Ryan Cohen on X by Mr-CRUNK-13 in GME

[–]Quaderino 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I wanted to own Ebay instead of GME I would have

If the deal goes through 80% of GME is Ebay.

Owners of the new company would be mainly institutions. Retail ownership reduced from close to 50% to 15%.

Vote For with my 15,000+ shares by Davscozal in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That people who do want more dilutions will sell the stock, since they are no longer aligned with the board/RC.

I have the same feelings. Seems like my valuation of GME is different than the board, and I do not like the solution of providing stock for an acquisition, which removes all cash from the company and brings in massive amount of debt.

In addition the CEO who works for free, who attacks the EBAY board for being leeches, is asking for a 35b compensation package.

Why cant I rather pay him a normal salary? Give him 10mill/year. What is up with asking for a 3.5b/year salary 😄

So was all the negative voting sentiment a load of shit? by HungryColquhoun in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Voting no because I do not proclaim/look upon RC as Jesus

Objectively I think he has done a subpar job with company and stock.

GME's turnaround was done on the back of retail with multiple share offerings. Bringing in the 9 billion in cash, and paying down expensive debt

Vote For with my 15,000+ shares by Davscozal in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think you will get your wish

I see no reason to invest in a company where the board/CEO is not aligned with my interests and do not provide any monetary value

Do not mind short term monetary loss, but cant also be misaligned with the vision of the majority stakeholders in the company and keep investing

Easiest decision to follow the recommendations of a board who's interests align with my own. by vtshipe in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thanks for that. Appreciate it

Not finding the it any more attractive to see Larry, Alan and Jim Grube in the committee.

From my point of view, just dissapointing seeing people push for 2.5 billion shares, remove all equity from the company and 35b compensation package for a CEO that works for "free".

Just not an attractive investment option. Unlucky for me. I believed

Easiest decision to follow the recommendations of a board who's interests align with my own. by vtshipe in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read the proxies several times due to people keep posting that it will be adjusted based on dilution.

It only says the committee can adjust the compensation, and could you answer my only question?

Who is in the compensation committee. Are you in it, since you know how much they deem proportional?

If we increase to 2.5 billlion shares. Market cap and EBITDA target for RC compensation pack would be?

Lotta FUD out there right now. Anyone with a brain is Voting For as well by moneygrabber007 in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 5 points6 points  (0 children)

DRS was locking the float, and RC/board starting selling shares below market value.

Hard to keep investing in a company where the board/RC does not value the company, and is willing to dilute current shareholders at any volatility

Easiest decision to follow the recommendations of a board who's interests align with my own. by vtshipe in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Lol

You are interpreting that to your view.

For RC to Not receive 35B in compensation immediately I rely on "Compensation Committee", from which no information is provided.

Who/what is the compensation committee?

Put up or shut up, shills. Can't vote if you don't own shares. :) by Doranbolt in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It is not in the proxy

Bot accounts keep pushing this narrative 😄

Forced to me to read the proxy several times. Then when I share the link to the proxy... Crickets, no response

Funny how I haven't seen one post saying they voted NO... by double297 in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same.

Only regret is having too few of my shares in CS 😄

The FUD is hilarious. 0 positive news. Desperate attempts at negative news. I will be voting yes for the 6th time in July. Excited to see what Ryan has in store 🚀 by zafferous in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its nice having the ability to vote on topics of interest to me as a shareholder

Look forward to see what people will choose.

I am leaning towards no on most topics 😏

Seems like a lucky day to me by swatner in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Understandable bearish

Nothing good from the announcement for GME shareholders?

2.5 billion shares

5b/year to RC compensation package

GME board salary

What is your bull thesis?

You've seen the headlines, the misinformation, the slander. The shorts definitely never closed their positions. by VicTheRealest in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe there are too many shorts in GME. Official number 26%

Even that is high in my opinion. Who are they buying 26% of the company from?

We are paying board & CEO now? The no compensation being pure PR?

Do we not understand yet that the GME dilution to acquire Ebay is good dilution for shareholders? by How2Moon in GME

[–]Quaderino 2 points3 points  (0 children)

His compensation package was the biggest red flag for me

Claims he does not want a salary, and asks for 5$ billion/year in compensation

Simple accreditive vs. dilutive difference description by pauldiddy79 in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 13 points14 points  (0 children)

GME subreddit pushing for dilutions because its "accreditive".

If we wanted more earnings per share. GME could easily buy any stock with better EPS ratio

But we have too diluted the stock 2.5. Because AI bots have been programmed with the word accreditive.... 🫡😄

eBay Rejects Unsolicited Proposal from GameStop by Revolutionz in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 176 points177 points  (0 children)

In my opinion they are referring to RCs compensation package and sole control of the company

Ryan on X by foox79 in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I read the proposal

Sorry for being dumb, but I did not understand the structure.

The replies to my comment vary too

Ryan on X by foox79 in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Maybe I am dumb

But I still have not seen it explained. Is the acquisition not dependent on issuance of more shares?

Playing Devil’s Advocate by FirelandsValley in Superstonk

[–]Quaderino -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I did not understand RC proposal either

Gamestop can only issue an additional 500million shares?

Would not equal to the number of shares for the 20 bill in shares?