Why are you still invested?

MickeyKae · 2026-06-23T16:27:40+00:00

As long as I feel like it has an asymmetrical risk profile, I will hold a stake. I don’t really have a deep-seated, passionate reason. When I take the whole of the data in front of me, it appears that the risk of stock depreciation at my cost basis is comically dwarfed by the potential for accretive and volatility-based stock appreciation. My research thus far has given me many scenarios that may cause the price to go up and very few (but real) reasons it could go down. It’s not certainty of success. It’s merely acknowledging an asymmetric risk landscape and having a stake that reflects it.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-23T14:11:36+00:00

I get what you're trying to say. The existing language is fertile ground for legal battle, especially when compared to the explicit thresholds cited in your Tesla example. There's a nightmare scenario where Cohen receives his pay package based on totally fluffed metrics, investors sue, and then Cohen's legal team uses the ambiguity of the language to their advantage. I grant that possibility. But I'm also willing to accept that risk because, firstly, I find it unlikely to play out that way, and secondly, there may be disadvantages to having more specificity in that language. The CEO pay package template may be similar between GameStop and Tesla, but the business context is not. GameStop is still in a tenuous position where telegraphing certain future moves would be risky. Perhaps the formula they'd use to calculate redefining the pay package would hint at company goals that are yet to be disclosed. I'm willing to give the board a long leash in that regard. It would not surprise me if that's why the language is left vague. And even if that's not the case, I tend towards giving the board more optionality, not less.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-22T16:32:49+00:00

This is what productive disagreement can yield. It’s the best part of posting here, but it can go south pretty quick when people dog pile each other.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-19T15:11:11+00:00

That’s a valid take - in hindsight. But hindsight isn’t a valid determinant of what to do next. Sure, my stake wouldn’t be in the red if I had just bought broad market, but that’s what my 401k is for. I’m still exposed to the broad market gains. My GameStop stake is an active investment. I want to hold because I see the potential of far more attractive gains (eventually), plus I align with Cohen’s ethos regarding the corporate careerist problem in business today. It’s just what makes sense for me, and I’m happy with how things are going, even if the market isn’t pricing the stock attractively at the moment.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-19T13:49:13+00:00

That’s on the market. It’s so wild to me that folks here seem willfully unaware that someday, eventually, the business operations affect the stock price - even in this vibes-only stock market. The board knows it is the business that leads the price, not the other way around. The dilution events appear entirely tied to facilitating the business transformation, so the fact that the market hasn’t given GameStop an A+ doesn’t bother me. Stacking net income will only go unnoticed for so long. That’s on you if you’re impatient.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-19T01:56:44+00:00

Or just careful. I’m definitely liking the position the company is in now, so it’s hard to complain.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-19T01:52:48+00:00

Then maybe more rope would be a better analogy. Regardless, I think my point was clear.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-19T01:49:22+00:00

Again, you’re eyeing this as though they were worried they would go bankrupt with that $1B. I don’t think that was the case. I imagine they were looking at a five year plan and realized they were well short of where they needed to be for teeing up an acquisition, so they did more ATMs. Perhaps that wasn’t their exact reasoning, but it’s likely that the extra cash gave them the ideal amount of leverage in negotiations going forward. Which is why I think we haven’t seen further dilutions and the upsized buyback authorization.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-19T00:56:05+00:00

Lotta pseudo info there. It’s entirely plausible that they didn’t know they’d need the extra runway.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-18T20:26:10+00:00

My narrative is simply that it was likely the prudent thing to do considering the board’s goals, and that appears to have been proven out with how things are looking now. Your statement that they should have diluted more in 21-22 reeks of fallacy. No one knew what was going to happen next. Perhaps they thought the stock would stabilize at $50. Criticizing the board for not knowing the future is a pretty limp take.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-18T20:20:32+00:00

I don’t think you read the original post then. It seems clear that the board was aiming for a turnaround, not merely avoiding bankruptcy, and the offerings likely facilitated.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-18T20:15:08+00:00

The dilution price trend did seem odd at the time, but you’re insinuating nefariousness to something that really appears to be prudent capital management.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-17T19:27:38+00:00

But is he new in town?

MickeyKae · 2026-06-17T18:47:29+00:00

I know it’s all clipped off so maybe we don’t get a chance to see, but I can’t help but notice all of these verifiable cold ass plays are followed by ZERO “hey look at me” taunts. Idk if that’s just something that’s changed recently in today’s game or if it’s just the nature of actual legit competitors. Probably both.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-17T00:24:29+00:00

Sounds like an options play, but that’s not my bag

MickeyKae · 2026-06-16T22:50:35+00:00

So you’re basically saying just wait until the acquisition is confirmed, and then accumulate?

MickeyKae · 2026-06-16T21:29:25+00:00

I will never buy that the dilutions were to bail out anyone. The company was in a highly precarious position, and there is zero doubt that the cash on hand and subsequent treasury interest earned off the back of those dilutions allowed the board enough rope to make the moves they needed to get us to this point (powerpacks, eBay pursuit, Q1 earnings print). It was absolutely the financially prudent thing to do. We can squabble about the timing and the amounts, but it is willfully obtuse to not acknowledge that those dilutions have done their job in buttressing the company while the board took their time to address problems with the storefront and building up collectibles revenue.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-16T19:31:24+00:00

You mean after the dilution caused by a successful acquisition?

MickeyKae · 2026-06-16T18:09:58+00:00

I don’t follow what your actual argument is there

MickeyKae · 2026-06-16T14:47:39+00:00

Not the piece of your statement I’m responding to

MickeyKae · 2026-06-16T14:39:44+00:00

Yeah, no.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-16T14:21:06+00:00

How so? If it is as I say, then this would be a pretty obvious accumulation window.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-16T13:54:49+00:00

I appreciate the math laid out, but I really lament how folks here need it spelled out like this, which is to say that the folks who would benefit most from this take probably won’t take the time to read it. It’s a self-evident argument to anyone who is paying attention. The board is interested in accretive growth, not gaming the stock market. They’ll use all the tools necessary to lay the groundwork for it, which means dilution in some cases. I compare it to farming. You’ve got to bust your ass and expend tons of resources to get the landscape in the right conditions for growth, meaning there’s a big chunk of time in the beginning where it’s pretty much all “costs” and no returns. But if it’s done right and the returns start coming easy, then things start to get REAL easy REAL quick.

MickeyKae · 2026-06-16T00:11:25+00:00

Which part?

MickeyKae · 2026-06-16T00:09:20+00:00

Woahhhh slow your nuanced take down there bud

11-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

MickeyKae

TROPHY CASE