The issue is the non-cash portion of the offer. They claim that the remaining 27.5B is covered by GameStop stock. But that's more than double the market cap of GameStop.
I would guess that this information will bother you.
If it helps, because many public company executives are compensated on earnings per share, most C level teams are incentivized to buy back shares, thus decreasing the denominator for the EPS calculation without changing fundamental economics of the company.
If this also bothers you, you should guess what Buffet says and thinks about those two dynamics, and then read up on it, and you will learn something interesting about public markets!
So you're just outright accusing GameStop of fraud?
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/0001... page 36 of their filing with the SEC lists the cash and marketable equities.
The non-cash (stock) portion of the offer needs to be valued against the resulting entity, which will own eBay. This will likely result in current eBay shareholders owning half or more of the resulting entity. (Though we don't know specific numbers yet). That's normal for a M&A where the smaller company is doing the buying.
I have no idea why you interpret my words that way. I just meant that I didn't want to analyze the cash portion of their offer any further and just wanted to take it at face value.
It's like saying 'tobacco allegedly causes cancer' - the proof is very public and available. The typical reason for saying it like that is to indicate you don't believe it.
If you word it like this it's just a hostile proposed change of leadership. Weird way to apply to become CEO of eBay, but sure.
The shareholders have to vote for it, though.
They now own ebay. They would include in that math 20B in debt plus Gamestop.
This sounds like a pretty bad deal for ebay investors.
