[3form]

>He obviously has faith that, long term, the value of the combined company can substantially grow.

Depends how much of them he has before and he will after, it might still be worth diluting if difference is vast.

Also, why long term if short term could also do?

[weard_beard]

My take? The strategy is like a contractor fixing up houses. GameStop was the crappiest house on the block. He’s fixed it up and is using it as collateral to take out a loan and buy the dilapidated mansion next door (eBay). He’ll keep going until he’s gentrified the whole neighborhood using the value of the current business as collateral to buy the next. He wants to sell only when the value of the entire gentrified neighborhood reflects market rate for the work he's put in.

[this_user]

The only thing that Cohen has done is shut down stores and cut costs massively at the expensive of revenue. He hasn't really fixed anything, he is just managing their demise. All of his strategic initiatives like expansion of e-commerce or an NFT platform were complete disasters that had to be wound down. The only reason the company is even showing a profit is because they repeatedly diluted shareholders to raise cash and then re-invested that money into Treasuries. Basically, if you are buying GME stock, you are getting an expensive fixed income wrapper.

Buying EBAY would be a bad deal for pretty much everyone involved. GME shareholders get diluted to buy EBAY for way too much money. EBAY shareholders get paid in vastly overvalued GME shares. And the entire thing would be managed by some guy whose only strategic idea is to cut costs. The only one who would benefit is Cohen, because it would create a sufficiently liquid market for him to sell his stake, something that is not currently possible in GME.

[weard_beard]

You’ve presented a plausible and concise counter argument here. Time will tell.

https://dasams.substack.com/p/the-cohen-endgame?r=af3hc&utm_...

[ball_of_lint]

> The only reason the company is even showing a profit is because they repeatedly diluted shareholders to raise cash and then re-invested that money into Treasuries.

That's simply not true.

Profit excluding the interest from the cash in 2025 was ~110 million. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000132638026... page 27.

Yes, closing unprofitable stores reduces revenue. It also improves profit. You're describing... Good business.

You're entitled to your opinions about the products and the merger. We'll have to see how it plays out