• RedFrank24@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    4 hours ago

    In other words “I’m going to take out a shitload of debt, buy your company with it, and then make YOU pay it off or go bankrupt. EIther way I win”

    • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 hours ago

      eBay has a darker history than GameStop fwiw (Behind the Bastards did a couple episodes on that). I do think it could be a beneficial merger, pivoting to online sales should be a winner, especially with reused hardware becoming more attractive thanks to fkn LLMs.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    From article:

    The proposal does not sound like a “terribly good offer” as it would saddle eBay with GameStop’s debt, said retail industry analyst Sucharita Kodali from market research firm Forrester.

    Uh… Gamestop has , depending on who one asks, no debt, or some sort of convertible thing to do with their warrant issuing last year. This article seems mis-informed. It’s an ambitious gambit, but would certainly not saddle E-Bay with any significant new debt.

    • tomalley8342@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Not misinformed brother. The quote is likely talking about the $20b GameStop is going to borrow for the purchase itself. It’s a pretty common trick in leveraged buyouts to saddle the company you bought with the debt that you racked up to buy it in the first place.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Capitalism is truly the grift that keeps on grifting.

        How do you end up in a system where essentially:

        acquiring an organizers to profit from it, requires its workers to produce more additional wealth to afford gifting themselves to you in the past.

      • red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Ah, that was my first question: Where the hell does Gamestop take that kind of money from? I am actually surprised they “only” need to borrow 20bn.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 hours ago

        But that same link says they have $9B in Working Capital and Invested Capital. What’s the true net value then?

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Ah, yes, I forgot that if I rack up $3000 in CC debt but have $10,000 in the bank, I actually have zero debt, “depending on who you ask”.

          Really tried to “um ackshually” the article with the financial acumen of a stoned teenager?


          Edit: Anyway, to answer your question because “does GameStop currently have debt” is kind of beside the question: leveraged buyouts often put debt toward the company being bought out. Thus, the debt being discussed is likely the debt from the buyout, not the $4.36 billion GameStop has right now. I got sidetracked because of your completely bullshit, confidently incorrect claim.

          • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            Big corps always wave away debt if they can pay it off via revenue, or future promises of revenue, or … reasons. Why is it different here? Honest question. They have more cash on hand, it seems, than their current debt, so could pay that at any time. Why is it a true liability?

            Nice ad hominim BTW. I’m neither stoned nor a teenager, and make no pretense to be some financial guru.

            • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              51 minutes ago

              It’s not different here, debt is debt, you might say “despite the debt it’s a good stock” or something like that but you don’t pretend $4B in debt just doesn’t exist.

            • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              I’m neither stoned nor a teenager

              “financial acumen of a stoned teenager”. Can you just not read either, or do you not understand this is that thing you learn about in 3rd grade called a “comparison” and not literally calling you a stoned teenager? I’m getting concerned here.

              You also clearly have no idea what an “ad hominim [sic]” is either.

              make no pretense to be some financial guru.

              You certainly considered yourself well-informed enough to say the person BBC News quoted had no fucking idea what they were talking about without doing the most basic research first.

                • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 hours ago

                  It’s 2026; my patience for the intellectually lazy has been running on fumes for a decade and is on its deathbed. If you want to police your tone around these braindead slobs, that’s your business.

                  For my part, I’m fine with treating these Dunning–Kruger “oh yeah, all those experts are wrong” morons who know fuck-all about even the basics of what they’re saying like they deserve to be treated: as an object of ridicule.

                  Just too much work for them, I guess.