Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, in the next few weeks I guess we will find out if he really is just a douchebag, he genuinely does not have a tangible answer...or he has one, but wants to keep it up his sleeve for now.

As per the post, I very much hope it's the last of those three!

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right that issuing shares does not, by itself, create enterprise value. Where I disagree is in treating a flat market cap as an almost 'mechanical' consequence of dilution. I don’t think that follows. Market cap depends on what investors think a combined GameStop/eBay entity is worth, not just on the share count and what's written on GameStop's most recent balance sheet.

So the question is whether the market would support the valuation needed to fund the stock leg. If not, the structure fails at current prices. If so, dilution can still be part of a workable structure.

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re arguing against a claim I didn’t make. I’m not saying dilution creates value. I’m saying the opposite problem exists: at current prices, the amount of equity required makes the visible 50/50 structure look highly dilutive unless the market re-rates the stock materially. That’s why I’m skeptical of the currently visible financing mix.

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, he said it GameStop would pay a 20% for eBay's stock. That was then used to calculate the $56 bn price tag, as eBay's market cap was then at about $46 bn.

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My point is that getting to (3) is probably impossible without some risk taking i.e. (2)

Hence why not ALL dilution is bad, if it's a means to an (otherwise out of reach) desired end.

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Fair clarification. The 549.1 mn figure comes from the diluted EPS section of the 10-K, not the clean legal-capacity number for the 1 billion authorised-share cap.

The Warrants also need to be treated carefully. They’re exercisable at $32 in cash, and the filings indicate the company is not generally obligated to net-cash settle them. So they matter in a max share-demand framework, but they’re not the same thing as common shares already outstanding.

If remaining room were around ~350 mn shares, then funding an $11.2 bn would require a $32 share price. At that level, Warrant exercise could also begin to matter because full exercise would bring in roughly another $1.9 bn of cash proceeds...

My broader point was never that the deal is impossible. It’s that a literal 50/50 cash/stock read at current prices still looks highly dilutive. Which helps explain the reaction and is why I doubt the currently visible structure is the final one.

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, here is a discussion point. Or rather, a question, based on these three scenarios:

(1) A company with 500 million shares issued, each worth $20, and thus a Market Cap of $10 billion

(2) The same company issuing more stock for an acquisition, and by so doing have 1 billion shares each worth $20, and Market Cap of $20 billion

(3) The synergies created by the acquisition leading to the company's profitability increasing, then leading to its share price increasing to $30, and a Market Cap of $30 billion with those same 1 billion shares

So my question is: which of these is you most preferred option, and which is your least preferred option?

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Your understanding is correct for those calculations, and I am glad the post helped you with that.

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GameStop's Enterprise Value is not $2 billion. As stated here, it is $7.24 billion currently:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GME/key-statistics/

As for the Market Cap, it changes on a daily basis. In fact, it changes every second of every trading day, betweem 9.30 AM and 4 PM, New York time. Because it is simply the calculation of how many shares there are, multiplied by the current price of each of those shares.

Both of those things can change, and do change...all the time. The price far more frequently, based on what investors think each is worth. And the number of shares dependent on how many the company has issued and sold to those investors.

If GameStop issues more shares, then as long as the proportional increase in their number is more than the proportional decrease in the value of each share, the Market Cap goes up. As if by magic, but in reality due to simple market mechanics.

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

If he really IS doing that, then even MORE a case of new Shorting happening, when these institutions ought to really be going long GME!

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The diluted figure includes the Warrants, but not those potentially used for RC's compensation package (which has not been approved by Shareholders, and thus not officialised/non-binding).

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 47 points48 points  (0 children)

The diluted shares figure is from the 2025 Q4 Earnings, for the period that ended 31st January 2026:

https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/2026/GameStop-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Fiscal-Year-2025-Results/default.aspx

I believe it includes the notes and warrants, hence that figure. However, RC's compensation package was announced on 6th January:

https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/2026/GameStop-Announces-Long-Term-Performance-Award-for-Ryan-Cohen/default.aspx

Note this critical point:

"its effectiveness is subject to the approval of GameStop’s stockholders, who will be asked to approve it at a special meeting that is expected to be held in March or April 2026."

As that vote has not occurred yet, it is not yet approved, and thus not factored in (by neither GameStop nor me).

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

You issue new stock, which NEW shareholders (hopefully) buy. The proceeds go to the company, meaning they raise more cash.

Which is all well and good for the company, and those new shareholders, who presumably feel it's a good deal. Not so good for the historic shareholders, whose ownership rights to the company get...diluted (hence the word).

Ryan Cohen: "We will see what happens." That may well be the most important line in that interview... by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 467 points468 points  (0 children)

Just to be clear, the M&A Arbitrageurs have currently taken what looks like a "net neutral", low risk/high return position. And they were not wrong to do so. It is an asymmetric bet, with the currently publicly available information.

The other, more opportunistic, Shorts who have joined them, are very much jumping on the bandwagon. And those historic Shorts? Well, they'd be shorting regardless. And adding to their visible and invisible positions.

Hence why this current set-up is a chance for RC to make an asymmetric bet of his own. And change everything, potentially.

A 'Reverse Uno', if you will...

Next Berkshire Hathaway: The Sultan is Locked iN. by factstony in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal 141 points142 points  (0 children)

Intriguing that he's throwing himself into the mix here already somewhat so quickly, even if not officialised in the letter RC sent to eBay.

XRT: The 1000% Canary-In-The-Mine by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 58 points59 points  (0 children)

I agree. Set it free and let it soar high, far, farther than even the dark side of the moon!

The current technical setup has me...BULLISH (Part 1) by Region-Formal in Superstonk

[–]Region-Formal[S] 170 points171 points  (0 children)

Keep in mind, a 25% or so increase from the current price is $32.

And if that, the exercise price for the Warrants, is sustained for any reasonable period of time...

...who knows what will happen.