If they want to save their business, thats exactly what they would do. Issuing new shares means free money into the company. No matter how high the stock prices go it doesnt mean anything for gamestop itself.

At the core of it, gamestop is a loss-making business. If they want to keep it, theyll issue new shares to inject new capital at elevated values. If they dont want to keep it, they'll reduce their own positions. Either way, it doesnt make sense for the owners to do nothing.

Fair game

Either you follow the gang or do a GME

I'm waiitng for public bank.. Yummy

I re-watched Billions (Showcase TV series) and suddenly every makes sense

Like what burry said to Elon /Tesla, as such high priced he should do new issuance. It would cement permanence for the price and not worry about dilution.

But i think gamestop before doing this, need to seriously check with SEC. Else later they get slap in the wrist like what hertz did.

all in pancake

i am just saying short selling is absolutely necessary for a balanced and fair market. otherwise little fishes ain't gonna be able to invest anything, cuz all stocks too expensive.

HODL!!!!!

From what I read is the owner have new plan to change their concept, the gaming industries itself is not outdated. What outdate is physical copy of games.

Yes, you're right, no matter how high their shares goes, they do not get anything from it (no new capital) until unless they issue new shares, what the share price did is it increase their market cap so they can issue more new shares. And unless they issue 120% shares or at very minimum 70% shares, the hf will still be trapped in short squeeze.

And it is not normal for company to issue 100% new shares, also even if they do, who know that it will not be snatch by retail investor? Many eye was on it globally.

Issuing 70%-100% of new company shares is as good as giving away the company to other people. Unless the owner themselves secure a major portion of it.

What I read is owner was desperately trying to save their company from being short , this mean the owner do want to keep their business. But again I just read this online and I don't know for sure, it can be hearsays.

Trying to look at it logically and leaving aside all speculation, there are 2 solution to the short squeeze. 1 owner diluting their shares and 2. Owner completely disposed their shares, but overshort above 100% doesn't make it an easy escape. HF certainly had trapped themselves. And either diluting or owner let go their shares, public retails also have access to it.

This doesn't follow our normal understanding of market because we never been thaught that a company shares can be short above 100%. I'm puzzle how can this be happening.

This post has been edited by wanted111who: Feb 1 2021, 01:25 PM

I'm quite butthurt with your remark, not interested in stock market doesn't mean we don't know how it work.

An examples I can think of is do you know how bycicle work? Are you making bycicle or do you use bycicle? If not how you know how bycicle work?

And do you think only bycicle professional Olympic racer only can teach in and out about bycicle?

What I'm saying is many people are train and study finance and know how the stock market function and they might not be broker, investor by trade and this is not rocket science. In fact any Auntie + Uncle can learn it in less than a month investing stocks.

This post has been edited by wanted111who: Feb 1 2021, 01:49 PM

you'll need to put on a different hat as owners - while share prices is one of the measures to gauge the management's performance, their main concern is theoretically the long-term operations of the business. no matter if the price of its shares is 5,000 or 0.50, the business wont be directly impacted. revenue, net income, etc all basically the same.

without going into their prospects, gamestop is basically blockbusters for games. absolutely no one even pretends that they're going to be viable. even those who buy are in it because of the short position, not for any fundamentals. its outdated and their migration is too late, requiring them to compete with entrenched gamesellers like gog and of course, steam. regardless, to do that transition they need money which practically guarantees they'll issue shares. unless you can guarantee that gamestop prices will still be 300-400 in five years' time, its much cheaper to issue shares than to borrow.

look at it this way, if they issue just 20% additional shares right now they'd get an additional 5 billion cash into gamestop - more money than it made for years. heck, that 5 billion they would get in cash is worth more than gme was ever worth since 2013. long-term shareholders basically sacrifice 17% of their shares for a guaranteed (because its cash) return of more than 100% on the value of those shares.

and that's only 20%. there's no reason need to issue 70% or 100%. even short sellers dont need 100% - they just need there to be enough float to not be squeezed.

Not everyone's comfortable showing their positions, also many don't need to prove anything. Your choice to believe or not. We know what we own.

Per your say, 20% is just to float and not exit, means it will back to square one, HF are still caught over shorting. Delaying the problem, not solving the problem and this doesn't change the fact that retail investor isn't losing this battle. Just waiting game. The initial guys holding it for 7-8 month since he started and he is still holding it even though his shares worth millions now.

In your opinion, if you are one of the retail investor, will you let go your shares or will you keep holding it for few more month waiting for the next short closure dates?

Invest is meant to be long term anyway.

Also 20% of shares, isn't exclusively open for people shorting the shares only. Like I said, many are eyeing on this shares globally. Any news wouldn't escape the masses. And many more understand the concept of buying and holding all available shares and left nothing to the people who borrowing it. If the company do issue new shares, I'll make sure I grab as much as possible and wait for their next calling date.

Only things that will change the game is they have indefinite time to cover their short position, I think this will need SC to steps in and given them privelage to do so.

So conclusion is, issuing 20% new shares doesn't change anything for HF who is trapped and company got what they want. No more worries that company issue new shares which is one of the risk factor to be consider now.
Of course company can issue a new shares again to fuck the masses or they can sit this one out after issuing new shares to fuck people who trying to bring their company down.

This post has been edited by wanted111who: Feb 1 2021, 02:55 PM

My comment was on your statement regarding new share issuances. If youre confident on your trading strategy its not my place to debate it.

Im actually not aware of shorts being timebound (although brokers have that discretion). If youre talking about options, then yes.

This post has been edited by empyreal: Feb 1 2021, 03:05 PM

My comment on new shares is assuming it can help hedge fund to exit their short position. Hence I put 70% -100% , any lower they are still trapped.

I agree that no one know how long HF have until they are required to replace their shorts and only brokerage who issue them know which the information will not be reveal to public. How people know it's this Friday, I'm not sure. But yes they do have timebound. Yes, I meant options. There is no loan in the world that do not have time bound right?

I see it this way, brokerage is bank. You might not agree with me. That's ok, it's my personal opinion.

This post has been edited by wanted111who: Feb 1 2021, 03:16 PM

I would highly recommend that you check your assumption re shorts being timebound, especially if thats a central assumption of your strategy.

Maybe my wording cause misunderstanding, let me try again using proper finance jargons by timebound I meant the short borrower is set a time to close their positions, if they decide not to close their positions, they will at least need to maintain the margin account per current market price. This is my understanding.

How much money is it needed to maintain the margin account assuming price now 300, initial price is 20/30 usd? The cash will be frozen and cannot be use to do anything sitting on margin account.

This post has been edited by wanted111who: Feb 1 2021, 03:39 PM

Imagine seeing the biggest people in GME, Fidelity AUM =3.3 TRILLION! + Vanguard AUM = 6.7 Trillion + Blackrock AUM = 8.76 Trillion.

And you see them in the biggest shareholder position.

Even CEO George Sherman = 3.39% only Cant do much but the he`s the CEO who will do the captain calls





This post has been edited by Syie9^_^: Feb 1 2021, 03:34 PM

lol r/gatekeeping spotted

The lender (i.e. broker) usually doesnt set when the borrowers need to close their positions. They just need to pay the borrowing fee. I dont think they have a T+2 trade settlement arrangement.