Michael Flyfish

I am a fish

[ViiV @ViiV_333]

Ban visa-free entry for Chinese nationals immediately.

[👑Magnifishit🧻 @TheMagnifishit]

Again, again & again. The market assumes MASSIVE dilution for $GME to acquire $EBAY.

At $21/share, dividing the ~$25B stock portion of the offer by GME spot implies ~1.19B new shares. At $18.60, ~1.35B.

Then there’s the $1.4B convertible note exchange that assumes $1.4B ÷ ~$19 VWAP = ~73.7M additional shares.

Add both assumptions and the market can arrive at roughly ~1.42 BILLION new shares.

-HOWEVER-

What if BOTH assumptions are wrong? Why not calculate what Cohen has repeatedly described. That eBay shareholders would be “rolling” their equity into the combined company?

If the stock consideration is based on the economics of $GME + as a combined NewCo (not today’s depressed GME share price) the rollover equity model produces roughly ~648M acquisition shares.

That’s based on the value allocated between the two shareholder groups. Not $25B ÷ GME spot.

And GameStop didn’t say the $1.4B debt exchange is simply principal ÷ VWAP either. It said the final share count is “based in part” on the 35-day VWAP & is subject to an undisclosed per-share floor.

Meaning we still don’t know the full formula & we don't know the floor. Could there be a premium or another adjustment? @ChaddSchroy found premium language in the filings for these notes.

For example, a 37.5% premium would turn:

$19 VWAP → ~53.6M shares
$25 VWAP → ~40.7M shares

Compared against $19 VWAP w/o premium for ~73.7M shares.

So compare the two frameworks:

- Simple spot/VWAP assumptions: ~1.42B new shares

- Rollover equity + hypothetical premium example ~700M new shares

That’s a difference of roughly 700M shares. About 56% more than GME’s entire current share count.

And what if the $125 acquisition offer is also leverage for a much cheaper path to control? What if that's what the partnership rumor implies?

GME already owns ~9.8% of eBay. Could Cohen use the credible acquisition threat to win a partnership + board seats, gain increasing influence over eBay for billions less & gradually follow the same playbook he used at GameStop? @foxenflask saw that option months ago.

I wonder how many large funds have already modeled all of this & aren't following the media led narrative? When will we get clarity?

It’s forthcoming. And if this is the right read..

Suck my balls, Street 😎

[Ethan Brooks @alt_w_v_g]

You used to sell stuff on eBay.

Maybe an old camera. Maybe Beanie Babies. Maybe a coat that didn't fit.

You paid a small fee. The buyer got the thing. Everyone went home.

That eBay is gone.

The website looks the same. The logo is the same. The 135 million buyers are still there.

But the company isn't really a marketplace anymore.

It is an advertising business with a marketplace attached for distribution.

Last year, sellers paid eBay $2 billion just to make sure their own listings showed up.

Read that again.

The board calls this growth.

A Canadian who runs a video game store called it something else.

Here is what actually happened.

In 2020 the board hired a new CEO. His name is Jamie Iannone. He arrived with a strategy called focused categories.

In plain English, that means leaning into the stuff people pay extra for. Sneakers. Watches. Trading cards. Auto parts.

The everyday seller, the person with the camera and the coat, was no longer the customer.

The customer was now the seller who would pay to be seen.

In 2025 eBay did $80 billion in transactions. They kept $11 billion of that as revenue. Of that $11 billion, $2 billion came from advertising.

Sellers paid them $2 billion to promote listings on a website those sellers already pay fees to use.

That is the growth story.

In the same year, the number of enthusiast buyers, eBay's own term for their best customers, was 16 million.

It was also 16 million the year before.

And the year before that.

And the year before that.

Four years. Zero growth. They mention this on every earnings call without mentioning it.

So what does a company do when growth stops?

It buys back its own stock.

In 2025, eBay returned over $3 billion to shareholders. Most of that was buybacks. In February the board authorized another $2 billion on top.

Buybacks shrink the share count. Earnings per share goes up even when earnings stay flat. The stock price follows.

The stock was $68 a year ago. It is $108 today.

The company did not improve. The denominator got smaller.

Then a man from Canada noticed.

His name is Ryan Cohen. He runs GameStop. He started his career selling pet food online and sold it to PetSmart for $3.35 billion.

He looked at eBay. 135 million buyers. $80 billion in transactions. Real margins. Real cash flow. A board harvesting the business instead of running it.

He bought 5% of the company through derivatives and stock.

Then on May 4, he offered to buy the rest. $125 per share. $56 billion total.

On May 12, the eBay board rejected the bid. They called it not credible.

The math is credible.

What the board means by not credible is we would have to explain why we sold.

Then Cohen went on Piers Morgan.

He said eBay is run by a bunch of losers with perverse financial incentives.

He pointed out that eBay's CEO has been paid $144 million over six years.

He pointed out that he personally takes no salary and has put $128 million of his own money into the company he runs.

You do not have to like Ryan Cohen to notice he is making a point that is hard to argue with.

eBay used to be a place where regular people sold things to other regular people.

Now it is a $48 billion company whose largest growth driver is charging its own sellers to advertise to a buyer base that stopped growing four years ago, while spending billions a year buying its own stock to make the chart go up.

The board calls this strategy.

A video game CEO from Canada called it what it is.

The market is now waiting to see who else agrees.

Plz fix. Thx.

Sent from my iPhone

[香港/中國新聞-小豬 @hk2019freehk]

本人評論：討好中國人及共產黨，政治正確的垃圾片

Renews: 很久沒有看過一部，如此能代表香港的電影，以失敗的方式而言。

先旨聲明，若有留意我過去寫的電影評論，其實鮮少負評港產片，只是《寒戰 1994》這案例，實在太特殊、差得太香港，值得一書。

例如，吹到好大、但其實只是一個空殼。

所謂的十個影帝、40 個知名演員參演，客串的粒粒皆星之類之類。事實上，當中絕大部分參演的影帝，都是可有可無的，例如路過的古天樂、完全無發揮機會的台灣影帝陳以文，僅現身一場半場戲、無前後後理舖排莫名奇妙的串星葉童、莫文蔚，全程只是看到假髮不看演員名單甚至不會發現的魏浚笙，只是為出現而出現擔當最老土求其「說書人」角式的郭富城和周潤發，僅僅過鏡的梁家輝和洪金寶，客觀而言都是對演員的浪費，他們的存在就只是為了營造一種「大陣仗」。

近年在香港，我們叫這種狀況為叫口號、搭雞棚。

－－－－以下含劇透－－－－

吹得很大本來也無妨，慘在吹得很大卻無內涵。

一直以來，《寒戰》系列在劇情上都難言出色，去到強行拼湊出來的「前傳」更加一塌糊塗，例如主要角色謝君豪，前一秒全力救人、下一秒救人之後又指責其有異心要流放處理；周文健作為警務處長，一直提防副處長吳彥祖奪權，結果又突然決定自行休假讓吳彥祖署任，直接讓其掌權；本來已經在任的警務處長又可以隨便被撤換，凡此種種令人失笑的劇情 bug，層出不窮。

而製作組為了掩蓋這些講不通的情節，決定快刀斬亂麻，將所有場口劇情剪到短促零碎，口講口賠我話係就係強行推進直接落下一場，目的就是令觀眾無時間消化發現當中的荒謬和幼稚，結果令演員的發揮空間和對峙的張力徹底消失，一切都是為帶出一個前提：

外部勢力亡我之心不死，港英勢力想在香港主權移交前，在警隊培殖勢力準備搞亂香港。

對於香港人而言，這種敘事其實很搞笑。主權移交已經快將 30 年，外部勢力處心積累搞亂香港這類說詞已經聽到麻木無感（實情如何心照），而實際上香港的紀律部隊首長早是北京說了算，亦是人所共知的事實。但也不緊要，若果故事能自圓其說、講得精彩也還好。

但不幸的是，《寒戰》中的所謂陰謀，一直都是幼稚園級別且處處犯駁的：例如一個 PC（第一集的彭于晏） 可以顛覆警隊、到了 201x 年外部勢力還能搞陰謀換警務處長（咪玩啦），到了今集，則是找來兩個鬼佬演員，扮演 MI6 將所謂的「陰謀」親口交代一次。

講到尾，《寒戰 1994》根本不是讓香港人看的電影，而是一部經過計算，主要為滿足中國觀眾「香港想像」的主旋律電影：壞鬼佬、半唐番港奸（新意是由王敏德變成吳彥祖）、外部勢力、權鬥、香港警隊，等等等等，是一個完全脫離現實以滿足中國觀眾口味的「香港」，謝君豪還擲地一聲講了一句「香港以後唔到你哋英國人話事」然後就去領便當。

所謂說好香港故事。

這說法太政治化？那就不講政治，反正《寒戰 1994》最大的敗筆不是主旋律，而是忘本。

過去港產警匪片最優秀之處是甚麼？就是不管劇情如何，槍戰、打鬥和飛車追逐場面保證精彩，這亦是港產警匪片、動作指導蜚聲國際的由來，亦是過去《寒戰》劇情如何兒戲仍可以一看之處。

然而來到《寒戰 1994》，這個港產警匪片的根本都崩壞了，不知是否前述的剪接太碎，導致打鬥場面經常交代不清，對劇情有重大意義的麥沛冬中槍、王丹妮的飛刀甚至拍出滑稽感，最極端的是，戲中多場飛車追逐，竟然是用 CG，而且是粗糙得一眼就看出是 CG 的程度，同樣的電單車炒車場面，連 30 年前的《烈火戰車》的燈尾都看不到。

好大喜功只重包裝而忽視內涵、一意討好大市場配合主旋律、最終連自身最大的優勢和優良傳統都拋諸腦後，這種失敗的方式，真的很香港。不是不支持香港電影，而是若繼續迷信拍這種完全沒有 identity 的作品去討好大陸市場就是成功的方程式，香港電影只會死得更快。

[lordoflolz @Lordoflolz]

If you’re wondering where all the $EBAY investors are on X… there really aren’t many.

Over 93% of $EBAY is owned by institutions like Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street. Retail ownership is tiny. Insider ownership is even smaller.

Meanwhile, $GME has one of the largest retail shareholder bases in the market, alongside significant insider ownership led by Ryan Cohen.

Two completely different ownership structures. Two completely different shareholder cultures.

[Bill The Investor @billtheinvestor]

无以伦比精准度的鼓手，结尾处的炸停让人头皮发麻！

乔纳森·莫菲特（Jonathan Moffett），迈克尔·杰克逊的鼓手，MJ曾这样说道：“我的贝斯手错了，我的键盘手错了，我，有时，也会出错……但乔纳森·莫菲特绝不会错。”

伴随着你，来一段《Smooth Criminal》。

[老周横眉 @laozhouhengmei]

中国游客又火了。

五一假期，中国游客大批在香港咸田湾搭帐篷露营，有人乱扔垃圾以及破坏树木，被渔获署罚款3000元。

记者采访一位被罚款人的朋友，问他：自己的垃圾自己带走，你认为宣传得够不够？

他嗤之以鼻：“我觉得很可笑，我交钱不就行了吗？”

这货一举成名，他这段采访现在已经火遍全球了。

[KK.aWSB @KKaWSB]

趣闻：一段病毒式传播的视频在网上疯传，展示了男性和女性在思考问题上的典型差异。

[雪柔 @xu96175836]

轉：对啊，为什么呢？

[作家崔成浩 @cuichenghao]

一个青年人拿着空钱包找黄仁勋签名，黄仁勋：“谁有钱？这个年轻人需要一点钱。”黄仁勋真是个好人！祝他年入百万！

[Michael Flyfish @FlyfishMichael]

110 Minutes BABY SHARK Collection Unboxing - Satisfying Unboxing (ASMR) https://t.co/rBXXHwubNq 來自 @YouTubeoi,mmm

[心淡的懶貓🎗🐈‍⬛🥀🌴 @yiyiyilam]

#就嚟撐唔住喇！
💥有冇人可以救到我地吖？！
#每天都見到蝗禍在侵食呢個美麗的都市！
🫂🫂😩💔😢🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

[bravo for everyone @BravoEveryone]

八年前經已係咁。。。。

[Lisa Xin 子涵 @lisaxinsohradio]

简单草图，却如此准确！🤣🤣
看你能忍住不笑吗？

[Cassandra Unchained @michaeljburry]

The first half of 2021, I made some noise and news on a number of bearish callls - TSLA, GME, Bitcoin, Robinhood, the Nasdaq 100.
MANY, including journalists like Jonathan Levin and Shuli Ren @Bloomberg cite these specific examples of how wrong I have been again and again to invalidate what I am saying today, but history proves differently.
This is roughly what they did from that early 2021 time to early 2023, when in the middle of the banking crisis I said I was not seeing true danger and it could resolve quickly.
To look back at those calls 5, 10, years later - any short call - is ridiculous. You really think any short seller holds those positions for 5, 10 years?

[0 @lammichaeltw]

甄子丹老婆汪詩詩不會說謊，導致兩夫妻遭大陸愛國賊圍攻。

甄子丹苦心經營的愛國牌，也算是輸收尾了。

[心寒 @Samhon852]

往績

[作家崔成浩 @cuichenghao]

好家伙！香港纪念火灾的现场，有人打出的这句标语，令人深思！ 👍