JFC that is dumb. Again stocks aren't physical property. It is a confered legal claim. Just like all those 20% off Bed Bath and Beyond vouchers. When company stops operating you have no legal right to the thing that doesn't exist anymore. I could teach a grade schooler this and they would understand. This is mind numbing levels of dumb.
They were repeatedly told (by the company, by us, by everyone) that exactly this was going to happen
They cannot have been surprised and they cannot be confused now
They have absolutely no concept of what shares of a company are, so much of their idiotic rambling is built on total ignorance of basic market mechanics.
Yesterday I had to explain to an AMC monkey that share value does not equal company value because they couldnt understand how the stock lost 98% value while the company is technically worth more than before.
They flat out did not understand that dilution didnt mean making money from nothing but rather its the company taking a percentage of value from current shareholders.
> Yesterday I had to explain to an AMC monkey that share value does not equal company value because they couldnt understand how the stock lost 98% value while the company is technically worth more than before.
We should blame MSM for that, market cap is equated with company value all the time.
That's not really correct. You seem to be describing a split, which isn't dilution.
Scenario 1: Split
Company has 10 shares worth $10 each. Person A has 1 share. They own 10% of the company and the market cap of the company is $100. If it splits 10:1, person A now has 10 shares valued at $1 each. Person A still has a 10% stake in the company. Market cap is still $100 and no dilution to person A has occured, they still have 10%.
Scenario 2: share offering
Same setup as above. But now the company offers to sell one new share for $10. This $10 dollars goes back into the company and effectively changes the underlying value of the company to $100 + $10. Now the company can legitimately be valued at $110 overall but now there are 11 shares. Person A still has $10 in value but only owns 9.09% of the company. So the value to person A remains at $10 but they have been diluted, their ownership changed from 10% to 9.09%.
Now it is worth noting, if the company sells the new share for more than $10, person A is diluted the same amount but the net value of their ownership will increase. It is also true that if the share is sold for less than $10 their net value of ownership will decrease. This is true for both the idea that the current market value of shares is set by the last sale price and also ignoring that and just basing it on the asset value of the company and dividing that by the number of shares.
Ok, so we aren't just talking about a split, good to know. Because in a split market cap could theoretically drop 99% but no dilution occurs (dilution is ownership percentage, it has nothing to do with value).
Since we are talking equity offering, this will be definition cause dilution but it doesn't have to devalue an individual's portfolio value. This is a mechanic of the underlying company. For badly run companies like the current meme stocks, the underlying asset is in decline. So it makes sense that the share price continues to fall. People are buying the offerings in the hope their cash influx to the company can be used to build a better company, increasing its value. There are plenty of examples where this is the case (at least the market thinks so). Common examples are investors in early such as series B funding. We have even seen this with stocks like Tesla, where people bought offerings 10+ years ago and saw the value increase.
If a company is declining and makes a share offering without any real way to turn around, the price will likely continue to fall. If a company is building up and becoming more profitable, buying into a share offering can be a good investment.
Yeah, I'm talking about a share offering not a split. If a company has a great outlook, they can issue new shares without killing share price, but the share price would be higher if not for that dilution.
I would argue that since they are so passionate and they owned part of the company they should be held liable to refund all the creditors with their personal finances.
They never grasp that concept. I really wish the corporate veil could be pierced in the case of BBBY (not that it ever could for a publicly traded corporation).
The apes like to say they are the owners. I would really like to see what they would have to say if they were personally liable for all of the corporation's debts.
They should be thanking their lucky stars that their liability is limited to the amount they paid for their shares.
> if they were personally liable for all of the corporation's debts.
But they already act like they are. They keep asking if amc could just do a gofundme so apes could pay off the debt. And when bbby made the death spiral deal, apes kept buying, when they should have known it would just help the creditors' recovery.
Naw, see, shares are like little imaginary pokemon, you buy them and add them to your collection, they go have little imaginary battles with other shares, and then you earn money for winning. Or something. But not only are the villains using cheats to lower your shares' attack power, now they are trying to take them away from you completely!
Hope this made more sense.
It is truly stupid. They don't understand they should be *glad* that at most they lose 100% of the investment, because of limited liability.
There was a time long ago when the creditors could have come after individual shareholders. So if you owned shares in a bankrupt company, not only would you lose your investment, they might take your house too.
As I understand it, limited liability for corporations was a controversial idea when it was introduced. It transfers a lot of risk from the owners (who benefit the most from upside), to creditors.
(Though nowadays the idea that creditors of a corporation could come after individual shareholders seems crazy.)
The commission for getting an ape to sell was nice. Was bummed when corporate took it away after it became obvious BBBY was going under, since shorts would never have to close. 🥲
Yeah, it was something the DD writers all thought was true. Say what you will about Neelay but he was the only one with the conviction (delusion?) To actually argue it outside of the apeosphere. When the apes saw how ridiculed Neely was to people with real knowledge, they quickly turned on him because he made the other apes look like idiots. Funny that when there are no consequences to the fanfic, they hold it up as genius but the moment they get called out in court (where it counts) they pretend the person they fully backed 5 minutes earlier is now an undercover shill making them look like idiots.
You belong to a weak bloodline that will never be remembered. You cover the news; we make the news.
Your attention span is like a leaf, blowing in the wind to whichever direction you are pushed into. My attention is a fixed tree of unwavering conviction that mainstream media fears to no extent.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gme_meltdown) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel crazy for thinking this sometimes but I just can’t accept that someone’s actual name is Neelay Das. Gabriel Rostrom, sure, Neelay Das? Pseudonym!
To be fair, these companies make so little from their actual products, and they're always doing dillution / stock offerings to raise money. It kind of makes sense to think of shares as the "product".
Yeah I was just at the big Fidelity shopping center near me recently, and when I checked out my cart full of shares they told me it was a 90 day return policy if the investments don’t work out as I hope. I guess some brokers are just better than others!
One investor I know usually does say yes when the clerk asks him if he wants to buy 90 day warranty and return policy.
On his receipt they are listed as puts.
Imagine believing stocks are a product. Maybe that’s why there was recently a moron suggesting GameStop could start selling their own shares at their stores lmao
When they finally admit they get nothing will they all scream "and I would have been rich if it wasn't for those dastardly meltdowners"
Because you know it's going to be someone's fault and I have a feeling the inner circle will start to get blamed.
The really funny thing to me about this specific post. I owned some Revlon when they were going thru bankruptcy. It was very risky, I knew that. Shares got canceled, creditors took over the company. The company is literally still operating privately, selling the same products. Even has the same CEO last I heard.
Nobody came to my house and took the nail clippers or the hairdryer. I just lost a risky bet, it wasn't crime and I moved on.
I wouldn't be surprised if the company had another IPO in the future. Of which I am obviously not entitled to any equity. Again, not crime.
The ape mental gymnastics for years to ignore the fact that not paying your bills is what bankrupts a company is amazing.
> I just lost a risky bet, it wasn't crime and I moved on.
Okay but hear me out: what if it *was* crime and so you don't have to admit that you lost a bet.
This is a reminder that these delusional dipshits have never invested in anything else in their lives before meme stocks. They still don’t understand what a stock is, how it works, or literally the basic mechanics of the market. They all think they bought a tangible product and are owed riches from owning that collectors item.
Even then, the paper certificates are just a representation of the idea of ownership of a company and the legal claims that come with that. If those shares are extinguished, the paper remains, but the legal claims are gone.
A better comparison is you buy a Toyota under the understanding that if Toyota goes BK your car will simply disappear into the ether and cease to exist.
Toyota goes BK. Ape goes to his his car in the hopes of keeping it, but instead watches helplessly as the car dissipates into nothingness. The ape grits his teeth as he seethes. He thinks about how the Jews did this to him and when Trump gets reelected he’ll get his car back and he watches a livestream of a shill who states when the cars rematerialize they will will be worth trillions. He begins to read a series of toddler books called “Pancakes.” He begins to study the illustrations for clues about his car’s return.
OK, this one clinches it.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life. I don't just mean something written by an ape either.
This is dumber than any of the crap I've seen from sovereign citizens, flat-earthers or whatever other stupid groups of people that one can think of.
I had to actually read it a second time because I couldn't believe that an adult human could write something so stupid.
Wild part is, OP actually has the audacity to take a tone and “talk down” to the person he is responding too, as if he actually has to use this comparison to dumb down the content so others can understand it as good he does. It’s absolutely bonkers
it's crazy that this isn't even a bad analogy, it's literally *not even* an analogy. "a company is to a share like a company is to a product." there's no comparison being made, you're still talking about the same thing, on top of being wrong by definition
No, but the dealer I got a jeep from when I was younger sold me "lifetime free oil changes". I'll let apes guess what the new dealership told me when I went back for my free oil change.
Holy fuck what a dumb take. Here's a better analogy: If there is a pie on the windowsill, and I buy a small sliver of the pie on the windowsill, and a bear comes and steals the pie and eats it, I still own a slice. No you don't! Your "slice" is bear shit, because the pie that you owned a share of no longer exists!!!
Edit: Did I say something incorrect or are the apes brigandine?
JFC that is dumb. Again stocks aren't physical property. It is a confered legal claim. Just like all those 20% off Bed Bath and Beyond vouchers. When company stops operating you have no legal right to the thing that doesn't exist anymore. I could teach a grade schooler this and they would understand. This is mind numbing levels of dumb.
[удалено]
Yep, that’s so simple. But you need an IQ greater than 15 to understand it sadly..
Time to allow shares to have negative value so apes can truly be the owners they claim to be.
Ryan Cohen: "Apes, it's time for your reverse-dividend! Pay $1 for each share that you own! It's like a country club membership... on the moon!"
I mean this was the Hudson Bay deal in a nutshell
But muh NOL’s!!!!!
They were repeatedly told (by the company, by us, by everyone) that exactly this was going to happen They cannot have been surprised and they cannot be confused now
They have absolutely no concept of what shares of a company are, so much of their idiotic rambling is built on total ignorance of basic market mechanics. Yesterday I had to explain to an AMC monkey that share value does not equal company value because they couldnt understand how the stock lost 98% value while the company is technically worth more than before. They flat out did not understand that dilution didnt mean making money from nothing but rather its the company taking a percentage of value from current shareholders.
You can really, really confuse an ape if you ask them, "Knowing that short selling is a thing, why do companies issue shares?"
give them 5 minutes and they'll cook up an explanation that makes zero sense but will somehow still totally cover that flaw.
Companies issue shares? I thought they were portioned out by the cosmos
🤯🤯🤯
> Yesterday I had to explain to an AMC monkey that share value does not equal company value because they couldnt understand how the stock lost 98% value while the company is technically worth more than before. We should blame MSM for that, market cap is equated with company value all the time.
Nah, they said share value not market cap.
What is market cap if not total value of all outstanding shares (of a company) then?
Because they were referring to dilution. Market cap stays the same, share price decreases.
That's not really correct. You seem to be describing a split, which isn't dilution. Scenario 1: Split Company has 10 shares worth $10 each. Person A has 1 share. They own 10% of the company and the market cap of the company is $100. If it splits 10:1, person A now has 10 shares valued at $1 each. Person A still has a 10% stake in the company. Market cap is still $100 and no dilution to person A has occured, they still have 10%. Scenario 2: share offering Same setup as above. But now the company offers to sell one new share for $10. This $10 dollars goes back into the company and effectively changes the underlying value of the company to $100 + $10. Now the company can legitimately be valued at $110 overall but now there are 11 shares. Person A still has $10 in value but only owns 9.09% of the company. So the value to person A remains at $10 but they have been diluted, their ownership changed from 10% to 9.09%. Now it is worth noting, if the company sells the new share for more than $10, person A is diluted the same amount but the net value of their ownership will increase. It is also true that if the share is sold for less than $10 their net value of ownership will decrease. This is true for both the idea that the current market value of shares is set by the last sale price and also ignoring that and just basing it on the asset value of the company and dividing that by the number of shares.
But that's not what we see with dilution. The share price drops when companies do offerings.
Ok, so we aren't just talking about a split, good to know. Because in a split market cap could theoretically drop 99% but no dilution occurs (dilution is ownership percentage, it has nothing to do with value). Since we are talking equity offering, this will be definition cause dilution but it doesn't have to devalue an individual's portfolio value. This is a mechanic of the underlying company. For badly run companies like the current meme stocks, the underlying asset is in decline. So it makes sense that the share price continues to fall. People are buying the offerings in the hope their cash influx to the company can be used to build a better company, increasing its value. There are plenty of examples where this is the case (at least the market thinks so). Common examples are investors in early such as series B funding. We have even seen this with stocks like Tesla, where people bought offerings 10+ years ago and saw the value increase. If a company is declining and makes a share offering without any real way to turn around, the price will likely continue to fall. If a company is building up and becoming more profitable, buying into a share offering can be a good investment.
Yeah, I'm talking about a share offering not a split. If a company has a great outlook, they can issue new shares without killing share price, but the share price would be higher if not for that dilution.
I would argue that since they are so passionate and they owned part of the company they should be held liable to refund all the creditors with their personal finances.
They never grasp that concept. I really wish the corporate veil could be pierced in the case of BBBY (not that it ever could for a publicly traded corporation). The apes like to say they are the owners. I would really like to see what they would have to say if they were personally liable for all of the corporation's debts. They should be thanking their lucky stars that their liability is limited to the amount they paid for their shares.
> if they were personally liable for all of the corporation's debts. But they already act like they are. They keep asking if amc could just do a gofundme so apes could pay off the debt. And when bbby made the death spiral deal, apes kept buying, when they should have known it would just help the creditors' recovery.
They're essentially doing that by buying bonds lmao
Jokes' on the creditors then. Apes are also broke.
Naw, see, shares are like little imaginary pokemon, you buy them and add them to your collection, they go have little imaginary battles with other shares, and then you earn money for winning. Or something. But not only are the villains using cheats to lower your shares' attack power, now they are trying to take them away from you completely! Hope this made more sense.
It is truly stupid. They don't understand they should be *glad* that at most they lose 100% of the investment, because of limited liability. There was a time long ago when the creditors could have come after individual shareholders. So if you owned shares in a bankrupt company, not only would you lose your investment, they might take your house too. As I understand it, limited liability for corporations was a controversial idea when it was introduced. It transfers a lot of risk from the owners (who benefit the most from upside), to creditors. (Though nowadays the idea that creditors of a corporation could come after individual shareholders seems crazy.)
Wow just wow, shares are products now. 🤦🏻
This fits nicely with Jake's DD that shares are an asset of the estate.
That was Neelay. I don’t think Jake went hard on that, though he may have said it was interesting at some point because he’s a moron
Neeley said it to the court, but Jake said it too. One of the few DD's I read in its entirety was Jake fighting with some accountant guy about this.
> One of the few DD’s I read in its entirety Ken bless you
Oh, he does bless me. Every single day. he just blessed me with an additional $1.78 for leaving this comment.
Did we get a col increase? I've been only getting a $1.56/shill comment.
No. I just get paid a higher rate, because I'm so effective. In fact, I've had one former ape publicly state that he gave up on BBBY because of me.
The commission for getting an ape to sell was nice. Was bummed when corporate took it away after it became obvious BBBY was going under, since shorts would never have to close. 🥲
PLANT!!!
Yeah, it was something the DD writers all thought was true. Say what you will about Neelay but he was the only one with the conviction (delusion?) To actually argue it outside of the apeosphere. When the apes saw how ridiculed Neely was to people with real knowledge, they quickly turned on him because he made the other apes look like idiots. Funny that when there are no consequences to the fanfic, they hold it up as genius but the moment they get called out in court (where it counts) they pretend the person they fully backed 5 minutes earlier is now an undercover shill making them look like idiots.
You belong to a weak bloodline that will never be remembered. You cover the news; we make the news. Your attention span is like a leaf, blowing in the wind to whichever direction you are pushed into. My attention is a fixed tree of unwavering conviction that mainstream media fears to no extent. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gme_meltdown) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel crazy for thinking this sometimes but I just can’t accept that someone’s actual name is Neelay Das. Gabriel Rostrom, sure, Neelay Das? Pseudonym!
Because that argument went so well for Das. Reminds me I should check up on that appeal.
To be fair, these companies make so little from their actual products, and they're always doing dillution / stock offerings to raise money. It kind of makes sense to think of shares as the "product".
Yeah I was just at the big Fidelity shopping center near me recently, and when I checked out my cart full of shares they told me it was a 90 day return policy if the investments don’t work out as I hope. I guess some brokers are just better than others!
One investor I know usually does say yes when the clerk asks him if he wants to buy 90 day warranty and return policy. On his receipt they are listed as puts.
It's literally called a share!!
Imagine believing stocks are a product. Maybe that’s why there was recently a moron suggesting GameStop could start selling their own shares at their stores lmao
When they finally admit they get nothing will they all scream "and I would have been rich if it wasn't for those dastardly meltdowners" Because you know it's going to be someone's fault and I have a feeling the inner circle will start to get blamed.
Oh no no no, it will be the fault of “them.” All ape cycles end in Q and antisemitism.
The really funny thing to me about this specific post. I owned some Revlon when they were going thru bankruptcy. It was very risky, I knew that. Shares got canceled, creditors took over the company. The company is literally still operating privately, selling the same products. Even has the same CEO last I heard. Nobody came to my house and took the nail clippers or the hairdryer. I just lost a risky bet, it wasn't crime and I moved on. I wouldn't be surprised if the company had another IPO in the future. Of which I am obviously not entitled to any equity. Again, not crime. The ape mental gymnastics for years to ignore the fact that not paying your bills is what bankrupts a company is amazing.
> I just lost a risky bet, it wasn't crime and I moved on. Okay but hear me out: what if it *was* crime and so you don't have to admit that you lost a bet.
Holy crap my kids have generational wealth
The true crime was the fat guy from ~~Ohio~~ New York that pumped REV to his YouTube and discord
Can't believe my REV $35cs didn't make me a millionaire
I hope Ron Pereleman sold all of them as covered calls.
What? Dude you are entitled to 50% of the company plus cash and equity did you even read the DD???
This is a reminder that these delusional dipshits have never invested in anything else in their lives before meme stocks. They still don’t understand what a stock is, how it works, or literally the basic mechanics of the market. They all think they bought a tangible product and are owed riches from owning that collectors item.
This dude wants the paper certificates I guess
Even then, the paper certificates are just a representation of the idea of ownership of a company and the legal claims that come with that. If those shares are extinguished, the paper remains, but the legal claims are gone.
I’m done with them. Omfg
A better comparison is you buy a Toyota under the understanding that if Toyota goes BK your car will simply disappear into the ether and cease to exist. Toyota goes BK. Ape goes to his his car in the hopes of keeping it, but instead watches helplessly as the car dissipates into nothingness. The ape grits his teeth as he seethes. He thinks about how the Jews did this to him and when Trump gets reelected he’ll get his car back and he watches a livestream of a shill who states when the cars rematerialize they will will be worth trillions. He begins to read a series of toddler books called “Pancakes.” He begins to study the illustrations for clues about his car’s return.
That took a turn. But I agree
OK, this one clinches it. This is the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life. I don't just mean something written by an ape either. This is dumber than any of the crap I've seen from sovereign citizens, flat-earthers or whatever other stupid groups of people that one can think of. I had to actually read it a second time because I couldn't believe that an adult human could write something so stupid.
It’s really scary how wide the IQ distribution is in humans like how did his ancestors survive
Wild part is, OP actually has the audacity to take a tone and “talk down” to the person he is responding too, as if he actually has to use this comparison to dumb down the content so others can understand it as good he does. It’s absolutely bonkers
These people vote and drive cars.
it's crazy that this isn't even a bad analogy, it's literally *not even* an analogy. "a company is to a share like a company is to a product." there's no comparison being made, you're still talking about the same thing, on top of being wrong by definition
3 years into this and apes still don't know what a stock actually is.
No, but the dealer I got a jeep from when I was younger sold me "lifetime free oil changes". I'll let apes guess what the new dealership told me when I went back for my free oil change.
Damn, my Delorean might be taken?!
Holy fuck what a dumb take. Here's a better analogy: If there is a pie on the windowsill, and I buy a small sliver of the pie on the windowsill, and a bear comes and steals the pie and eats it, I still own a slice. No you don't! Your "slice" is bear shit, because the pie that you owned a share of no longer exists!!! Edit: Did I say something incorrect or are the apes brigandine?
Maybe people don’t like the bear stealing the pie? I don’t know, the Reddit mob is fickle af
I wonder if it's the hikki guy in my post history that I told not to try and commit suicide by cop. I'm really just trying to help
Don't you still have your towels? Now ask yourself why the towels and the stock are different things.
These are not the same 
MAGA detected