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.
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 relationship?
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 “
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
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.
- 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.
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).
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
"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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GameStop doesn't have (even close to) $55.5B. Their offer from the letter is literally impossible:
> Our offer is $125.00 per share, comprising 50% cash and 50% GameStop common stock
Even if you magically included all existing GameStop stock in the offer, it still would not comprise 50% of $55.5B.
EDIT: looks like it's not impossible and I misunderstood. It's a proposed change of leadership with a $25B injection of cash to sweeten the deal. GameStop would issue shares which would capture the original eBay value (since GameStop would own eBay after the trade), making that part a wash. At least assuming people owning eBay stock currently would value the combined company at at least the sum of their parts, which is a big if.
When the merger concludes, the former shareholders of eBay will have $27.5bn of GameStop-eBay stock and $27.5bn of cash. (“Cohen said GameStop has a commitment letter from TD Bank to provide up to $20 billion in debt financing” and “GameStop has around $9 billion in cash on its balance sheet to put toward a deal” [1].)
They own eBay + GME + some financial alchemy. If you aren't a financial wizard you should assume that the value of the financial alchemy is negative. (Because 99% of the time it is.) Now, what are the synergies of eBay + GME that outweighs the chaos caused by the merger and the finance stuff?
I’m not totally sure how it would be structured but if GME is the purchaser then the merged company would be listed under GME and eBay would become a brand in the GME group and no longer a stock listed under the eBay ticker.
The whole thing seems incredibly dubious and fishy. The eBay board should vote this down which is why the CEO of GME has already realised that and said he’ll appeal to the shareholders directly. If eBay wanted to load themselves with twenty billion dollars of unnecessary debt and extra complications which would kill the company then they could do it themselves. They’re not in that kind of business.
There is, literally, nothing fishy about this offer. It’s a cash and stock offer from a public company to public company shareholders. We could call the financial or shareholder benefits to ebay dubious (I don’t hold any opinion about this) but this is a very aggressive offer, and allows the chance for GME to keep some cash - if enough shareholders of ebay opt for stock, then they’ll have cash available after. Plus they’d keep whatever current net assets ebay has.
ebay was at like 100 before the offer went out, it’s trading up to 120 or so in early hours this morning, so speculators and institutional desks do not find this offer fishy or dubious - they are pricing it as likely to be pretty well received.
As a side note, one of many plays you might make in this situation is what Cohen has done here; they bought a bunch of options. Those options are now worth a lot; before the letter if it was all options, they controlled $2b of EBAY shares, today that’s $2.6b. We might imagine the options at least doubled the underlying return. The market had not priced in a rapid jump to $120 when he bought them. If the deal closes, then this will put at least another billion or two of liquid capital into GME.
TD Bank also believes it will work, i.e. return them a profit.
They've seen the detailed plans and I haven't. But they're the ones with real skin in the game. It seems like an opportunity for them to lose their shirts.
So yeah, eBay shareholders should take TD Bank's free money and run.
When the SEC filing is made, we'll get to see how the deal is structured. The $20 billion from TD Securities becomes a debt obligation of the combined company. There's a tax break in equity to debt conversion, and a second tax break for carried interest. [2]
There may be a preferred stock deal or debt refinancing so that TD gets their $20 billion back. Usually, the private equity firm exits within a few years.
No, unless any control transaction using any leverage counts.
A third of the deal is financed with debt. A fifth is financed with cash. The bulk—fifty percent—is being financed with equity. An LBO would see debt and a thin tranche of cash finance the bulk of the acquisition.
That's just for the cash part. The stock part makes no sense. For this 50/50 deal to work in principle, they'd need to issue around a billion new shares, which would massively dilute the existing ~450M shares. So Ebay shareholders would suddenly own 70% of Gamestop after the deal. It's also highly questionable if investors actually believe the combined stock is worth that much, so the stock price would probably fall and turn those 70% into >90%. At this point it basically becomes a reverse acquisition plus a large loan for the final company from the cash part of the deal.
This is not atypical; smaller company “buys” the larger company with debt on the larger company’s books. The blended shareholder mix is mostly the larger company; management comes from the smaller company.
The one I was most familiar with was the Discovery “acquisition” of Warner Brothers. Though apparently that’s a little complicated because AT&T was divesting itself of Warner.
why do i keep seeing comments of this sentiment? can't they just take loans? I thought there were serious consequences to making an offer, and then backing out , especially if the other party accepts your offer.
How is a 20bn company going to issue 27bn worth of stock? Or are they just going to pretend the newly issued shares are valued the same per share as existing stock is right now?
Because it acquires an asset worth roughly that much, it’s neutral. GME is (probably!) not doing a huge at-the-market offering, they’re creating the shares and immediately giving them to eBay shareholders.
In practice the price paid for the company being acquired is usually a bit higher than the market value (so the shareholders take the deal), and the market usually punishes the acquirer a bit and the resulting entity’s stock will fall a bit. (This is most definitely not investing advice.)
… and the stock has not dropped 39%, in fact it’s trading about where it was a year ago. Shareholders have been content to let Cohen add to the balance sheet, adjust operations and make a large move. This is one such move. And GME is up 5+% in pre trading, so shareholders are generally positive about this idea.
If Cohen's "large move" was to buy EBay, investors could have done that themselves. They would have gotten a better deal on shares in the new company. Also, they'd be up 50% over 12 months. Partly because Cohen "adding to the balance sheet" has meant dilutions, and there will be more for this deal.
Yes, that goes into the '50% cash' part of the offer. With a 20B credit line and 7.5B cash from their own coffers (which they claim to have, so let's believe them on their word there), you cover the cash portion.
The issue is the non-cash portion of the offer. They claim that the remaining 27.5B is covered by GameStop stock. But that's more than double the market cap of GameStop.
With the approval of the board of directors (in most cases), a company can simply create new shares and give them to whomever they like.
I would guess that this information will bother you.
If it helps, because many public company executives are compensated on earnings per share, most C level teams are incentivized to buy back shares, thus decreasing the denominator for the EPS calculation without changing fundamental economics of the company.
If this also bothers you, you should guess what Buffet says and thinks about those two dynamics, and then read up on it, and you will learn something interesting about public markets!
Are they under any obligation to ground the value of their own stock or can a salesman simply claim that the "true" value of that stock is much much more than it currently seems to be?
There is no way that this deal will go through. However, it is good publicity stunt! Their offer is only 20% above the current share price, and they don't have nearly enough funding to complete the transaction. I would love to know what rate TD Securities is willing to lend? What would be the spread over 3month USD LIBOR? I assume 300-500 bps.
A lot of the comments here seem to assume that a smaller public company can’t acquire a larger one, which just isn’t true.
A quick search for how leveraged acquisitions, stock-for-stock deals, financing commitments, or tender offers work would answer most of the objections.
Is it too much to ask the Hacker News commentariat to do one quick search before collectively declaring that something they don’t understand is impossible?
I see at most two comments kind of saying that. That’s a lot to extrapolate.
I imagine the vast majority of us do not have a problem understanding smaller companies can buy larger ones. Most of us are just incredulous that anyone is taking GameStop, especially Cohen, seriously.
Is there anywhere a good breakdown of these leveraged acquisitions. Like a video or something that breaks down how that exactly works and why its legal and why the acquired company goes along with it. Its seems like such a strange mechanism. And the history of it.
> A quick search for how leveraged acquisitions, stock-for-stock deals, financing commitments, or tender offers work would answer most of the objections.
Isn’t the assumption that it’s impossible intuitively justified if you have no background in finances? A small fish usually can’t devour a bigger fish either.
Also, all those terms you mentioned mean nothing to me. You can’t search for what you don’t know exists.
Speaking as someone who used to know absolutely nothing about the world of high finance, yes, it is too much to ask.
Before I started paying attention to such things I wouldn't have known a single one of those terms to even begin googling.
And let's be honest here. A smaller company saddled with big debt buying out an even larger company really doesn't make logical sense. It makes financial sense, which is subject to different laws of mathematics, probably involving the waiter's check pad in an Italian bistro.
Agreed that Marvin would find this (and everything about Earth) ridiculous.
I propose this would make sense in the animal kingdom though; large, lumbering fatty walks along. It has big claws, but … it doesn’t look like it can be bothered to be dangerous anymore. Meanwhile a pack of hungry successful hunters walk alongside. To take this down, they will risk pretty much everything..
It’s the same story. The shareholders provide a sort of bet on if the big guy has still got it, or the risk-on hunters do.
That’s why the operational results got attention in Cohen’s letter — he’s telling Shareholders: “I turned around GameStop. I can turn this ship around, too.”
2021: a Reddit short squeeze kept GameStop from going under.
2026: GameStop is bidding $55B for eBay, a company 4x its size.
If it lands, this might be the strangest full circle moment public markets have ever produced.
> ...sneaker company that pivoted to data centers set the 'weird' bar pretty high...
"Weird" is the wrong word for Allbirds. "Fraud" is far more fitting. They obviously have no intention running an AI-datacenter business and are doing it for the stock-price rush. A small number of people will be laughing all the way to the bank, and everyone will forget Allbirds in short order.
Ebay has a history of being legit, though they have had a long list of uncanny acquisitions themselves (including Skype, which they later sold for a stiff loss). It's a pity they couldn't just execute on their core business and are now being acquired themselves by an entity using sketchy financial shenanigans.
Who's going to stop a few rich people with a pile of money and a stated intent of doing something they have no intention of doing? No one, I guess. I mean, there's plenty of examples. Supermicro is still listed on NASDAQ even though one of their founders was caught smuggling export-controlled GPU's in Supermicro servers to the tune of 2.5 billion dollars a couple months ago.
If I understand correctly, I think the collectibles market is more in line with what GameStop is looking at here. They recently got into the trading card game including grading services via PSA.
A quick google says 320 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to over $535 billion by 2033. I didn't know it was that big but it makes sense. Gamestop has been all in in collectibles and eBay has a huge market on it as well. I think this is the play. Both companies being profitable doesn't make it a bad deal for the number one collectibles company in the world.
I have followed from side and it feels like NFT craze hot. With some parts like Pokemon cards being insanity with regular fights, people hiding in stores and so on.
It is a multi billion dollar market with Ebay being key secondary market with Gamestop angling for same.
If they can do some accounting trickery to pull this off then they deserve it. Makes zero sense to me but I did not think GameStop had even close to that in assets.
It's the leveraged buyout playbook. You buy a company and use its own assets to secure a loan. Then you "find efficiencies" (strip it for parts to pay yourself and the creditors).
In this case, if the deal goes through at the price given, eBay's liquid assets are untouched. The cash portion is paid out entirely through the loan and Gamestop's cash.
I was seeing the news about this calling it GameStop eBay takeover and I assumed it was eBay buying GameStop and I was like, huh that doesn't really make sense for eBay to buy GameStop but maybe they want the physical locations?
How the hell can GameStop buy eBay, this is insane.
The other way around made more sense to me as well. I don't see this going well for eBay, but I also don't entirely know how well their business is doing.
Here local eBay "clones" aren't in a good place and have been left as ghost towns after Facebook Marketplace.
The Gamestop CEO is an interesting character, he grew Chewy and sold it, did a massive play on Apple stock during the pandemic and used that to buy a 9% stake in Gamestop over time, rode the hype to accumulate $9B while turning the company around and closing stores that weren't profitable and making it a money making budiness again. And now they already own 5% of eBay on top.
Along the way he says some ridiculous Trump stuff and wasted a bunch of time on NFTs but the eBay play seems interesting at least. It's one of the best internet soap operas to follow. For comparison AMC was put in the same "meme stock" bag at the time and you can see how they managed to ride the hype. So it's not just memes.
Have you used eBay in the last few years? It's awful for sellers and awful for buyers. This is coming from somebody who buys on eBay twice a month on average.
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.
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 relationship?
[delayed]
Welcome to late stage capitalism
Perplexity wants to buy Google Chrome vibes.
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 “
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
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.
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.
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
>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).
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 & consignment 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”
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
GameStop doesn't have (even close to) $55.5B. Their offer from the letter is literally impossible:
> Our offer is $125.00 per share, comprising 50% cash and 50% GameStop common stock
Even if you magically included all existing GameStop stock in the offer, it still would not comprise 50% of $55.5B.
EDIT: looks like it's not impossible and I misunderstood. It's a proposed change of leadership with a $25B injection of cash to sweeten the deal. GameStop would issue shares which would capture the original eBay value (since GameStop would own eBay after the trade), making that part a wash. At least assuming people owning eBay stock currently would value the combined company at at least the sum of their parts, which is a big if.
> GameStop doesn't have (even close to) $55.5B
When the merger concludes, the former shareholders of eBay will have $27.5bn of GameStop-eBay stock and $27.5bn of cash. (“Cohen said GameStop has a commitment letter from TD Bank to provide up to $20 billion in debt financing” and “GameStop has around $9 billion in cash on its balance sheet to put toward a deal” [1].)
[1] https://www.wsj.com/business/deals/gamestop-is-offering-to-b...
I don’t understand why eBay shareholders will suddenly want GME memestock and find any interest in voting for this.
they will be getting 20% more than what Ebay is worth today
Once. Followed by a tank in price and descent into chaos.
You can sell the stock. This isn't complicated.
Selling is a taxable event
Won’t eBay shareholders own most of the combined company though? They won’t all be able to exit at the sale price.
Neither is ignoring the offer and continuing to hold, if you’ve already been in for two, five, ten, twenty or more years like some have been.
I don’t understand either but wouldn’t they still be owning eBay? Just with GME?
They own eBay + GME + some financial alchemy. If you aren't a financial wizard you should assume that the value of the financial alchemy is negative. (Because 99% of the time it is.) Now, what are the synergies of eBay + GME that outweighs the chaos caused by the merger and the finance stuff?
I’m not totally sure how it would be structured but if GME is the purchaser then the merged company would be listed under GME and eBay would become a brand in the GME group and no longer a stock listed under the eBay ticker.
The whole thing seems incredibly dubious and fishy. The eBay board should vote this down which is why the CEO of GME has already realised that and said he’ll appeal to the shareholders directly. If eBay wanted to load themselves with twenty billion dollars of unnecessary debt and extra complications which would kill the company then they could do it themselves. They’re not in that kind of business.
There is, literally, nothing fishy about this offer. It’s a cash and stock offer from a public company to public company shareholders. We could call the financial or shareholder benefits to ebay dubious (I don’t hold any opinion about this) but this is a very aggressive offer, and allows the chance for GME to keep some cash - if enough shareholders of ebay opt for stock, then they’ll have cash available after. Plus they’d keep whatever current net assets ebay has.
ebay was at like 100 before the offer went out, it’s trading up to 120 or so in early hours this morning, so speculators and institutional desks do not find this offer fishy or dubious - they are pricing it as likely to be pretty well received.
As a side note, one of many plays you might make in this situation is what Cohen has done here; they bought a bunch of options. Those options are now worth a lot; before the letter if it was all options, they controlled $2b of EBAY shares, today that’s $2.6b. We might imagine the options at least doubled the underlying return. The market had not priced in a rapid jump to $120 when he bought them. If the deal closes, then this will put at least another billion or two of liquid capital into GME.
The end of your post negates the first line of it.
Its just financial engineering.
But his mention that it is a form of options is laughable. Thats not what is going on here.
TD Bank also believes it will work, i.e. return them a profit.
They've seen the detailed plans and I haven't. But they're the ones with real skin in the game. It seems like an opportunity for them to lose their shirts.
So yeah, eBay shareholders should take TD Bank's free money and run.
Or ignore the free money/destroy company offer and hold.
Isn’t that just a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout ?
Yes. See [1] for an overview of how this works.
When the SEC filing is made, we'll get to see how the deal is structured. The $20 billion from TD Securities becomes a debt obligation of the combined company. There's a tax break in equity to debt conversion, and a second tax break for carried interest. [2] There may be a preferred stock deal or debt refinancing so that TD gets their $20 billion back. Usually, the private equity firm exits within a few years.
[1] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.1.121
[2] https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-is-the-carried-interest-lo...
No, unless any control transaction using any leverage counts.
A third of the deal is financed with debt. A fifth is financed with cash. The bulk—fifty percent—is being financed with equity. An LBO would see debt and a thin tranche of cash finance the bulk of the acquisition.
That's just for the cash part. The stock part makes no sense. For this 50/50 deal to work in principle, they'd need to issue around a billion new shares, which would massively dilute the existing ~450M shares. So Ebay shareholders would suddenly own 70% of Gamestop after the deal. It's also highly questionable if investors actually believe the combined stock is worth that much, so the stock price would probably fall and turn those 70% into >90%. At this point it basically becomes a reverse acquisition plus a large loan for the final company from the cash part of the deal.
This is not atypical; smaller company “buys” the larger company with debt on the larger company’s books. The blended shareholder mix is mostly the larger company; management comes from the smaller company.
The one I was most familiar with was the Discovery “acquisition” of Warner Brothers. Though apparently that’s a little complicated because AT&T was divesting itself of Warner.
The stock part is more like a merger than a buyout.
Yup.
why do i keep seeing comments of this sentiment? can't they just take loans? I thought there were serious consequences to making an offer, and then backing out , especially if the other party accepts your offer.
It's newly issued stock, a common form of making acquisitions cheaper
How is a 20bn company going to issue 27bn worth of stock? Or are they just going to pretend the newly issued shares are valued the same per share as existing stock is right now?
Because it acquires an asset worth roughly that much, it’s neutral. GME is (probably!) not doing a huge at-the-market offering, they’re creating the shares and immediately giving them to eBay shareholders.
In practice the price paid for the company being acquired is usually a bit higher than the market value (so the shareholders take the deal), and the market usually punishes the acquirer a bit and the resulting entity’s stock will fall a bit. (This is most definitely not investing advice.)
via a cunning pump on Wall Street Bets
man, those GME bagholders are gonna love diluted shares.`
They can sell now and pocket some extra money. What's not to like?
If bagholders were capable of buying low and selling high, they wouldn't be bagholders.
you think all the bagholders are in at the current price?
If they didn't like the current prospects they can bail at a profit.
If they do like them they have no excuse if things go south.
They already increased total number of stock by +39% in last 12 months, GME will squeeze the last penny from those people.
… and the stock has not dropped 39%, in fact it’s trading about where it was a year ago. Shareholders have been content to let Cohen add to the balance sheet, adjust operations and make a large move. This is one such move. And GME is up 5+% in pre trading, so shareholders are generally positive about this idea.
If Cohen's "large move" was to buy EBay, investors could have done that themselves. They would have gotten a better deal on shares in the new company. Also, they'd be up 50% over 12 months. Partly because Cohen "adding to the balance sheet" has meant dilutions, and there will be more for this deal.
the shareholders of GME operate under the delusion that there's gonna be another magic short squeeze.
Have your ever heard of debt? They have a 20B line secured from TD.
Yes, that goes into the '50% cash' part of the offer. With a 20B credit line and 7.5B cash from their own coffers (which they claim to have, so let's believe them on their word there), you cover the cash portion.
The issue is the non-cash portion of the offer. They claim that the remaining 27.5B is covered by GameStop stock. But that's more than double the market cap of GameStop.
I’m sure if eBay wanted to build 1800 brick and mortar stores they could do so for less than twenty seven billion dollars.
With the approval of the board of directors (in most cases), a company can simply create new shares and give them to whomever they like.
I would guess that this information will bother you.
If it helps, because many public company executives are compensated on earnings per share, most C level teams are incentivized to buy back shares, thus decreasing the denominator for the EPS calculation without changing fundamental economics of the company.
If this also bothers you, you should guess what Buffet says and thinks about those two dynamics, and then read up on it, and you will learn something interesting about public markets!
Are they under any obligation to ground the value of their own stock or can a salesman simply claim that the "true" value of that stock is much much more than it currently seems to be?
Stock is worth exactly what people will pay for it. Ebay share holders get to vote to accept or reject this deal
Presumably stock market valuation is grounding?
Also, eBay shareholders can vote down the acquisition if they don't think the deal is good for them.
You understand that the gamestop stock would then be owning ebay, thus be worth Ebay + Gamestops Valuation?
Alright, my company MEME offers to buy Apple then for $1 plus 100% of MEME's stock, which is worth more than Apple then since it will own Apple.
If you word it like this it's just a hostile proposed change of leadership. Weird way to apply to become CEO of eBay, but sure.
You can do that.
The shareholders have to vote for it, though.
They would also be owning a company that now would have +20B in debt.
They now own ebay. They would include in that math 20B in debt plus Gamestop.
This sounds like a pretty bad deal for ebay investors.
There is no way that this deal will go through. However, it is good publicity stunt! Their offer is only 20% above the current share price, and they don't have nearly enough funding to complete the transaction. I would love to know what rate TD Securities is willing to lend? What would be the spread over 3month USD LIBOR? I assume 300-500 bps.
A lot of the comments here seem to assume that a smaller public company can’t acquire a larger one, which just isn’t true.
A quick search for how leveraged acquisitions, stock-for-stock deals, financing commitments, or tender offers work would answer most of the objections.
Is it too much to ask the Hacker News commentariat to do one quick search before collectively declaring that something they don’t understand is impossible?
There’s one comment as of the time of your post that makes this assumption - you could have replied to them directly.
It is implicitly implied in many comments.
“Implicitly implied” is redundant. Either of these phrasings would suffice:
> It is implicit in many comments.
> It is implied in many comments.
Well, it's called "tautology" and it's a perfectly valid rhetorical device.
A tautology is a sentence vacuously true. This is called a pleonasm.
Was about to post the same thing. It is indeed the under-appreciated pleonasm rather than a tautology.
Links?
I see at most two comments kind of saying that. That’s a lot to extrapolate.
I imagine the vast majority of us do not have a problem understanding smaller companies can buy larger ones. Most of us are just incredulous that anyone is taking GameStop, especially Cohen, seriously.
I see a single comment mentioning it is impossible. No sign of a collective declaration. I think you’re overreacting
I think you are under reacting.
Example from quite some time ago: Avast buying AVG. The value of AVG was around twice that of Avast.
AOL/TimeWarner, Kmart/Sears… lots of prominent examples.
Interesting how none of these are around anymore
Also when Capital Cities purchased ABC. A popular phrase coined by the media was "minnow swallows whale"
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/business/media/thomas-s-m...
But if it all goes sour nobody will be held accountable and two not one company are ruined.
I don't see how such leveraged acquisitions should be legal.
They better not ruin eBay, it's actually a useful business, I use it all the time
Is there anywhere a good breakdown of these leveraged acquisitions. Like a video or something that breaks down how that exactly works and why its legal and why the acquired company goes along with it. Its seems like such a strange mechanism. And the history of it.
> A quick search for how leveraged acquisitions, stock-for-stock deals, financing commitments, or tender offers work would answer most of the objections.
Isn’t the assumption that it’s impossible intuitively justified if you have no background in finances? A small fish usually can’t devour a bigger fish either.
Also, all those terms you mentioned mean nothing to me. You can’t search for what you don’t know exists.
Speaking as someone who used to know absolutely nothing about the world of high finance, yes, it is too much to ask.
Before I started paying attention to such things I wouldn't have known a single one of those terms to even begin googling.
And let's be honest here. A smaller company saddled with big debt buying out an even larger company really doesn't make logical sense. It makes financial sense, which is subject to different laws of mathematics, probably involving the waiter's check pad in an Italian bistro.
Agreed that Marvin would find this (and everything about Earth) ridiculous.
I propose this would make sense in the animal kingdom though; large, lumbering fatty walks along. It has big claws, but … it doesn’t look like it can be bothered to be dangerous anymore. Meanwhile a pack of hungry successful hunters walk alongside. To take this down, they will risk pretty much everything..
It’s the same story. The shareholders provide a sort of bet on if the big guy has still got it, or the risk-on hunters do.
That’s why the operational results got attention in Cohen’s letter — he’s telling Shareholders: “I turned around GameStop. I can turn this ship around, too.”
> Is it too much to ask the Hacker News commentariat to do one quick search
Are you new here?
I believe ebay should put itself up for sale on ebay instead.
Auction or "buy now" with price suggestion?
2021: a Reddit short squeeze kept GameStop from going under. 2026: GameStop is bidding $55B for eBay, a company 4x its size. If it lands, this might be the strangest full circle moment public markets have ever produced.
Is it still riding the meme stock wave or has GameStop made a turnaround?
Very specific corners of the internet are losing their minds right now.
A low tide leaves very few boats afloat, but these are lighter-than-air craft.
This very specific corner of the internet has no idea how your metaphor is supposed to work, which is why I like it so much.
I was just thinking how nice it was to still get used stuff on eBay and now Mr. McMemeStock is going to kill it to extract a few billion for himself.
Yay.
The offer letter: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000119312526...
GameStop is not a serious company and it is baffling seeing how many people here buy into their hype nonsense.
Is this going to turn Gamestop stores into something like those "sell it on Ebay" stores?
Wonder what Shkreli thinks of this.
Not a headline I ever thought I would see. Kinda crazy how meme stocks and retail hype has led to this.
GameStop is going to acquire BestBuy
Most business nowadays is related to financial transactions instead of building new products or services
The real economy seems to be burning but Wallstreet acts as if it didn't matter.
Previous discussion: "GameStop Preparing Offer for eBay" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47985271 68 comments
I guess if people use eBay a lot to sell used games then there is something of an overlap there. Otherwise, it seems pretty weird.
That sneaker company that pivoted to data centers set the 'weird' bar pretty high.
GameStop has physical stores so could be a place to send, collect from or even verify high value eBay items.
> ...sneaker company that pivoted to data centers set the 'weird' bar pretty high...
"Weird" is the wrong word for Allbirds. "Fraud" is far more fitting. They obviously have no intention running an AI-datacenter business and are doing it for the stock-price rush. A small number of people will be laughing all the way to the bank, and everyone will forget Allbirds in short order.
Ebay has a history of being legit, though they have had a long list of uncanny acquisitions themselves (including Skype, which they later sold for a stiff loss). It's a pity they couldn't just execute on their core business and are now being acquired themselves by an entity using sketchy financial shenanigans.
Who's going to stop a few rich people with a pile of money and a stated intent of doing something they have no intention of doing? No one, I guess. I mean, there's plenty of examples. Supermicro is still listed on NASDAQ even though one of their founders was caught smuggling export-controlled GPU's in Supermicro servers to the tune of 2.5 billion dollars a couple months ago.
Based on my own experience with GameStop, that will convince me to stop using eBay completely.
I'd be sad because eBay works great (even if their software is old and would need a complete rewrite).
Why does it need a rewrite if it works great?
EBay is running a platform (very successfully) not a pawnshop.
If I understand correctly, I think the collectibles market is more in line with what GameStop is looking at here. They recently got into the trading card game including grading services via PSA.
Is that market really that large? That sounds very niche, but I don’t know the collectible world
[delayed]
A quick google says 320 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to over $535 billion by 2033. I didn't know it was that big but it makes sense. Gamestop has been all in in collectibles and eBay has a huge market on it as well. I think this is the play. Both companies being profitable doesn't make it a bad deal for the number one collectibles company in the world.
I have followed from side and it feels like NFT craze hot. With some parts like Pokemon cards being insanity with regular fights, people hiding in stores and so on.
It is a multi billion dollar market with Ebay being key secondary market with Gamestop angling for same.
With the state ebay is in, I'd welcome anyone else to run it
So they want to pay half of that with a meme stock?
If they can do some accounting trickery to pull this off then they deserve it. Makes zero sense to me but I did not think GameStop had even close to that in assets.
It's the leveraged buyout playbook. You buy a company and use its own assets to secure a loan. Then you "find efficiencies" (strip it for parts to pay yourself and the creditors).
In this case, if the deal goes through at the price given, eBay's liquid assets are untouched. The cash portion is paid out entirely through the loan and Gamestop's cash.
"I like the stock" - GameStop
I was seeing the news about this calling it GameStop eBay takeover and I assumed it was eBay buying GameStop and I was like, huh that doesn't really make sense for eBay to buy GameStop but maybe they want the physical locations?
How the hell can GameStop buy eBay, this is insane.
The other way around made more sense to me as well. I don't see this going well for eBay, but I also don't entirely know how well their business is doing.
Here local eBay "clones" aren't in a good place and have been left as ghost towns after Facebook Marketplace.
Famous grifter Ryan Cohen is back in business. Time to collect more money from reddit
Every day our world is becoming just that tiny little bit more stupid
Not true, on many days it becomes enormously more stupid.
Diamond hands?
From storytelling to investor POV, does it a good story to frame this as entering the AI era through a digital service that everyone familiar with?
Are there still large shorts on GameStop? If this goes through I assume it will wipe those out?
Can we please not? eBay is one of the few places I still enjoy on the web.
i don't understand why ebay looks SO terrible. It seems like some broken website where css failed to load.
Reminds me of Sierra On-Line being acquired by CUCk International in 1996.
That was a sad story. Al Lowe talked about it a couple of years ago on a German podcast.
is this for real? Or just to get gamestonks back into the news for another whirl on the wheel of meme?
They have managed to raise lot of money and don't have any proper ideas what to use it for. So this might not be worst possible way.
The Gamestop CEO is an interesting character, he grew Chewy and sold it, did a massive play on Apple stock during the pandemic and used that to buy a 9% stake in Gamestop over time, rode the hype to accumulate $9B while turning the company around and closing stores that weren't profitable and making it a money making budiness again. And now they already own 5% of eBay on top.
Along the way he says some ridiculous Trump stuff and wasted a bunch of time on NFTs but the eBay play seems interesting at least. It's one of the best internet soap operas to follow. For comparison AMC was put in the same "meme stock" bag at the time and you can see how they managed to ride the hype. So it's not just memes.
I look forward to today's Money Stuff!
He's a meme trader manipulating retailer investors, following Elon's footsteps
I mean he pumped and dumped BBB, and those people (or should we call them apes?) still love this guy.
those guys have a very strong track record of getting their way lately
ebay is still "old internet", and genuinely useful and well built. enshittification is incoming...
Have you used eBay in the last few years? It's awful for sellers and awful for buyers. This is coming from somebody who buys on eBay twice a month on average.
What would make it better? My only complaint as a seller is fees. I have no complaints as a buyer.
The best part is eBay works exactly the same as 10 years ago, as far as I can tell.
It’s still way better than Facebook marketplace. At least eBay mostly solved the scam issue. Zuckerberg seems to desire fraud on his platforms.
For an old internet company they sure know how to enshittify global selling with their Global Shipping Program also know as Global Shitting Program.