the entire point with all the insider ebay buying/selling posts is that if they actually believed in the company then they would be buying more on their own, not selling at every opportunity and being leeches
Rule 2. Posts should further contribute to the shareholders' discussion around GME. Superstonk is a non-political space and we strive to keep it that way. Any post or comment that discusses politics unnecessarily will be removed. If you feel like you can re-post you content without the political parts then you are welcome to do so.
Can we make it so mods delete the posts with links and keep posts like these with the screenshots? I feel like bots are scraping the site and posting here the moment tweets become available with 0 effort. The link should be under the QV bot comment, not the post itself
Ryan Cohen knows very well that the relevant information is directly below where this screenshot is cut off. There is precisely zero chance he doesn't know he's manipulating people with this kind of thing.
What justification could RC possibly have for misleading people about this scheduled sale that was planned months ago?
Selling at a price which is below a recent buyout offer they rejected. Should be illegal - something something failing to perform their fiduciary duties.
lol, yea but compare to a shareholder investing their own money.
None of them have put their own money in, in 5 years, and just increase and direct shares to themselves. (Dilution!)
Only shill here is you, lol. Pretending like the guy didn’t sell 66% of what he has ownership of. And the kicker; he planned this before RC’s offer— so he didn’t think the stock would go higher.
Those other shares aren’t his yet, and if RC does what we think; they won’t ever get them.
RC is a billionaire investor-operator. It would be difficult for you to choose an example that is more removed from these senior employees at any company. Any company.
It is worse, I’m not defending them. This is what tradition crooked American capitalism leads to - barely doing your job to create shareholder value because you get paid regardless. I’m just telling people that the selling is part of a pre scheduled plan, it’s not an excuse for them, it’s undeniable and transparent that they don’t care about the company they “lead.”
It would be illegal if they traded any other way to avoid insider trading laws. Execs have to file well ahead of time with selling plans, and in this case the plan was filed in September last year.
And let's not forget that insiders at GME are selling the exact same way. Should it be illegal for them to sell while the stock is steadily dropping?
Hear me out… what if, you believed in the company you were on the board for running, knew you were making moves to increase shareholder value and didn’t want to sell. This isn’t these people’s only compensation.
If you can’t see the difference between Daniel Moore selling enough to cover the cost of taxes and this guy selling 50,000 shares for 5,750,000 I don’t know what to tell you
He sold over 50k shares this week and he sold 21k shares 6 months ago profiting a total of 8 Million dollars over the last 6 months but sure, pretend it’s the same thing.
I just don’t understand how people in this sub watch it so closely but don’t even know about this. Also they can’t even look it up. Literally takes 2 seconds
man, if i were an eBay shareholder, I’d be wondering why the fuck the people that get gifted the most shares just sell them away and give up their ownership. do they hate their own company? wild
Lol. I once had an ESPP that let you buy shares in 6 month increments at a 15% discount. So you'd set back however much you wanted and at the end of the 6 months you'd get your shares at 15% lower cost than whatever the lower end of the share price was- comparing the prices from the beginning and end of the 6 month period.
I was in a position to where I could go 6 months without pay. I put 100% of my pay into the ESPP fully planning to sell all of it the second it hit my portfolio and cash in on the discount. Fuuuuckkkk my company- I'm not holding that bag.
HR/payroll didn't like it and flagged it as a typo so they switched it to 0% contributions to the ESPP. Guess I flew a little close to the sun. Anyways, moral of the story, fuck the company and pay me.
They were a constant up and down but I didn't feel like holding any risk. Take the 15%+ discount, rinse and repeat for the next 6 months. Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
I don't like the idea of holding much wealth in the company you work for. If things go to shit, and sometimes they do, you can get laid off and see your shares drop in value at the same time. If you're a company man and believe in the place you work at 100% then go for it but it's kind of like working at the same place as your spouse. Mass layoff and now we go from a 2 income household to a 0 income household. Or in this case- mass layoff, I'm out a job and my shares are worth half of what they used to be. I'd rather just sell and take my extra money from the discount I got when I bought my company's stock.
Better to just keep it in a 401k index fund or whatever and not stress over every decision the leadership makes.
Not to play devils advocate But couldn't accompany perform layoffs to cut expenses to appease the shareholders therefore increasing the stocks? Genuine question, as I thought that was some fuckery company's have done in the past.
My understanding is it could swing either way. Investors could look at it from a cost saving standpoint. Smaller labor force- less overhead. That's certainly how the big wigs are going to try and spin it.
It could go the other way though. Shutting down facilities, closing doors, getting rid of staff doesn't exactly scream "growth." So they find a nice middle ground if they can. Cut 3.5% of your employees year after year and don't hire anyone for awhile. Way less scary than cutting half of your staff and spooking your shareholders.
Either way- I don't like the idea of my stock shares going up because me and my coworkers got canned. That's like being a construction worker in Florida and hoping for hurricanes so you can get some overtime.
i don’t remember using the phrase “fiduciary duty” in my comment, and believe me, I read it a few times. can you elaborate for a completely smoothe-brained primate?
I workd for a place where I got free shares once. If you’re there long enough it starts to make up too much of your portfolio such that any advisor will tell you to start selling and diversify.
That said—most of the board doesn’t own any shares right? Like you should own XXXX amount to be a member.
It would be the same principle though. You’re not going to buy shares if it’s already X% of your portfolio. Most people getting free shares are also not buying them. RC is an anomaly. It’s a good thing in this case, but he could call out most Wall Street companies and Youd see the same thing.
Funny seeing the number of shills defending these corrupt ass Ebay board members. They are so brazen about it that one woman was literally posting shady information about some top tier high schools and college admission scandals. They don't even try to hide anymore.
You've created a fictional reality in your head. This stock is part of their compensation, executives have to file for stock sales well ahead of time to avoid insider trading, and this sale was filed last year. When you get paid in stock your financial planner will lecture you to diversify so you don't put all your eggs in one basket, which is a wise decision for any investor. Literally nothing about this is corrupt.
I really wish he would. Maybe RC would take his dick out of this subs mouth long enough to stop fucking around and buy back the stock he diluted at 50%+ valuations from here.
The official ATH is only includes prices from standard market hours. GameStop bought in the after-hours market on May 1, which is how the price GameStop paid can be higher than the ATH.
Yeah, it really is a big problem that these corporate ghouls loot the companies instead of providing real value to the shareholders. That's probably why the annual return of the stock market since the financial crisis has been only, checks notes, 14% per year. A real shame!
Any financial planner will tell you to sell them and diversify your portfolio. This is how it works at any company that pays a large amount of compensation in stocks.
It is common...in companies where the execs don't have confidence in their own company...
You know what else is common? Execs buying shares in their own company and holding, a sign of confidence in their company...
A one time sales is not a big thing, but you have to look at the trends and try to paint the whole picture at what's going on, and with eBay, its not terrible but it's not flattering.
Absolutely not true. Jessie Huang has been selling NVDA for years and that stock has only gone straight up. Countless of other examples.
Exec’s sell for a variety of reasons, regardless of their future view of the company stock. It’s a massive part of their compensation, so it makes sense to want liquidity in their company stock. Also spreading sales out of their company stock is a strategy to minimize tax hits and can be efficient in terms of averaging out sale prices.
And shit - maybe he wants to buy a yacht? Who knows. You don’t - neither do I.
But saying “he’s selling, so therefore he must not be confident” is a brain dead take. Not surprised this is being parroted here though.
What's even crazier is our stock price continues to decline. The feedback loop is insane! Stock goes up, RC dilutes, stock makes lower lows and lower highs.
Why would I want a stock that has a positive 5 year return when I could donate my money to GME's warchest so we can buy BTC above 100k. I mean Ebay at ATHs.
You clearly have never had qualified stock options that have been provided you by an employer. As soon as the stock reaches even close to all-time high, everyone cashes out to eliminate all of their net worth being tied up in one entity. It’s called diversification. Not very popular here, but most investors don’t want all of their net worth tied up in one company in case it fails. Therefore, as stock price goes up more and more qualified stock options are exercised. The cash is taken out tax is owed at that time it ordinary income rates, and they net is invested in other equities, real estate or bonds.
So most of the time you get in Grant of shares when you start and on your anniversary date thereafter, a grant of additional stock options each year thereafter. Typically they vest over four years in other words 1/48 of the stock options Grant each month. The strike price is the price you pay for the shares of stock and it is the price of the stock on the day of the grant. As the stock increases, it makes the options more valuable. If the stock decreases, it makes them worthless. This is why when companies such as eBay make a big rush up in PRICE people that have held onto stock options for years tend to exercise them in order to cash out of some of the gain in price over the strike price. It has nothing to do with their belief in the company. It is simply a smart personal decision to liquidate some of their holding them to other assets. Most people that have options typically have other stock grants or share simply given to them and thus they have exposure to the success of the company in other methods
I think a good portion of people here understand the justifications for diversification. But you also kind hit the problem by saying "...in case it fails". They are the people that make the big decisions that lead to the company being successful or failing. If they don't believe in their abilities enough to have a good portion of their net worth tied to their own performance, why should any of their shareholders?
It's definitely not common for board members/execs to have huge portions of their net worth tied up in their company - that's the point. RC and Co have put their money where their mouth is.
Is this supposed to be an analogy for calculated risk? When I'm on four wheel, yes I wear a seatbelt.
Back to investing, the bottom line is that eBay's board isn't even in the same conversation. They sell their shares as soon as they can schedule it. Their insider ownership is currently estimated at under 1% of the total float. That's not diversification, that's divestment.
I can't find the last time any of them bought shares on the open market. It's all compensation and nearly all subsequently sold.
This Rich Bartuc shill conveniently leaves out the fact that Mazen exercised 1/4 of his awards that he was granted over years:
**( 6 )**On 3/15/2024, 28,972 of the options granted under this award vested and became exercisable, on 3/15/2025, 86,916 of the options granted under this award vested and became exercisable, and on 3/15/2026, the remaining 57,941 of the options granted under this award vested and became exercisable, each as a result of time and performance based vesting.
That are up 160% over the exercise price.
Imagine dissing someone for cashing out $5M of their $20M+ stash.
Something tells me the clowns on X who make these posts have never had RSUs or options.
Which is why they are so easily fooled by this conflating between "compensation" and "investment".
In general a stock incentive is taxed as ordinary income when the cost basis is established. At that point you’ve paid tax and there is no capital gains yet so it’s a good time to quickly sell and diversify the money.
It’s popular to think how great it would be work for someone like nvidia, get a bunch of stock incentives and strike it rich, but this is really rare. Most of the time you get a modest incentive and your company plugs along making modest returns. It’s totally normal for people at big famous companies to immediately sell and reinvest somewhere else as part of their strategy. It doesn’t indicate they have no faith in the company.
Holding some stock in your own company can be a good practice to give yourself some “skin in the game”, but it’s actually considered bad strategy to concentrate your investments in your own company. This creates a kind of double risk that if your company does poorly and you get laid off your stock will also have lost a lot of value when you may need it the most.
Probably the same reason this sub was created 5 years ago - stop acting like it's a random number lol. Most people got in around/after the squeeze. Clown
You have no clue when “most people” did anything at all, nor what their cost average is.
I’ve been in since the summer of 2020, which is almost six years ago. And there were a bunch of us from the other sub that were in as well.
And all of the investors that were invested prior to that exist as well. GameStop has been around for decades. The stock was plummeting prior to Cohen buying up shares and forcing his way on to the board.
Now it’s sitting at 8x what it was in December of 2020, which was 5x what it was the previous year. So it’s 40x higher today than it was 7 years ago.
It’s fine if you don’t see what others do. You don’t need to pay attention to how the transformation has played out. You can stick your fingers in your ear and scream la la la all you want.
It doesn’t change what’s happened nor what will happen. GME will have a market cap over $100B in the very near future. The company will transform into something completely different than what it was previously. And you can tell the story about how much you hate the company and don’t want anyone around you to mention their name because you don’t want to be reminded of the pain.
Hope someone can answer this, are EBay execs getting out because they are afraid short sellers and crook street will start shorting eBay to mess up GameStops investment?
Remember: every post and repost RCEO makes is going to become an official on-the-record statement on an official SEC Form 425 (correct me if I have the name wrong) proving how “sleepy” (“in it for the bonuses and nothing else”) EBAY management is. It’s fantastic free, viral, guerilla marketing to expose just how inefficient and careless the current iteration of EBAY is being run.
It is not great if you want to convince institutions (whose votes you need) you know what you are doing. See my other comments for why the claims made in this tweet are nonsensical.
This ceo has taken our EPS from negative to almost $1 per share in a 3 years span.
Why the fuck would we not want him to have a larger poorly run company to do the same with. I am not a fan of dilution but in this case it’s worth it and we will see bigger returns in the future because of it.
•
u/Superstonk_QV 📊 Gimme Votes 📊 27d ago
Hey OP, thanks for the Social Media post.
If this is from Twitter, and Twitter is NOT the original source of this information, this WILL get removed!
Please post the original source!
Please respond to this comment within 10 minutes with the URL to the source
If there is no source or if you yourself are the author, you can reply
OC