strike

AMC and GME

[JACKIE LE' TITS 👑🌈 @Comedyorwat]

No seriously @ryancohen
Just fuckin send it already you son of a bitch

[strike @strikematt12]

@DatingByMHG Nurse

[Julia 🇺🇸 @Jules31415]

Doug Ellin, creator of the hit show 'Entourage,' is disgusted by LA's decline in recent years and says he publicly supports Spencer Pratt in his campaign for LA mayor.

Ellin's Beverly Hills home was burglarized by masked intruders, and he shares that while 5 years ago he didn't have to lock his door, now he has "15 cameras," "2 German Shepherds," and "3 legal guns."

"I know they were animals because they invaded my house. I know I don't care what their excuses are, like a lot of you f*cking care. I know invaders of homes should get 20 years...Everyone in my neighborhood has got the same problem: they're f*cking all putting cameras and high-end security guards because we're all getting broken into. It's not made up, it's not false, and this city has collapsed in the last 5 years. There is no f*cking denying it unless you have an agenda, and I don't know what that is," Ellin says.

"But, you say, 'Oh, Spencer Pratt has no experience!'...What experience did Karen Bass have?...We want to fix this place because we don't want to be forced out. I'm one of the people who made this city look great! I did it for years. I glorified it. I meet people all the time that moved here because of the show that I f*cking created—and they hate it here now. HATE!"

Ellin's comments appear to be, at least in part, directed at the LA Times, who recently published an article, "L.A. is safer than it's been in decades, but crime is an issue dominating the mayor's race."

For his part, Pratt shared Ellin's video to his Instagram Story last week. Safety has been the central theme of Pratt's mayoral campaign.

[strike @strikematt12]

@ThrillaRilla369 Ask

[Cruel Kid @CRUEL_K1D]

@AdamSchefter @jemelehill you gonna tweet about this? Or is it only bad when a player is Republican?

[Tom Hennessy @Tomhennessey69]

The Barnstable County Assembly on Cape Cod, mostly comprised of anti-White leftists, was forced to take public comments yesterday on a new measure that would hamstring ICE from enforcing immigration law in the area. A local patriot managed to show up between work shifts and delivered an incredible speech.

[Buksterlin @andy_buksterlin]

Yes, this is real and the Fox YouTube version is in the comments. If this isn’t a mask, someone please come up with a viable explanation.

[strike @strikematt12]

@OhioTate No way

[strike @strikematt12]

@BarstoolNate Jonathan was my vote. Aubry was a pity vote

[strike @strikematt12]

@AlTheBoss03 Larry Bird

[strike @strikematt12]

@VivaLaStool Just apologize and give a c-note. That guy isn’t worried about your membership status at all. He definitely thinks you are a member

[The Three Antons @The3Antons]

Here’s a must know fact about $AMC

$AMC has gone through 2 pandemics back to back and has survived.

1. COVID
2. Writers/Actors/Hollywood Strikes

$AMC is in the same exact position as $GME was back in 2020 (opportunity), and the CEO just gave you the green light 💯

[Adam Aron @CEOAdam]

I have enormous confidence in AMC and the 2026/2027 box office. So today, using my own money, I bought 250,000 more AMC shares personally, at market price.

I now own outright 2,437,020 AMC shares, raising the total where I have an economic interest to 12,322,429 AMC shares*

It actually can be very hard for a CEO of a public company to buy shares. You have to clear having possession of any material non public information, sort out implications of any ongoing debt and equity transactions, and not be in a quiet period before when earnings will be announced. I was finally in a position to buy even more AMC shares today, and I did.

As I said, I have great confidence in AMC’s future. So, again today, I put my money where my mouth is.

This brings my holdings up to 12.3 million shares* of AMC common stock. My understanding is that I have been, and now even more so I remain, AMC’s biggest individual retail investor.

I should probably mention that I have not sold even a single share of AMC stock since January of 2022, more than four years ago.

I RIDE WITH YOU !!!

—-/////—/////—-

(*For precision: this includes AMC shares I already own, and those which previously have been granted to me as part of my annual compensation and which will vest based on length of service and at target levels of performance over the next thirty three months, on a pre-tax basis.)

[strike @strikematt12]

@mountaingrl_ They would no longer be staying at my house

[Kaaroth @Kaaroth]

$GME $EBAY

[court @mountaingrl_]

Guys imagine if Phish covered literally any Steely Dan album for Halloween one year and how happy the world would be

[THE MASKED INVESTOR - BSB @masked_investor]

Ryan Cohen on $EBAY X $GME

"I love the asset... It's run by a bunch of losers..."

[Paul Branham @BoilerPaulie]

Allow me to translate this letter from eBay for those who don’t speak legalese:

Ryan,

We got your unsolicited offer to buy eBay for $125/share (half cash, half stock) supported by your 5% economic interest in eBay.

Our board, backed by the usual crew of bankers and lawyers who get paid either way, “thoroughly reviewed” it.

We’re rejecting it. Not because the math doesn’t work. Not because the highly confident letter from TD Securities for up to $20B on top of your $9B+ cash pile is fake. None of that.

We’re rejecting it because your entire approach to running a company is an existential threat to how we like to operate here.

Here are the reasons we feel this way, and the things we considered before paying consultants to write this:

1) We’d rather keep milking eBay as a “standalone” cash cow than let you turn it into something bigger and better.

2) Sure, you’ve got real financing lined up and you “know people” with deep pockets, but we’re going to call it “uncertain” anyway so we don’t have to engage.

3) Your plan would actually force real long-term growth and profitability changes we’d rather not be held accountable for.

4) The debt we pretended you can’t even obtain, the operational integration and focus on seller satisfaction, and most importantly, putting someone like you in charge of the combined entity all sound like a nightmare for our current leadership structure because all of us would have zero job security.

5) The valuation math only looks bad if you ignore the 46% premium you’re offering our shareholders and the upside from fixing eBay the way you fixed GameStop, which we are choosing to do and hoping nobody notices.

6) And I hope we buried the lede far enough here: Your governance and executive incentives are completely incompatible with ours. You and your board take zero cash, no salary, no bonuses, no golden parachutes. You buy shares with your own money and only get paid if shareholders win. We, on the other hand, like our nice, reliable annual payouts regardless of whether the stock is flat or the company is just coasting. We’re not about to hand over our golden goose to a guy who eats only what he kills.

Look, eBay is “strong” and “resilient” in the way every entrenched public company says it is while handing out eight-figure checks and perks to the C-suite. We’ve done the usual incremental stuff: tweaked the marketplace a bit, returned some capital, and we’d like to keep doing that without any cowboy from GameStop coming in and demanding actual skin-in-the-game accountability. Can you just leave us alone?

Our team remains focused on protecting the current regime and delivering “value”… mostly to ourselves and our consultants.

Thanks, but no thanks,

Paul S. Pressler
Chairman of the Board, eBay
(And proud beneficiary of the status quo)

[bad robot ventures @foxenflask]

Prepare yourself for a proposition from $GME to increase the total authorized share count. I know that might make some of you uncomfortable, but hear me out because there's a very logical reason this is coming, and it's actually bullish. If you disagree or hate this idea, please give me the courtesy of reading my logic before you have a mid-life crisis in the comments.

Right now, GameStop has ~448m shares outstanding against 1bn authorized. That's a 44.8% issued-to-authorized ratio. Sounds like plenty of headroom, right? Not when you factor in what's already committed:

- 171.5m shares tied to RC's performance options
- ~43.5m shares from the $1.3Bbn convertible notes ($29.85 strike)
- ~77.8m shares from the $2.25bn convertible notes ($28.91 strike)

That alone brings the fully diluted count to ~741m, or 74% of the authorized ceiling. And that's before a single acquisition dollar gets raised.

So why would RC want to increase the limit now, while there's still room? Because good capital allocators do not wait until they are maxed out. They plan ahead, and there is clear precedent for this.

RC has shown you exactly how he thinks about this.

In January 2023, RC built a stake worth several hundred million dollars in Alibaba and personally pushed management to increase their buyback program from $40bn to $60bn. He told them they could hit double-digit sales growth and ~20% FCF growth over five years, but the shares were undervalued and the buyback was not aggressive enough. Alibaba listened and expanded the program.

He also invested the vast majority of his personal wealth into Apple after selling Chewy, becoming one of Apple's largest individual shareholders (roughly $800m plus at peak). When sources close to RC described his Alibaba thesis to Reuters and the Wall Street Journal, they specifically pointed to Apple's capital return program as the blueprint RC wanted Alibaba to follow. RC called Apple “the strongest business in the world” and cited “disciplined capital allocation” as a core investment principle he learned from Buffett. He bought his first Apple share at age 15.

The through-line here is pretty clear to me: RC is acutely aware of shareholder value mechanics, issued-to-authorized ratios, and capital discipline. He does not want to be forced into raises when his back is against the wall. He would rather have optionality.

Buffett operated the exact same way, and there is direct precedent here. Berkshire Hathaway has 1.65m Class A shares authorized but only roughly 523,000 outstanding. That is a 31.7% utilization rate, and Buffett has maintained that kind of headroom for decades. He did not do that because he planned to flood the market with stock, but because he wanted the flexibility to act when opportunity appeared without going back to shareholders for emergency approvals.

At the 1995 Berkshire annual meeting, when shareholders questioned whether authorizing preferred stock would dilute them, Buffett said: “There is no downside to this proposal. It is an authorization. It is not a command to issue shares.” He also explained that shareholders are only diluted if Berkshire receives less in value than it gives, and he repeated that principle in multiple letters and Q&A sessions over the years. In later commentary he went so far as to say he would “rather prep for a colonoscopy than issue Berkshire shares,” underscoring how seriously he treats actual issuance versus simple authorization. The lesson is simple: Buffett authorized far more shares than he ever used, kept massive headroom at all times, but was extremely disciplined about when and why he actually issued stock. That is the model RC appears to be following.

Now let's do the math on what $100bn plus actually requires.

RC has told us the plan: acquire a publicly traded consumer company “significantly larger” than GameStop. He has described it as “transformational” and said this has “never been done before in the history of capital markets.”

GameStop currently sits at roughly $11bn market cap with roughly $8.8bn in cash. To get to $100bn by 2036 (the 10 year horizon of his compensation plan), he is going to need significantly more capital than what is on the balance sheet today. My estimate: at least another $20bn in equity and debt capital over the next 3 to 5 years. And honestly, that might be conservative if the vision is $100bn to $500bn.

Think about it through the lens of how the Mag 7 plan their growth. Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, they are each telling shareholders and the market they are spending $60bn to $80bn per year for the next 3 years on AI infrastructure. They are planning capex 2 to 4 years out and asking for patience. The market rewards that kind of forward planning.

Now apply that same thinking to GameStop. This is not capex, but the principle is the same: how much capital does RC need to build a $100bn to $500bn conglomerate? The answer is: a lot. And it needs to come from a combination of cash flowing acquired businesses that can generate $4bn to $5bn per year, plus accretive equity raises and creative debt instruments (like those 0% converts).

If you assume $20bn in additional equity raises at an average price of roughly $25 per share, that is roughly 800m new shares. Add that to the 741m fully diluted count and you are at roughly 1.54bn shares, well past the current 1B authorized limit.

If RC wants to hover around a 60 percent issued-to-authorized ratio (which, based on his Alibaba and Apple track record, seems like a reasonable mental ceiling), he would need authorization for roughly 2.5bn to 3bn shares. My guess is we will see a proposal for 2bn to 3bn, likely the latter.

Here is the key point most people miss: increasing the authorized share count is not dilution. It is giving the board the legal runway to execute over a multi year period. Dilution happens when shares are actually issued, and RC has shown through his $35bn all or nothing compensation plan that he only wins if the stock goes up. His 171.5m options are worthless unless GameStop hits $100bn in market cap and $10bn in cumulative EBITDA. Every share he issues needs to be accretive to that goal or he is lighting his own paycheck on fire.

It takes money to buy whiskey. You do not build $100bn plus companies without capital. And it is far better to ask for authorization now, while utilization is at roughly 45%, than to come back begging when you are at 90% and the market reads it as desperation.

This is forward planning. This is the Berkshire playbook. Do not let it scare you.