Important background: https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/202...
CEO gets paid "only if GameStop achieves a market capitalization of $20 billion." Buying a $55bn company would certainly achieve that quickly. I'm not sure how they'd manage that (buy with what? Memes?), other than the should-be-illegal process of putting debt on the acquired company's balance sheet.
>>> should-be-illegal process of putting debt on the acquired company's balance sheet
This is a basically a leveraged buyout (LBO). All private equity works this way. Yes, it should be illegal, or at least heavily limited.
I highly recommend this book: "Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America"
I mean, it is functionally the same as home loans? Would you be proposing a carve out that buying a house or car is ok this way, but nothing else?
Home owns are owned by people, not the home itself. If someone fails to pay a loan, their own credit score will be impacted
For these PE loans, its the new company that takes on the debt, not the buyer. Essentially any broke person can "afford" any trillion dollar company this way
There are other categories of real estate loans where the debt is against the property itself. The lender evaluates the property's income and expenses when underwriting the loan.
Is it still "private equity" if a public company takes a loan to buy another public company?
It's still an LBO, in effect borrowing against the target to get control of it.
OP is just saying that PE uses the same playbook, not that this move is "private equity".
> the should-be-illegal process of putting debt on the acquired company's balance sheet.
I agree it's weird but ultimately the check against dumb lending is natural consequences for the lender, right? If you ask me for billions in loans for your zero revenue company and I give it to you, whose problem is that but my own?
The lenders get their money back via management fees. Pretty much only the consumers and the employees get screwed over
[delayed]
In the modern world if you are a bank you will be bailed out eventually, thus your problem becoming everyone's problem.
Ah-hem SVB?
An outlier in historical terms (i.e. the last 20 years)
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
It's the problem of all the employees (and potentially customers) of the company being plundered.
They have no say in the matter, and given that the lender can probably absorb the loss without, you know, missing mortgage payments or losing health insurance, I would absolutely argue it's not just their problem.
You can certainly hold the opinion that "it's just business" but it feels like an unnecessary part of business that very often has real disruptive and detrimental effects on average working people, for the sole benefit of rich people getting richer.
And yes I get that it's not just a PE problem, but PE is a big one of these kinds of problems.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the US employment model. Businesses can do all sorts of dumb things that end up making them unable to continue to invest in employees. The check against that is the greedy owners.
Regulations designed to ensure businesses never take risky bets lest they have to lay people off would be a nightmare of unintended consequences and surely in aggregate hurt employment.
I assume the person you answered is saying that level of risk taking should be regulated. Not that no level of risk should be allowed if they have to fire people. Surely there is a point where you want some guardrails, so the C-suite has to at least take in account their employees as part of their risk assessment
The people who work at the bought-out company who will then be fired due to PE now gutting workforces to pay off the debt. Laborers are getting the shaft
The problem is that leveraged buyouts allow me to effectively inflict that debt on other companies, making a buyout offer the existing shareholders won't be able to resist and then reorienting its operations around servicing the debt I took out.
Taking a $20b loan from TD Bank + sitting on $9b CASH + GameStop stock for the rest. They’ve made an interesting proposal around using 1600 GameStop locations for fulfilment. Smart if they can make it work.
Update: Numbers still don’t add to $55b - I think there’s a $14b shortfall. Not sure about how they are planning to fund that.
> They’ve made an interesting proposal around using 1600 GameStop locations for fulfilment.
Is that really an advantage? Fulfilment is always handled by a lot of places for the big e-retailers for returns, which is similar to what eBay needs for sellers.
How much does Staples charge for its Amazon return fulfillment where you don't even need to wrap up the item?
It is really popular: https://www.staples.ca/a/learn/amazon-returns-now-available-...
I question whether it is advantageous to use GameStop stores for this or just to piggy back on what Staples is already offering to Amazon and others for their returns? Fulfilling returns for Amazon isn't significantly different to shipping eBay orders.
My kneejerk is that most consumers these days expect delivery for items purchased online, and allowing them to pick up their items at a brick and mortar probably isn't the issue.
Now, dropping off items you're selling? That probably removes a decent hurdle for many first-time/one-time users who aren't familiar with shipping (what box/label/insurance/padding/...).
> My kneejerk is that most consumers these days expect delivery for items purchased online
100%.
> Now, dropping off items you're selling?
This is what Staples is offering to Amazon but for returns - quite similar. And they could offer them to eBay as well I am sure. You do not need your own chain of brick and mortar stores to do this and I am sure the cost per drop off would be cheaper with Staples than your own chain that only serves you.
GameStop is a game of constant pivots that sound good to its meme-believers that do not really work in the real-world.
> Now, dropping off items you're selling?
A place that you could take items and have them packed and shipped for you would remove an enormous hurdle for new eBay sellers. It's easily the most annoying part of the entire process.
Hell, maybe they could even list items for people? Like a massive digital pawn shop.
I could see this really working out for them if they do it right.
Can confirm. The main reason why I don't sell stuff on eBay more is because of the high shipping costs and frequent scams.
Facebook Markerplace has issues of its own, but if you agree to meet up at a safe public location to buy/sell the item in person, then it mostly alleviates those two issues aside from the small chance of receiving counterfeit bills.
If Gamestop and eBay merge, then they could (potentially) offer a better deal to buyers/sellers by either buying certain items directly, shipping them at lower costs, or having an employee "verify" the item before it ships so that the seller receives better protections.
That's assuming that this is truly an ambitious merger rather than just being some kind of exit liquidity scam that gives Ryan Cohen a golden parachute right before he peaces out.
A company doesn't need $55bn to buy a $55bn company. They can issue new GME shares and exchange $EBAY for $GME. These are sometimes called "stock-for-stock" transactions
Except a sudden dilution usually tanks the stock by the exact % its diluting
So GME dilutes by 20%, stock price immediately goes down by 20%. its not some infinite money hack
GameStop has a standing approved agreement to issue up to a billion new shares. If you read the offer you will see it is 50% financed by GameStop stock.
They threw him a hardball today in his cnbc interview on this topic. $GME stock value would plummet short term, but the combined company would revalue much higher.
Current Gamestop shareholders would be diluted. They would own, proportionally, a much small slice of the combined company, but at a higher price point.
The framing of this as, "Ryan Cohen is diluting Gamestop shareholders in order to meet the terms of his enormous pay package" is disingenuous though, as his pay package is all stock. He's diluting himself too. He obviously has faith that, long term, the value of the combined company can substantially grow.
Wouldn’t that debt knock down the market cap as much as the value
Otherwise take out a $20b loan and put it in the bank. Assets increase $20b, job done.
There is precedent for this kind of trickery being played.
For example, Honeywell acquired Garrett AiResearch, a well known manufacturer of turbochargers for combustion engines, through a series of mergers.
Later on, it loaded them up with debt (over $1.5 billion, mostly asbestos related indemnity obligations from other parts of the business), before spinning them out as an independent entity again. Two years later, Garrett filed for bankruptcy claiming it was succumbing to the unsustainable debt burden placed upon it by its former owner.
So you mean...marrying someone but transfer all the personal debt to the others, then divorcing so that I have no responsibility whatsoever? Not even an obligation to settle for the debt just like disappeared through an expired relationship?
Is there a legal term for this kind of restructuring of debt?
I vibe asked it on Kagi Assistant and it said the closet relevant result is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy
To me it seems more like leveraged buyouts + debt restructuring all at once. I rather coin this term "debt offloading", which could also cover the cases with Enron for the tactics they used about 25 years ago
Scamming the state through private debt emission.
"Private Equity"
Welcome to late stage capitalism
This is early 1990s capitalism.
1980s even. It takes a while to siphon off all the value built up by multiple generations.
I believe this is what they call the 'Texas Two-Step'
Sure it is not a Kansas City shuffle?
Perplexity wants to buy Google Chrome vibes.
They are paying half in GameStock equity. They will issue new shares so they will buy Ebay of $55bn, but add only $20bn debt.
Its good for GameStock management who will end up running a much bigger business. https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/202...
Game Stock management is essentially claiming that they can run Ebay better than the current management so Ebay shareholders will end up better off by selling to Game Stock: they get some cash and shares in a business that will be mostly a better run Ebay. Very possible bad for GameStock shareholders who will end up with a smaller stake in a bigger business.
It that's bad for GameStock shareholders, surely they'll vote against it?
Well, his argument is that he can remove inefficiencies in the combined company.
GME is ~12B, EBAY is ~46B (58 total) with net income of 0.4B and 2B (2.4 total). If he boosts profit by 1.2B then it's nearly a 50% increase and probably going to result in a more valuable combined company despite the debt.
He can argue that. But to me it seems more likely that culture and market demands are so different between the two companies that sharing any substantial resources would be to the detriment of at least one of the two halves. And more likely detrimental to both
The most beneficial thing is how even proposing this shifts peoples' perception of Gamestop from a beloved but struggling brick and mortar chain to a successful business
> to a successful business
Maybe from a brick-and-mortor store to yet another private equity fund whose continued existance comes solely from debt and merger trickery.
the only benefit I can see is some kind of eBay pick up and verification scheme where sellers use the gamestop locations to send their products and buyers go theere to pick it up. That would basically create a "this is garbage feedback" that could cleanup some of ebay's long standing problems in trust.
While this seems like the perfect synergy with a company that has too many branches and not enough business, those branches are also tiny. I'd bet employees are not enthusiastic about becoming UPS.
Becoming Radio Shack / Microcenter, as far as 3D Printing and DIY electronics, seems like it intersects with their target audience more, but they're also probably pretty short on space for that.
yeah, their shops arnt sized to do much more than UPS style package movement.
I dont see it as a good value, but it's the only thing I see as a synergy. Otherwise it's just more garbage capitalism.
> garbage capitalism.
How is this defined?
A few things come to mind:
- SPAC IPOs that dodge standard disclosure requirements and worsen information asymmetry. See WeWork.
- Board positions filled with CEO loyalists instead of independent directors. See OpenAI firing Altman before Microsoft reinstated him.
- Management taking seemingly arbitrary decisions that turn out to be directly linked to their own compensation. SpaceX ordering a bunch of Teslas, or merging with a distressed asset (xAI). See above point on loyalist boards.
- The very concept of leveraged buyouts where financiers borrow money to buy a company, then put the burden on repayment on the company AND pay themselves hefty management fees. This inevitably leads to layoffs and a rapid decline in product/service quality while the company is scrapped for parts.
Moving money around and pretending that there is more of it.
You mean leverage/borrowing? Pretty time tested mechanism of risk taking in free markets.
Moving money from one pile to another so that you can skim a little off the top is imaginary work and is slowly destroying the west
Slumlord owners of the network effect monopolies innovating ever lower investment in innovation and upkeep with ever higher increases in rent extraction, with a few nipple tassles slapped on the side to entice retail investor hype cycles.
>GME is ~12B, EBAY is ~46B (58 total) with net income of 0.4B and 2B (2.4 total). If he boosts profit by 1.2B then it's nearly a 50% increase and probably going to result in a more valuable combined company despite the debt.
GameStop had revenues of $3bn last year and eBay was $10-12bn, so combined it's $13-15bn. A net income increase of 1.2bn on that gross is a tall order for M&A efficiencies. Especially difficult when the two companies have essentially zero operational crossover, besides business admin. It doesn't seem likely to me that merging eBay's accounting/legal departments into GME's (and similar efficiency gains) is going to save anything close to a billion across the two entities.
I don't think this is a serious assessment. For years, the core business of both companies has been facilitating the flow of used goods. Gamestop has moved strongly into collectibles recently, with a partnership with collectible grading firm PSA and the introduction of (essentially) lucrative trading card lootboxes, whereas eBay has capitalized on the same expansion of the collectibles market with new live/flash auction features.
IIRC, Gamestop recently had a "trade-in anything" day, where they accepted a variety of products for store credit. Seems an awful lot like this was some sort of test for accepting products in-store for eBay listings, or something along those lines. They already accept trading cards to send off to PSA for grading and to place into their lootbox system.
As far as efficiencies go, you can see things like shifting shipping by individual sellers to mass shipping to/from a warehouse, a much heavier footprint in collectibles, and perhaps quality control that reduces buyer disputes (this one's a bit iffy).
Well let's be clear, the "trade-in anything" day was a fancy discount day. They gave everybody $5 for whatever they brought in, online you can read from employees that they just donated or threw it all away, no attempt to actually keep any of it to sell.
That said IMO the biggest difference in the two situations you're describing is that EBay is not in the business of buying the items to then sell later, they just facilitate transactions between two parties and some of the logistics (depending on the seller). They're similar as far as dealing with "used goods" but the actual design of the business and risk being taken on is very different.
EBay also not really lacking what you're describing - there are fufillment centers that can be used for EBay listings, there's the EBay "Authenticity Guarantee" program for cards, they already own TCGplayer which does all of this for trading cards way better than GameStop does, etc.
Perhaps somehow these things could be improved by GameStop but I can't imagine it being significantly better than it currently is.
They are wildly different businesses. Ebay is not in the business of holding physical goods, they are a marketplace that connects buys, sellers, and shippers and adjudicates fraud, collects funds, handles taxes, etc. They are not a warehouse.
Gatestop is a retail operation that buys and sells goods. It takes on all the liability for fake products, it puts capital on the line to purchase used goods, it is a totally different (and worse) business
That’s not correct. eBay owns TCGplayer which has large warehouses and does direct shipping & fulfilment sales (tcgdirect).
> Well, his argument is that he can remove inefficiencies in the combined company.
Sigh. The synergy argument, once again.
While historically most mergers don't work out particularly well, I'm absolutely sure this time will be different.
"How do you make money? Spinoffs, split-ups, liquidations, mergers and acquisitions." - Mario Gabelli
Just sample from these with replacement sufficiently many times and you're all set. At the very least, you'll owe people so much money that they'll have a massive interest in helping you.
That is a massive “if”
Depends on how market cap is defined for the purpose of the contract. Typical definition is just against floating shares in the market * share price. Debt doesn’t factor in at all except in so far as it will influence investor confidence -> share price.
That said: conceptually it’s not an awful fit for GameStop. In so far as video games discs and cartridges were the main disposable belonging i had as a kid and the main target for new purchases, Funcoland was (later to become GameStop), if you squint your eyes, a brick & mortar eBay scoped to only video games. If you’d been an SV startup at the time pitching the eBay concept you could have said “it’s like funcoland, but online and for anything and also lets people sell peer to peer “
Market cap will price in the debt, as it always does. Empirical evidence (dig through Google scholar) finds that cash assets, debt, profits, settlements, and the like, all are reflected in market cap changes at over 99% accuracy (the 1% is from measurement noise, so it may well be 100%).
Making debt of that form illegal would kill any company that needed money to stay afloat, such as during some emergency, or war, or COVID, or tons of events that companies regularly survive.
I’m disappointed and surprised you left out half of the conditions that grant him this compensation. You only included the one that suggests that all he has to do is buy a bigger company with GME stock. It was literally the first paragraph of your link:
“ The award is divided into nine tranches that are eligible to vest only if the Company achieves both a “Market Capitalization Hurdle” and a corresponding “Cumulative Performance EBITDA Hurdle”.”
This changes basically everything. He can’t just buy any bigger company. The company has to earn way more cash flow, cumulatively, as well.
The first two market cap hurdle is almost certain to be achieved, and the second should be easy (its less than current market cap plus value of new equity to be issued).
I was under the impression that it was either or, not both. Either reach market cap goal or EBITDA.
I’m disappointed and surprised you left out half of the conditions that grant him this compensation and only included one that suggests that all he has to do is buy a bigger company with GME stock:
“ The award is divided into nine tranches that are eligible to vest only if the Company achieves both a “Market Capitalization Hurdle” and a corresponding “Cumulative Performance EBITDA Hurdle”.”
This changes basically everything. He can’t just buy any bigger company. The company has to earn way more cash flow as well.
It doesnt really change much, by buying a company its future ebitda will be included, it only delays the reward by some time. So yes he can just buy a bigger company
> other than the should-be-illegal process of putting debt on the acquired company's balance sheet.
This is silly. No different than buying a house w/ borrowed money based on using that house as collateral.
Banks aren't stupid. If it's very likely to fail and the interest doesn't cover the risk, banks won't risk. There's typically no upside to banks. At best they get their interest and at worst they lose everything.
> Banks aren't stupid.
Even a cursory familiarity with the history of the industry shows both that this is untrue but also that it’s leaving out many of the core reasons why finance is regulated. Bankers do make mistakes, but also their focus is on what makes them a profit now rather than what’s good for their client or the country long term. The bank does not care if GameStop goes bust as long as that happens after the loans are repaid or, most likely, sold. None of the guys who sold incredibly dodgy mortgages—if you weren’t in the market in the late-2000s, they would literally let applicants pencil in their income and not check it—went to jail for packaging those mortgages up so many times removed that they couldn’t reliably prove the loan even existed and reselling them with inflated ratings, and absolutely none of them had to repay their bonuses. Once they found a buyer for an “AAA” derivative, foreclosure was a problem for the retirement fund left holding it after a couple of sales.
That’s what I’d expect here, too: they’ll make some flashy announcements to juice share prices (“AI powered auctions paid in crypto!”) and sell that debt, spin whatever’s left into a subsidiary which splits off, and then profess complete surprise when that goes bankrupt.
> Banks aren't stupid.
If they can gamble with other people’s money then why won’t they.
If they can get rid of those liabilities by offloading them in a hidden way why wouldn’t they.
If it all collapses and the government bails Them out, oh well.
It is different. You need somewhere to live. Buying a second home with what would presumably need to be at least a 90℅ mortgage is at best questionable.
I think your example if proving their point: that's exactly what happens and is incredibly common.
Cohen is already rich rich, his GameStop compensation doesn’t really matter much. The eBay acquisition could be a strategy to juice his compensation but I think it is much more likely he does believe that he can achieve his stated aims, which will financially benefit him much more in the long term.
> Cohen is already rich rich, his GameStop compensation doesn’t really matter much
I think this argument is much stronger in the opposite direction: if his motivations were not focused on accumulating wealth, he’d be retired or running some kind of charity once he was that far past the point where he had to work. The fact that he’s not suggests that he derives his self-identity from wealth and the guys who do that are rarely satisfied at mid-tier rich.
I'm not sure the fact that somebody is already rich rich would make them less likely to perform ethically dubious practices to juice their own compensation. In fact I'd say the opposite is more likely.
If there's anything rich people famously hate, it's making more money.
Unlike poor people who are indifferent to money.
Few CEO’s in the US are rewarded for longterm thinking when there are unsustainable quarterly gains to be made. GameStop also has a strange history, especially the last decade, that no one could possibly describe as “cautious” or “planning longterm.”
I also can’t name a single CEO who had the mentality of “I’m rich enough to make personal/financial sacrifices for the good of the company.” That’s simply not how things work. I’m sure an example exists but it would clearly be an exception to the rule.