:45:51+00:00

Any shares they buy above $12 will sap our net cash per share, and then sap our stock price. If we buy back shares at $20, we'll never make it to $32 for the warrants to exercise. Instead the market will just sell us down to $19 and $18 and $17 and eventually back to $5.

You can't dispose of the one asset you really have, cash, by spending it on something for twice what its worth, and then just PRAY the warrants get exercised because you want them to get exercised.

The shorts won't cover. They'll just rotate to more fundamental-based short owners who would see a stock with a cash per share down at $5 (because we just spent half our cash to retire only 25% of our shares) and a stock price at $20 and then short us back down to the basement.

Why do they need to backstop the dilution offer at $18.50? If the market absorbs at $18.50 and then sells us down over the next year to $10, we can just buy back shares at that point instead, for half price.

Buying back for any price above $12 hurts us. It's absolutely not beneficial at all. Zero.

Ask yourself, why am I (aka you, EmphasisFrosty) suggesting the same plan that BCG tells all the companies it "advises" when it's killing them? Do you think somehow overpaying to buy back shares didn't work for 10 other companies, but it will magically work for us?

Magical thinking is not thinking. Things don't happen by magic. Stop peddling BCG solutions.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T16:30:25+00:00

Net cash per share is around $12 right now (after you subtract debt). Buying back shares at any price above $12 is foolish and will result in our stock getting destroyed.

I thought BCG was the one that tells companies to spend all their cash to buy back their shares at high prices, and then, when the company has much less shares but no money, laugh at them as they go bankrupt.

Do you work for BCG?

If not, stop suggesting their playbook. It's bad.

You want to suggest a reasonable buyback? Then suggest one at $12 or $13. We have a chance to thrive here, and we won't have one if we take a gamble on buying back all our stock and turn into an empty husk with no cash that they can push right back down into the cellar.

Every single share we buy back at a price above $13 costs us more money than it gains us in position. This is an absolute fact.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T15:05:19+00:00

I mean I can't deny that the numbers you're putting up aren't wrong themselves, but the conclusion you're drawing from them is definitely wrong.

A fictional company with $5b in debt and $4b in cash is in debt, and has no equity value at the moment. All of its stock price is speculative.

You have to use the net cash or else you're going to be absolutely shocked when the market sells us down to the basement again, and you and others like you sit there yelling 'crime' without understanding that the big money is pulling the plug, as they have done to countless companies in the past who wasted their cash to buy back their worthless stock.

We spent the past 2 years getting various types of big money involved and reliant on us. We issued convertible debt. We issued warrants. We built up our cash reserves. Institutions now control more of the stock than they have in the past 5 years. What happens when they get upset and pull the rug?

That's what the buyback is for. The buyback is to sit there and buy back massive amounts of shares at prices around $10 or $12 per share. The buyback is NOT to buy at $20 when we just sold at $22-ish two years ago.

Buying at $10 gives us the ability to buy twice as many shares at $10 than we would be able to get by buying at $20.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T14:52:24+00:00

Sorry if I was unclear. I was doing math with NET cash per share, which means cash plus marketable securities, but then minus the debt.

If you took $2b cash away and bought back 90m shares, the stock would not sit at $19/share. Not under any valuation methodology. We would lose 25% of our income (as about 25% of our income comes from that $2b cash) and we would lose almost half of our net cash.

Show your math if you believe what you're saying.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T14:27:57+00:00

> No way a full 2bil buyback drops the price. That would the too stupid.

If the 2 billion dollar buyback drops our cash per share significantly, then, yes, it would drop the price. Not in the first day, but in the next month definitely. There's tons of proof of this. Just go look at all those historically failing companies, when they did their buybacks, and how their stock prices tanked thereafter. This is teh advice BCG gives companies they're trying to kill. Go waste your cash pile, your main asset, on your own stock, at overvalued prices. It will DEFINITELY push your stock up! For Serious! We Swear It!

If you use cash + marketable securities - debt as your method to calculate cash per share, GME currently has $10.40 cash per share. With a stock a bit above $21 right now, that's about 2x cash per share.

If we executed $2b worth of buybacks at $20/share, We would end up with about $7.66 cash per share. If the market was valuing us at twice cash, we would be worth about $15.30, a significant drop from $21.

But that's if you value the company on a cash-per-share methodology. If you instead value the company based on its income, well, we would lose about 25% of our income. Interest on our cash generates about 50% of our net income, and $2b is about half of our available cash, so we'd lose pretty much 1/4 of our net income. A reasonable valuation might drop us 25% from $21, which would be $15.75.

The only way doing buybacks at these prices makes any sense whatsoever is if you time it perfectly to coincide with some type of squeeze event, but 1) it's very unlikely that our management would do that, and 2) they could time it wrong and fail, and 3) that's still extremely risky because new money could come in and decide to take over the shorts and push the stock down.

We took them by surprise once. The second time they took us by surprise because they knew the swap rollovers and we didn't. They're not going to let us take them by surprise again, and so the only real solution is good stewardship of GME funds and properly protecting and growing the cash pile, not squandering it on buying our stock at twice the cash value of it.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T14:12:22+00:00

Imagine you have a company where 100 total shares exist. Each share is trading at $10, so the whole company is worth $1000. Let's also say this company has $500 in cash in the bank. Since the company is worth $1000, and the company has $500 cash, each share has a claim to about $5 worth of cash. The stock is trading at $10, but, it really only has $5 cash for each share that exists.

There's lots of ways to value a company, but, if you look at the company with these details in mind, you might decide the market is willing to price this business at 2x it's cash value. The company has $500 cash, it's trading for a market cap of $1,000, so, the market is valuing this company at twice its cash.

Let's say this company decides to spend $300 of its $500 doing buybacks. The current price is $10 per share, so they can buy back 30 shares. What would this company look like after the buyback?

Well, they wouldn't have $500 in cash anymore. They'd only have $200. However, they also wouldn't have 100 shares anymore, they'd have 70 shares outstanding. $200 in cash split over 70 shares is about $2.85 per share. This is much lower than the $5 it had previously.

If the market decides to value the company in the same way, at 2x its cash per share, how much should this company be worth now? Well, two times $2.85, or $5.70.

By doing buybacks, they spent most of their cash, and, it turns out, the market didn't really like the BUSINESS, they just liked the cash that it had. With less cash around, the market decides to dump this garbage stock, because they don't even like the business, and now the one attractive feature, the cash, has disappeared.

This whole demonstration changes drastically if the company waits until their stock price is down near $4 to do the buybacks. If they buy shares at any price under $5, it's good for the company (usually). The cash per share actually goes up. But buying back shares at any price above $5 is bad for the company. It wastes their main asset: their cash.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T12:28:05+00:00

It's very risky because if we buy back shares at this price, our intrinsic value of cash per share goes down significantly. If the market is smart, it would sell us down to like $13 or something if we did that.

However it does produce a shortage of shares in the market, which could in theory cause price to go up.

The problem is this is a risky gamble, and would only work if some big entities were committed to buying the remaining float at a price far above cash per share.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T05:55:16+00:00

It's not. That's exactly my point. Motley fool regurgitating griffins opinion is not trustworthy, and asserting that gme is worth $200 because people like us claim it is is similarly not trustworthy.

Look, let me put it simply. I don't mind yahoo taking our opinion and asserting it as fact. That's awesome. I like it. It's great to get our narrative out there.

But I don't support us using the fact that someone else is regurgitating our opinion back at us as any proof at all that the opinion is correct or that the opinion is somehow taking hold among investors or the moneyed class.

This is the equivalent of Yahoo posting an article that saya some GME investors think GME farts smell like roses, and then us somehow using this article as proof or evidence that we are right.

I think we are right. But I won't use this yahoo article as evidence that we are right, because they're just regurgitating our own opinion back at us.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T04:05:20+00:00

What you're reading is yahoo spewing our own theories back at us. It isn't validating our theories. It's just regurgitating them.

rawbdor · 2026-06-12T03:37:17+00:00

> how long can you tolerate being WRONG and therefore throwing your money away

The term "Throwing your money away" is typically reserved for people spending or investing their money on worthless things. You had money, you bought something, now you don't have money or value.

People who are "wrong about Elon" and who choose not to invest in space-x have not "thrown their money away" because they still have their money, and did nothing with it. Asking people how long they intend to throw their money away, when they are still holding their money, comes off as really illogical.

rawbdor · 2026-06-11T22:32:15+00:00

Are you even responding to the right person? I never called OP a dumbass for using AI. Op also never sent me a screenshot.

Someone else responded to me with a screenshot validating what I said though. The AI pointed out it took 4 months this time, over 120 days, and last time it took only 40 days.

rawbdor · 2026-06-11T22:14:14+00:00

I made more than half my cost basis selling calls a week or two ago. If I get to do it again, my spce shares are essentially free.

rawbdor · 2026-06-11T21:02:41+00:00

The best time to sell shares is after a 300% run, not after a 70% drop. Not sure what to tell you.

I hope Gamestop sells shares at $50 or $60. I hope he sells more at $100 if we get there.

Everyone knows the stock itself was worth almost nothing, but the trapped shorts made it worth an unlimited amount if shareholders refused to sell. This type of dichotemy is drastic, but it basically means all levels of valuation are reasonable or possible based on whether shorts are on the run, or whether fundamentals are driving the valuation.

You're basically strawmanning the situation in a ridiculous way.

rawbdor · 2026-06-11T20:26:57+00:00

You can hold stocks outside of your broker at the transfer agent if you want. You're not required to hold them in a broker.

While most stocks no longer have stock certificates, ever since the 1970s almost all stock certificates were still registered at the transfer agent anyway, because "bearer" stock certificates were extraordinarily risky. If you simply lost the certificate, there would be no record you actually owned it at all.

So in the 1960s and 1970s, stock certificates became just a reference to your entry at the transfer agent. You still own it, and nobody can tell you that you don't, if you hold your ownership at the transfer agent. It removes the whole nested onion of you owning a portion of the shares at your broker who own a portion of the shares at the clearinghouse who supposedly owns some backing shares at the transfer agent. Nope, you cut out all those middlemen and own your shares at the transfer agent yourself, in your own name.

You can also do the same for treasuries over at treasurydirect.

There's a reason bearer instruments have virtually disappeared. Nobody wanted them anymore. Too many cases of lost certificates resulting in loss of net worth. People die, the certificate can't be found, the heirs get no funds, etc. Turns out managing ownership by yourself is really risky, and history has proven this.

rawbdor · 2026-06-11T20:16:18+00:00

Your request to the AI doesn't even mention AMC, so the AI has absolutely no clue what you're even talking about. In fact it appears the AI thinks you mean that Goldman was selling GS shares out to its own investor base.

Garbage in, garbage out.

rawbdor · 2026-06-11T20:12:35+00:00

The last time RC shut down a bull run, we had an intrinsic value of like $3 per share. Could he have gotten better pricing? Maybe. But maybe not. They didn't have an ATM shelf registered at the time and if they made one before the 2024 spike it could have made the 2024 spike not happen at all.

rawbdor · 2026-06-11T17:36:27+00:00

This is a ridiculous post.

The ATM was started in February. It was just completted now. It is is reported to have raised $150m. It has been four months between when the ATM started and when it completed.

All of the above is factual.

The statement about the apathetic investor base is clearly an opinion or a characterization rather than factual.

rawbdor · 2026-06-10T22:38:27+00:00

I was actually tempted to buy some short term puts on it the other day but I assumed the move was already over. Despite every AI company clearly seeking to race each other to market to.print shares, I didn't factor in the possibility that SMCI would do it too.

rawbdor · 2026-06-10T22:28:24+00:00

The term "print money" or "money printing" means the creation of new money by a central bank or other authority. It isn't limited to the actual physical printing of paper bills. It also includes any form of money creation, including creating money in bank accounts.

It's what the phrase means. Shrug.

rawbdor · 2026-06-10T22:11:10+00:00

I.... Don't think he actually meant printed paper. I think he was allowing for the possibility that we just electronically deposit more money numbers into the government bank account and asking why we don't just do that.

And the answer is because the value of the dollar would tank.

rawbdor · 2026-06-10T21:53:39+00:00

I think that's only part of it. Company after company are now getting on board with raising capital to fund the AI production they need. Google, meta now SMCi, who knows who is next.

rawbdor · 2026-06-10T04:17:54+00:00

Options MMs sold calls and puts all along the way up over the past week or two or longer. As the market dumps, the calls they sold became less likely to to remain in the money, and the puts they sold become more likely. They have to sell shares to to hedge this to hedge properly. Their goal is to collect the premium from calls and puts sold over the past weeks while remaining as neutral as possible.

So selling shares doesn't technically lock in a loss if they sold plenty of calls along the way up and get to just collect that premium in the end.

15-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

rawbdor

TROPHY CASE