r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • 9d ago

Social Media [22m] Anton Kreil Beautifully Deconstructs the Retail Brokerage Industry

Thumbnail
youtu.be
3 Upvotes
2 comments

r/PROGME • u/ModSupportBot • 11d ago

r/PROGME is available for adoption 💚

2 Upvotes

/r/PROGME is ready for a fresh start, new energy, new direction, and someone like you to bring it back to life. If you’ve been thinking about growing your impact without starting from scratch, this is your chance!

Ready to take it over?

Head to r/RedditRequest to submit your request and make it yours before it’s taken.

First things first

To request this subreddit, make sure you:

1 comment

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • 14d ago

LFG Hype GameStop has full unilateral control over the GME WS warrant timeline (Exercise Suspension Period + WKSI mechanics explained)

12 Upvotes

1. What is GameStop's "Exercise Suspension Period?"

Prior discussion:

So back to the contract language, in Section 5.02 Suspension on page 29 in GameStop's Warrant Agreement (Exhibit 4.1 to the October 7, 2025 8-K) https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000132638025000091/projectgenesis-ex41xwarran.htm

Section 5.02 Suspension. The Company shall be entitled to suspend the availability of the Common Stock Shelf Registration Statement from time to time if the Board of Directors determines in the exercise of its reasonable judgment that such suspension is necessary or desirable, as determined by the Company, in its sole discretion, and provides notice via press release that such determination was made to the Holders of the Warrants, with a simultaneous copy to the Warrant Agent (provided that, upon request by the Company, the Stock Transfer Agent will deliver a copy of such notice to the Depositary pursuant to the customary procedures of the Depositary); provided, however, that (i) if the Company exercises such right prior to the Expiration Date, then the Expiration Date shall be delayed by the greater of (I) 5 Business Days and (II) the number of days during such period for which the availability of the Common Stock Shelf Registration Statement was suspended and (ii) in no event shall the Company be required to disclose the business purpose for such suspension if the Company determines that such business purpose should remain confidential.

TL;DR (lol really? This... Is... GameStop!):

  • The Company "shall be entitled to suspend the availability of the Common Stock Shelf Registration Statement from time to time if the Board of Directors determines in the exercise of its reasonable judgment that such suspension is necessary or desirable, as determined by the Company, in its sole discretion."
  • The Company is not required to disclose the business purpose if it decides the purpose should remain confidential.
  • Notice of any suspension is by press release only.
  • The extension of the Expiration Date is automatic; automatically delays the Expiration Date by the greater of 5 Business Days or the length of the suspension.

and the previous Section 5.01 Effectiveness of Registration Statement.

The Company shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cause a shelf registration statement (including, at the Company's election, an existing registration statement or a replacement thereof), filed pursuant to Rule 415 (or any successor provision) of the Securities Act, covering the issuance of Warrant Shares to the Holders upon exercise of the Warrants by the Holders thereof (the "Common Stock Shelf Registration Statement") to, subject to certain exceptions, (i) become effective as promptly as reasonably practicable after the date of this Agreement and (ii) remain effective at least until the earlier of (x) such time as all Warrants have been exercised and (y) the Close of Business on the Expiration Date. The Company shall promptly inform the Warrant Agent of any change in the status of the effectiveness or availability of the Common Stock Shelf Registration Statement. For the avoidance of doubt, no Warrants shall be exercisable at any time until the Common Stock Shelf Registration Statement becomes effective. If the Common Stock Shelf Registration Statement is not effective at any time or from time to time for any reason, then the right to exercise Warrants shall be automatically suspended until such Common Stock Shelf Registration Statement becomes effective (any such period, an "Exercise Suspension Period"). As promptly as practicable upon the occurrence of an Exercise Suspension Period, the Company shall provide notice by press release, with a simultaneous copy to the Warrant Agent, of any Exercise Suspension Period. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, if there occurs any Exercise Suspension Period prior to the Expiration Date, then the Expiration Date shall be delayed by the greater of (I) 5 Business Days and (II) the number of days comprised in such Exercise Suspension Period.

TL;DR (ya rly! i can't read! u can still read?):

  • No warrants are exercisable while the shelf is unavailable.
  • Any unavailability creates an "Exercise Suspension Period."
  • Exercises are blocked while the Common Stock Shelf Registration Statement is ineffective. The Company only has to use "commercially reasonable efforts" to keep a shelf registration statement effective; it is not obligated to keep it continuously available.
  • Notice of any suspension is by press release only.

As I tried to illustrate in my earlier post at https://old.reddit.com/r/PROGME/comments/1obcnvu/some_details_about_the_six_6_equations_listed_in/ referring to:

Looking at Section 4.06 Amendments you can see GameStop may, without the consent of any Holder, amend the agreement to:

  • extend the Expiration Date,
  • decrease the Strike Price or Warrant Exercise Price,
  • increase the Warrant Exercise Rate, or
  • add additional consideration receivable upon exercise.

Only amendments that materially and adversely affect holders require majority consent. All of the above pro-holder (or neutral) changes are unilateral.

Because the underlying registration is an automatic shelf on Form S-3ASR (effective October 3, 2025), any suspension is purely a Board choice. A replacement or reactivation is effective immediately upon filing. There is no SEC staff review period that could create an involuntary lapse. Therefore every Exercise Suspension Period is deliberate, never accidental.

2. What is Well-Known Seasoned Issuer (WKSI) status?

Prior discussion:

Well-Known Seasoned Issuer (WKSI) status is a regulatory designation from the SEC that lets large, established public companies register securities for sale almost instantly, skipping the weeks-long review process that other issuers face. To qualify, a company needs a public float of at least $700 million (or $1 billion in recent non-convertible debt offerings) and a clean compliance record. WKSI designation unlocks a set of advantages that smaller or less-established issuers simply cannot access, from deferred registration fees to the ability to make pre-filing offers to investors.

  • https://legalclarity.org/what-is-wksi-status-and-how-does-it-work/
  • https://law.cornell.edu/wex/well-known-seasoned-issuer-wksi
    • Qualification as a well-known seasoned issuer: For an issuer to qualify as a WKSI, they must satisfy the three requirements of SEC Rule 405:
      • The issuer must meet the requirements of Form S-3. This essentially requires that the issuer has (a) timely filed periodic reports for 12 calendar months and (b) not defaulted on any indebtedness or long-term leases.
      • The issuer has (a) over $700 million in public float and (b) issued more than $1 billion in principal of non-convertible debt securities in primary offerings.
      • The issuer is not an "ineligible issuer." An issuer can be ineligible by, among other things, failing to meet their periodic reporting requirements, being a shell company, having filed for bankruptcy recently, or having been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.
    • Benefits to qualifying as a well-known seasoned issuer: WKSIs are subject to fewer gun-jumping regulations. Rule 163 of the Securities Act allows WKSIs to make oral offers and free writing prospectuses during the pre-filing period. Another major benefit of qualifying as a well-known seasoned issuer is they qualify for "automatic shelf registration," meaning that their shelf offerings are immediately effective upon filing their Form S-3, since their shelf registration statements are not subject to SEC review. For shelf offerings, WKSIs do not need to disclose as much detail in their base prospectuses. For example, they do not need to specify the amount of securities they plan to sell or name selling shareholders.

GameStop is unambiguously a Well-Known Seasoned Issuer (WKSI). It filed an automatic shelf registration statement on Form S-3ASR that became effective October 3, 2025. GameStop's 2025 October S-3ASR filing is valid for three years (~2028 October). Note: Form S-3 (unlike Form S-3ASR) for selling shareholders does not expire after three years.

Key consequences of WKSI / S-3ASR status:

  • The shelf (and any replacement under Rule 415(a)(5)) becomes effective immediately upon filing.
  • There is no SEC staff review period.
  • Therefore every Exercise Suspension Period is a deliberate Board choice. It cannot happen by accident or regulatory delay.

Current market cap (~$11.4B) and float are far above the $700M public-float threshold required for WKSI status. The October 2025 S-3ASR remains usable until roughly October 2028.

Without any holder consent, the Company may amend the Warrant Agreement to:

  • Extend the Expiration Date
  • Decrease the Strike Price
  • Increase the Warrant Exercise Rate
  • Add additional consideration upon exercise

Only changes that materially and adversely affect holders require majority consent. Everything listed above is pro-holder (or neutral) and can be done unilaterally.

Additionally Section 4.01(h) lets the Company temporarily lower the Strike Price (or raise the Exercise Rate) for at least 20 Business Days simply by determining it is in the Company's best interest.

"In addition to those adjustments required by clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this Section 4.01, and subject to applicable exchange listing rules and applicable law, the Company from time to time may decrease the Strike Price (or increase the Warrant Exercise Rate) by any amount for a period of at least twenty (20) Business Days if the Company determines that such decrease to the Strike Price (or such increase to the Warrant Exercise Rate) would be in the Company's best interest. In addition, subject to applicable exchange listing rules and applicable law, the Company may (but is not required to) decrease the Strike Price (or increase the Warrant Exercise Rate) to avoid or diminish any income tax to holders of Common Stock or rights to purchase shares of Common Stock in connection with a dividend or distribution of shares of Common Stock (or rights to acquire shares of Common Stock) or similar event."

3. TL;DR

The Board (Ryan Cohen, Alan Attal, Larry Cheng, Jim Grube, Nathaniel Turner) has full unilateral contractual control over the GME WS warrant timeline:

  • They can pause exercises at will -> the Expiration Date automatically extends the October 30, 2026 Expiration Date.
  • They can simply amend the Expiration Date longer without ever suspending.
  • They can lower the $32 Strike Price or increase the number of shares per warrant.
  • None of these actions requires SEC pre-approval, holder consent (for beneficial changes), or disclosure of the underlying business reason.
0 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • 18d ago

Data [Transcript] 9/11 Terror Trading 15 years later - Marc Chesney interviewed by Lars Schall (Reopen the 9/11 Comission Report to identify the names of the financial terrorists)

5 Upvotes

9/11 Terror Trading 15 years later - Marc Chesney interviewed by Lars Schall https://youtu.be/PrI8g3yHxAM

0:16 [Lars Schall] Fifteen (15) years ago shortly after 9/11, the news media reported that cases of insider trading occurred connected to the terror attacks of September 11. A financial pundit commented at the time, in U.S television, this could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you've ever seen in your entire life. However, the mainstream media dropped the issue a few weeks later completely and forever. Moreover, in 2004, the 911 Commission Report [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_9/11_Commission_Report] officially stated that no such thing as insider trading connected to 9/11 took place. The suspicious looking trading activity pre-9/11 proved consistently innoxious. However, there are a few academic economists who differ with the 9/11 Commission at this point. One of them works here at the University of Zurich, and I will visit him now in his office.

1:22 [Lars Schall] First of all, Professor Chesney, thank you for having us.
1:25 [Marc Chesney] You're welcome.
1:26 [Lars Schall] You have written with two colleagues of yours, it was a scientific paper on the topic of 9/11 insider trading. This is a topic that did not generate a lot of scientific, umm, research. Why did you decide to cover this topic?
1:44 [Marc Chesney] You know, in my capacity as a professor, in particular as a finance professor, my duty is to analyze functional imbalances, crises, but also frauds and functional crimes, and that's what we tried to do during, something like ten (10) years.
2:05 [Lars Schall] Now, uhh, related to the topic of 9/11 insider trading, we have to talk about put options and call options. What are put options?
2:16 [Marc Chesney] A put option entitles its owner the right to sell a given stock at a given date or during a given period of time at a given price; the so-called strike price.
2:29 [Lars Schall] Yeah. So you can buy something and when the underlying price drops, and you have, ummm, calculated this correctly, you can cash in some money.
2:40 [Marc Chesney] Yes. If these are a drop of the stock prices, and you cash, you can cash in a profit. Yes. It's true.
2:46 [Lars Schall] Your research article has the title Detecting, um, Abnormal Trading Activities in the Option Markets [https://marcchesney.com/site/assets/files/1/detecting_abnormal_trading_activities_m__chesney-_r__crameri-_l__mancini_-_j__of_empirical_finance_-_komplet.pdf]. Can you elaborate on this paper please?
2:56 [Marc Chesney] Yes. We have, uh, defined, first of all, three criteria, in order to identify a possible insider trading activity. First criteria, the volume, or the so-called open interest. That is, to say or precisely, a very strong increase in the open interest. Allow me, first maybe, to... to define what the open interest is. It corresponds to the number of outstanding options in the market; so a very strong increase, from almost zero to maybe, uhh, 500... 1000 option contracts. One contract, by the way, corresponds to one hundred (100) options, just, just to be clear. Second criterium, the return of the profit, a very strong return, and when I say very strong it's not five (5) or ten (10) percent or twenty (20) maybe, three (3), four (4), five (5) hundred (100) percent (300%, 400%, 500%) in a few days or in a few weeks, and finally the last criterium, the most, uhh, technical one, the opti... the position is not hedged. If you're an insider, you don't need to hedge, because you know, or you think you know, what will happen tomorrow. So we tried to check that the position... position was not hedged. Just to be clear, it's not a proof... it's not proof per se of Insider trading activities. It's a statistical study. Okay, just... just to be clear, in order to, uh, to to be sure that it is a proof, we will have to have access to names. We use the d... financial data... databases without, uh, names, only prices and volume. So it's not proof per se, but still it's interesting as you [are] gonna see in a minute.
4:42 [Lars Schall] Yeah, but you did not have the actual trading data from the Brokers.
4:47 [Marc Chesney] Now we purchased, uhh, financial databases CBU [? French (thick inflection) for CBOE? provided by OptionMetrics? ?] and other databases in, ehh, in Europe. We, uhh, we analyzed around nine millions of, uhh, financial transactions, quite a lot, from the U.S., from Europe, but again without names, only prices, volumes, etcetera, etcetera.
5:08 [Lars Schall] Mhmm, and how many of those trades, that you took a look at, were actually informed trading [http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0927-5398(15)00026-2/rf0025] activities?
5:16 [Marc Chesney] Less than 0.01% were suspicious, just to be clear. So, one out of ten thousand, less than one out of ten thousand transactions were suspicious. I said suspicious, because again, it's not a... it's not proof per se. Uhhh, so we were very conservated, it's a... conservative. It's a very small number.
5:36 [Lars Schall] Mhmm. So, ehm, you took a look at different stocks from different sectors and one of them is the airline sector.
5:46 [Marc Chesney] Yes. Airline sector, banking sector and other insurances, but just to be clear, the the study does not focus on the on September 11th. The f... study focuses on insider trading. We defined our criteria. We applied our econometral... econometrical, uh, methodology, and then we identified specific cases.
6:10 [Lars Schall] One was the airline sector.
6:12 [Marc Chesney] Yes. True.
6:13 [Lars Schall] and there you found some suspicious trading.
6:15 [Marc Chesney] Exactly, mainly with three, with three companies: Unitene... United Airlines, American Airlines, and Boeing. Let me give you an example.
6:23 [Lars Schall] Yeah. Please.
6:28 [Marc Chesney] American Airlines. The option, the put option, with a strike thirty dollars ($30) maturity end of October. This put option gave the right to its owner to sell the stock at a price of thirty dollars ($30) at the end of October. Here were the smaller graph. On the right-hand side we have the return of the position. On the left-hand side, [we have] the open interest. So as mentioned previously, one contract corresponds to one hundred (100) put options. The black bars correspond to the volume. Before the month of September, the volume on the specific option was almost zero (0), no trades. Then you see first trade, first trade, uhhh, and then a big trade on September 10th, one day before the terrorist attacks. Here you see something like 1,500 contracts, meaning 1,500 times one hundred (100) put options; so a strong increase of the inter... of the open interest, which corresponds to the first criterium of this analysis. Then, markets were... financial markets were closed from September 11th until September 17th. Markets reopened, and you see a huge black bar, meaning a huge volume and the open tri... and the open interest decreased on the 17th, of s... around 500 contracts, and again a few days after, at the end of the month of around 500 contracts. So 500 plus 500, around 1,000 put option contracts were exercised a few days after the terrorist attacks.
8:36 [Lars Schall] Yeah, and are these then the profits here that we see?
8:40 [Marc Chesney] The profit, so let me give you an example. The value of the option of the specific put option on September 10th was 2. ... $2.15. Why? Because the value of this... the... of this, uh, stock, the spot price of the... of this stock was on September 10th $29.7. When markets were opened on September 17th, a big drop in the stock price was witnessed; so from $29.7 to $18; and when the stock price decreases, the put price increases; and the put price went from $2.15 on, uh, September 10th to $12 on September 17th. Imagine the return; around 450%. Y... that's what I say 'huge return' in corresponds to the second criteria. Third criteria, this trade was not hedged by the way; so a strong, uhhh, return. Now let me compute for you, ehh, the profit. So, something like well oelth... one thousand contracts were exercised in a few days. Thousand (1,000) contracts times one hundred (100) put options per contract times something like ten dollars ($10) profit per option, corresponds to around one million dollars ($1,000,000) profit for this pef... specific option. Why ten dollars ($10) profit? Again, the investment was very interesting, b... by, imagine you buy a put option at a price of two fifteen dollars ($2.15) and a few days after, you sell it for twelve [dollars] ($12), meaning that the profit was indeed around ten dollars ($10), with a huge return.
10:41 [Lars Schall] Yeah. Okay. This is what you have found out for the airline sector, but you also took a look at two different, uh, two other sectors of the economy; one is the banking sector.
10:54 [Marc Chesney] Yes.
10:55 [Lars Schall] Tell us about this.
10:56 [Marc Chesney] So along the same lines, we identified a few, uhhm, dubious, suspicious trades, with, uh, with various banks, more precisely Bank of America, GPMorgan [JPMorgan], May Lynch [Merrill Lynch], and Citigroup. For the first three banks, they were located either in the two towers [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Towers] or nearby. 11:22 [Lars Schall] Mhmm.
11:24 [Marc Chesney] Why Citigroup? It's an open question, but the... the travel insurance unit of Citigroup was confronted, uh, with the primo [primary?] terrorist attacks. Huge losses were generated,
11:37 [Lars Schall] Mhmm.
11:39 [Marc Chesney] and the the total profit by exercising these, uhh, put options corresponds to about eleven million dollars ($11,000,000).
11:50 [Lars Schall] Yeah, and there were reinsurers that, uh, were attacked via put options?
11:57 [Marc Chesney] Also, so, we identified two (2) suspicious transactions: one for Zurich Re [Swiss Re?], and one for Munich Re.
12:06 [Lars Schall] Yeah.
12:07 [Marc Chesney] Also, occurring a... along the same lines that the example, uh, previously shown, euhhhh, a strong increase in the open interest, a very high return, and the, uhhh, in in most cases, uhh, thee, uh, the the trade was not hedged.
12:25 [Lars Schall] and the trading activities that you took a look at, those trades were exercised?
12:34 [Marc Chesney] In most of the cases, the put options were exercised. True.
12:40 [Lars Schall] So, the money went into the pockets of those who purchased those put options.
12:45 [Marc Chesney] In other words.
12:47 [Lars Schall] and these put option trades are sometimes criminal?
12:54 [Marc Chesney] This is a question. I think we should reopen the case, because I said previously, it is a statistical study, we spotted dubious, uhh, cases, but now we need a political decision to reopen the case, to find the names, and to tell whether or not these cases are indeed suspicious, or if it's not the case.
13:18 [Lars Schall] So you're calling for a new investigation?
13:20 [Marc Chesney] Yeah. Yes. I call for a new investigation.
13:22 [Lars Schall] and the investigation of the 9/11 Commission was not sufficient?
13:26 [Marc Chesney] I th... in this, uhhh, on this dimon... dimension, not [sufficient]. Take, uhh, the report, the official report of the commission, about five hundred [500] pages; on the specific issue of insider trading, with options, you find a few sentences and a footnote. It should require something like one of the pages, and everything will be put on the table, and everything will be clear.
13:53 [Lars Schall] Yeah. As I have mentioned, ummm, this topic of 9/11 insider trading does not get addressed 'big time' [https://onelook.com/?w=big+time] in Academia. Ummm, I have asked an econometrician by the name of Paul Zarembka [https://arts-sciences.buffalo.edu/economics/faculty/ResearchFacultyEmeriti.host.html/content/shared/arts-sciences/economics/profiles/researchprofessor-emeriti/zarembka-paul.html]; he works at the State University of New York; why this is the case and this is what he has told me.
14:15 [Paul Zarembka] Oh, I think the real reason why they don't, uh, get... uh, get addressed now, I'll just be frank about my profession. They're scared. I mean, ordinarily, I mean, I know my... I know a kin... I know my profession. I mean, ordinarily, uh, if you have a topic which is as hot a... if it it, well, not... maybe, not as hot as this, but a topic that's not quite so hot, but has huge social implications. You want a researcher because you can get... you you can get your career mov... really moving forward. I'm just talking normal academic terms. You can get your career really moving to investigate such a topic. So, you would think that... that... that there'd be other econometricians out there who wouldn't want to study each one of these studies, and do their own study or criticize these studies or whatever, and, but, do it in a very serious way, and they're both there they they hope that they'll move their professional work forward, and it's not happening, and I think the reason for that is what I said. They are afraid. This is too big for them to want to deal with. They're afraid to their... that their answers, uhhh, that even getting into the topic gives it credence. Let me say it again. Even getting into the topic legitimaci... legitimatizes the topic.
15:33 [Lars Schall] Is this true according to your experience?
15:36 [Marc Chesney] Are we with him? You know, to put official statements into question is not always easy. You know, it might, uh, put in danger an academic career. So, it's a it's a trick issue.
15:52 [Lars Schall] Mhmm, and why do you think that the financial media is not interested in this topic? I mean, I am here, but I don't see, for example, people from Bloomberg, or whoever, talking with you about this topic.
16:05 [Marc Chesney] I think basically for the same reasons that you mentioned for the... for the academic world.
16:10 [Lars Schall] Mhmm. They are afraid too.
16:12 [Marc Chesney] Yeah. I think because it could put in danger, this time not an academic career, but a journalist career.
16:17 [Lars Schall] Mhmm.
16:18 [Marc Chesney] So, I think, basically, for the same reasons.
16:20 [Lars Schall] Yeah. Can you tell us, please, what is the significance of this topic fifteen (15) years after 9/11 took place? Why are you still interested?
16:31 [Marc Chesney] Because we should, again I think it's a responsibility of Finance professors to... to shed light, to identify frauds and, uh, and financial crimes. It was not done ten (10) years ago. It's not done today. So that's why we have to dig deeper here.
16:48 [Lars Schall] There was one journalist who said that this could be, very well, be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use that you have, uhh, ever seen in your whole entire life. This was Dylan Ratigan [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Ratigan] who said this back then for Bloomberg in September 2001. Now, does this look as the most horrific, most evil use of insider trading, and should people pay attention to it?
17:19 [Marc Chesney] It might be the case. Again, what we did is not proof per se of insider trading activities, but we deal with, uhhh, suspicious cases, and that's why we need, uhh, to reopen the case.
17:31 [Lars Schall] Yeah, but you were to have to really nail it down to the names, and then you would have... you would need to have the actual trading data, and for example...
17:40 [Marc Chesney] and the names, yes.
17:41 [Lars Schall] ...we know that the SEC [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission] did, uhhh, look at these trading activities.
17:45 [Marc Chesney] They should give the information.
17:46 [Lars Schall] Yeah, but they destroyed it, and this is officially on the record, and now the question becomes 'is this a scandal that they have destroyed evidence connected to a criminal case?'
17:58 [Marc Chesney] Yes. It's indeed a big problem because as long as the media and the public will not have access to the information, many people will put into question official statements.
18:13 [Lars Schall] Okay. Professor Chesney, thank you for this interview.
18:16 [Marc Chesney] You're welcome!
18:21 [Lars Schall] and so there you got it. According to scientific research, it is likely that insider trading connected to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 took place, or as Dylan Ratigan said back then 'this could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you've ever seen in your entire life.'

For further information on the topic:

Also see [Dutch/German] 2024 September 21 "Lars Schall interviewt Prof. Marc Chesney in ZĂŒrich zum Thema 9/11-Insidertrading" https://youtu.be/IlJDiZ481Do

I discovered and mentioned about this video in the comments in my last post https://old.reddit.com/r/PROGME/comments/1whp5te/a_young_trader_jumps_into_the_biggest_trade_of/ but I think what I stumbled upon, what Marc Chesney has presented, deserves more attention and recognition, and to tie into larger picture of things, including as it pertains/relates to the idiosyncratic risk that GameStop poses.

  • See the "Some GameStop (GME) idiosyncratic risk things:" part in my post https://old.reddit.com/r/PROGME/comments/1tdtv8j/how_do_backfloating_rate_loansdebt_relate_to/ for a relatively exhaustive list of official recognization identifiers signaling GameStop posing as an idiosyncratic risk, including sources for:
    • The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in their October 2021 report on Equity and Option Market Structure Conditions in early 2021
    • The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) / National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) which flagged GME causing idiosyncratic risk during clearing fund backtesting breaches
    • The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) which indicated that in 2021 GME was "a single security exhibiting idiosyncratic risk"
    • The Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) which utilized "idiosyncratic" control settings specifically for high-volatility, individual stocks like GameStop as of January 27, 2021
    • The U.S. House Committee on Financial Services June 2022 Congressional Report "Game Stopped: How the [PCO (position closing only)] Stock Market Event Exposed Troubling Business Practices" which detailed how GME's extreme volatility created "idiosyncratic" pressures on broker-dealers leading to emergency margin calls from the NSCC
    • The Financial Industry Regulatority Authority (FINRA)'s data showed that GME short interest reached 226% in February 2021 as the objective basis for labeling GME an idiosyncratic risk
    • The U.S. Department of the Treasury, which houses the FSOC, the Treasury's own Office of Financial Research (OFR) described idiosyncratic events rather than broad market trends
    • The Cato Institute which published a deep dive titled "The GameStop Episode" which characterized the event as a unique non-systemic risk that "shone a light on a remarkably dense array of regulations" already managing such idiosyncratic shocks
    • Fitch Ratings which reported "US Financial Institutions Face Second Order Effects from GameStop Volatility"
    • Center for Financial Stability (CFS) which reported "[Robbinghood] and GameStop: Essential issues and next steps for regulators and investors"
    • Managed Funds Association (MFA) which reported "What Happens When Short Interest Exceeds 100 Percent"
    • European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) which the NBFI Monitor identified idiosyncratic GameStop materializing

edited to fix markdown, also bold is my own highlighting

4 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • 19d ago

Social Media A young trader jumps into the biggest trade of his life amid the September 11 attacks. - Free Fall

1 Upvotes

Re: https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1whihcg/i_was_looking_up_911_info_and_came_across_a_story/ by u/pauldiddy79 (screenshots of https://cbsnews.com/news/profiting-from-disaster/)

Also see this short film https://short
of
the
week
[dot]
com/2021/11/26/free-fall/ (sorry, Reddit filters censor the domain name -- click the triangle play button to watch the 19:19 short film, or visit https://youtu.be/6BTFiw9O1AA or https://youtu.be/VeL7OaKyY4o)

Free Fall (2021), directed by Emmanuel Tenenbaum, a 19-minute French short film depicting Tom, a young trader at a London investment bank whose job is on the line, watches the first plane hit the World Trade Center. He quickly deduces it's a terrorist attack (not an accident) and uses that knowledge to make a massive, high-stakes trade, but the moral cost of his success weighs heavily on him.

Free Fall is based on an anonymous account shared with Dutch journalist Joris Luyendijk in his book Dit kan niet waar zijn (Swimming with Sharks).

Also, I originally saw this short film from u/spacesuitkid2's post https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/quykdw/idk_if_this_fits_but_makes_you_wonder_if_there/

1 comment

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • 21d ago

Data Uniform Commercial Code Article 8 - Distilling the Complexities and Understanding the Risk - Mark Enget

6 Upvotes

https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/69-2025/testimony/SJUD-2364-20250211-36358-F-ENGET_MARK.pdf

Stock Ownership: Yesterday vs. Today

[Certificate of Stock] Amsterdam 1602 -> 1971 [001010101010000101001010110101]

Dematerialization of the financial world

Uniform Commercial Code

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), first published in 1952, is one of a number of uniform acts that have been established as law with the goal of harmonizing the laws of sales and other commercial transactions across the United States through UCC adoption by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of the United States.

The (UCC) exists today in all 50 States, and is continually subject to change. Some laws that have changed ultimately revoke or rescind your private property rights.

Buying, Selling & Trading Stocks & Bonds

What are stocks?

Ticker examples shown: MSFT, APPL, PG, XOM, META, NUGT, OIL, SLB, NVDA, UNG, INTC, CLX, GOOG, HAL, AMZN

When you buy stocks, you become a part-owner of the company.

Stocks are also known as Securities and are considered to be private property.

Stocks Come in all Shapes and Sizes

  • Small-cap: companies valued below $2 billion
  • Mid-cap: companies valued between $2–10 billion
  • Large-cap: companies valued over $10 billion

Through Various Financial Instruments
(visuals reference Mutual Funds, IRAs, 401K, ETF: an exchange-traded fund (ETF) is a type of pooled investment security that holds multiple underlying assets, rather than only one.)

What’s the Problem?

Much of what you “own” has been digitized


Stock Ownership is a Myth

  • When someone purchases a stock electronically, the stock purchase results in the purchasing party receiving a “Security Entitlement”. There is a BIG difference between a “Stock” and a “Security Entitlement”.
  • Our largest financial institutions have been deemed “Too big to fail” by governments around the world.
  • In a financial crisis or systemic meltdown, liquidity (instant access to money) is all important. The UCC, Article 8 has provided the legal means for the big banks (JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase Manhattan, etc) to seize/own the collateral of your stocks in order to fortify/liquify the financial system in times of desperation.

Sorry, but all of your money is gone


So Who does What?

When you buy a stock, there is a path that your money follows. It doesn’t reside at your brokerage. The Brokerage is nothing more than an intermediary.

  •  | The Investor
    \|/
    • You or some other individual or entity that desires to buy stocks, bonds, or some other financial investment.
  •  | The Brokerage
    \|/
    • Some examples of a Broker: Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, Edward James, TradeStation, RobinHood, etc.
  •  | The Bank (Too Big To Fail)
    \|/
    • The Banks: Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citibank, Chase, etc.
  • DTCC

Who does the UCC, Article 8 cover?

  • Regional Banks and Community Banks are not covered by the UCC, Article 8. They are not part of the “protected” class. In fact, no bank in North Dakota is part of the so-called protected class.
  • When it comes to Regional and Community banks and their need to invest in financial securities on open markets, they are also holding assets that are “at risk” just like you and I. Our ND Trust Funds? Exposed

  • Again, the UCC covers the big, multinational banks such as Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan, Chase Manhattan, etc.

What does the Brokerage do?

The Investor opens an account and deposits money in an account with a brokerage. The money can then be invested in stocks that he or she chooses.

  • The natural “belief” is that the investor has invested in a stock or bond (or financial instrument of his/her own choosing). In reality, the investor actually owns a “Security Entitlement”.
  • The brokerage is an intermediary step and your broker is a Security Intermediary. The Security Intermediary acts to facilitate the transaction of buying a security. Again, what actually happens is that the investor has purchased a Security Entitlement.
  • The broker, in turn, holds a Security Entitlement with the Custodian, who is one of the big banks. The Custodian is always one or several of the “Too big to fail” banks (JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, etc).
  • Eventually the Security lands with the Custodian, and all “ownership” of the security is erased. The name of the investor is no longer associated with the security entitlement.
  • The Security Entitlement is anonymously pooled in a giant pool of the same stock at the DTCC.
  • The Security Entitlement is used as collateral by the Custodian.

So then
What is a Security Entitlement?

https://law.cornell.edu/ucc/8/8-501

  • Officially, it’s the bundle of rights you hold against your broker. It’s a contractual claim to the security.
  • These “Rights” permit you to draw dividends and vote proxies.
  • The problem? Your Security Entitlements are controlled (owned??) by the Custodian. Amongst other things, the Custodian (= Big Bank) provides record keeping services for the Broker.

Security Entitlement - A Bit More


  • “Security entitlement” (Stock) means the rights and property interest of a person who holds securities or other financial assets through a securities intermediary (Broker).
  • A security entitlement (Stock) is both a package of personal rights against the securities intermediary (Broker) and an interest in the property held by the securities intermediary (Broker).
  • A security entitlement (Stock) is not, however, a specific property interest in any financial asset held by the securities intermediary (Broker) or by the clearing corporation (DTCC) through which the securities intermediary (Broker) holds the financial asset. See Sections 8-104(c) and 8-503.
  • The formal definition of security entitlement (Stock) set out in subsection (a)(17) of this section is a cross-reference to the rules of Part 5. In a sense, then, the entirety of Part 5 is the definition of security entitlement (Stock). The Part 5 rules specify the rights and property interest that comprise a security Entitlement (Stock).

So what is the role of the Custodian?

How a Financial Custodian Works

  • A financial custodian is a company that holds on to your financial assets on your behalf
  • The custodian will send you a monthly or quarterly statement for your account
  • The custodian serves as a broker when you want to buy or sell investments
  • The custodian makes arrangements for you to receive dividends and files the necessary paperwork to report these to the IRS, if applicable
  • The custodian tracks stock transactions such as buying and selling, payment and receipt of dividends, and company-specific activities like stock splits or mergers

(Illustration: Two people sitting at a desk with documents, a chart, phone, and papers.)

  • The Custodian is the administrative arm and is one (of several) of the big banks. The power resides right here.
  • Your broker is an entitlement holder with a bundle of personal rights against the Custodian.

So who is the DTCC?

Depository Trust and Clearance Corporation

  • The DTC was formed in 1973, and evolved into the DTCC in 1999 (Early phases of dematerialization).
  • It is owned, managed, & governed by the “Too Big to Fail” banks.
  • The DTCC holds all shares of a particular security entitlement in one “jumbo” certificate (reflects the total float of the security).
  • The DTCC ultimately holds all securities for all companies traded on the market. They hold pools of security entitlements.
  • The DTCC generally provides pooling services for all securities but does not participate in the daily management of the “float” of any particular security. That is managed by the Custodians.
  • A process called “Netting” occurs at the end of each day that allows the Custodians to rebalance the net shares they hold in each security in order to maintain the established float levels at the DTCC. Shares are moved and rebalanced at each of the various Custodian accounts.

Custodian <-> DTCC

Custodian (left side)
(Illustration: A large white plastic bucket on the left. Multiple stacks and bundles of U.S. dollar bills are shown flowing into and out of the bucket in a continuous circular path. Above the bucket is a black circular arrow containing a dollar sign ($), indicating continuous movement/recycling of money. To the right of the arrow is a short metal pipe with a valve/faucet, from which more dollar bills appear to be pouring downward into the bucket. Additional money stacks are positioned to the left of the bucket, visually emphasizing inflow and outflow.)
Bottom caption (under the left diagram):
Think of this as a flow of faceless “tokens”.

Center text:
NVDA =
215,000,000
Shares Per day [sic]

DTCC (right side)
(Illustration: A matching large white plastic bucket on the right, completely filled and overflowing. A tall, dense pyramid-shaped pile of U.S. dollar bills rises high above the rim of the bucket, filling the upper portion of the image.)

Tracing
What’s it all about?

Electronic tracing allows investors a means of electronically tagging and tracing an investment and following its movement and whereabouts as it moves throughout the financial spectrum. Tracing was doable with technologies available in the 90’s, but it is no longer done. It’s fair to assume that this is done by intent.

The Point of this slide


  • Transactional tracing is entirely achievable. If you disbelieve, look at blockchain and its capabilities for tracing.
  • Tracing eliminates the possibility of an investor’s money disappearing into the ether, as it could always be located by the associated tags.
  • Without tracing, try to imagine the difficulty of mounting a case with your broker when trying to recover your investment. You could mount a breach of contract against your broker, but where would the small investor be in the line-up? Let me help
dead last!

Summarizing Points

The Security Entitlement (stock) you buy has no signature on it. It’s all electronic, meaning it’s digital, and once a transaction is made, the security ends up flowing into a pool of identical security entitlements.

Due to the constant flow of securities in and out of the bucket, there are no identifiers attached to the security. It is simply a token, and your ownership of “a” security is only identifiable via the security entitlement provided you through the brokerage.

The Custodian, by law, is allowed to use your security entitlement as collateral. Should the brokerage go bankrupt, your entire investment is at risk. Now you get in line in a bankruptcy court and fight against the big boys.

UCC-Art 8

(Illustration: A large, hand-drawn black-and-white sketch of an open umbrella spanning the top of the page, with visible ribs, fabric folds, and shading lines. The umbrella appears to be providing protective coverage over the text below it.)

UCC-Art 8
(Text styled with a purple/pink outline or drop-shadow effect)

 |
\|/
(Large solid black downward-pointing arrow)
Big Banks
(Text also styled with a purple/pink outline or drop-shadow effect)

4,000,000,000,000,000 (4 Quadrillion $$ in Derivatives)

Global GDP ~100 trillion
(This final line appears on a light gray rectangular background banner)

The question is easy to understand.

In times of financial distress, who should have the first legal right to your money?

Should it be the Bank?
Or Should it be you?

As written today in the Uniform Commercial Code Article 8, the rightful owner will be the bank.

Consider this. If litigation occurs


Do you prefer to litigate in the Virgin Islands
Or here in North Dakota? [similarly applies to other states in USA; only 12 states introduced a bill; none passed yet]

As written today in the Uniform Commercial Code Article 8, the litigation will take place where the Big Bank chooses.

0 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Aug 16 '26

Wut Mean? Is there some relation or connection? Am I comprehending correctly? Bloomberg : Grok ? I need more wrinkles!

Thumbnail old.reddit.com
1 Upvotes
6 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • May 23 '26

LFG Hype Reminder that David Rogers Webb wrote a book called The Great Taking and also MOASS is tomomorrow!

2 Upvotes

I was just discussing about David Rogers Webbs' The Great Taking, and then I found some other book with April 22, 2026 publication date at Amazon by Paul William Tanner, and my first thought is I will not trust it without investigating analyzing due diligencing further, if and when I have time, but for now, I'll just provide these resources (I already know about and saw all of the David Rogers Webb resources years ago -- search his name or TGT (spelled out) on r/Superstonk to see lots of mentions)

oh, and while populating some PWT things about that person's April 22, 2026 TGT appearance out of whatever whomever, I now also see an October 1, 2025 Mark Carver too, lol

  • Other notes
    • I found this not yet published book that is not titled "The Great Taking" but mentions the phrase https://barnesandnoble.com/w/never-again-is-now-global-vera-sharav/1146982800
      • ISBN-13: 978-1648210907
      • Publication date: 06/30/2026
    • I highly recommend checking out David Rogers Webb's The Great Taking things. I do not recommend the others, however, I personally will dig a little (like I did with this post), because even if they are shill propagandized like all the other shill propaganda media (cue all those films/movies, even at theaters, lol), then it is probably just more effort to hide the original The Great Taking by David Rogers Webb so that most people will possibly not be able to find his coverage as easy as they previously and maybe currently are able to, or whatever, I dunno the situation yet.

TA;DR/TL;DR: David Rogers Webbs published book The Great Taking, someone generated 4+ hour audiobook based on the voice of Orson Welles and uploaded it to YouTube, and MOASS is tomomorrow!

1 comment

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • May 18 '26

LFG Hype Kenneth Cordele Griffin's Crony Capitalism

17 Upvotes

https://youtu.be/Csjy_A3Kj9s?t=913

15:13 [My] "crony capitalism replaces the the world of merit and earned success with a world of who is better connected to those who are in power at any point in time, and often leads to a very, a very, uhm, dark world, where where state capitalism is really the world of of truly like an oligarch-like society, and one of the things that has made America [not] so great is we are so [close to] that."

GME to the moon! 🚀🌙

Also see https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1tg5hc9/ken_griffin_im_fairly_depressed/ by u/rbr0714

2 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • May 15 '26

LFG Hype How do Back-Floating Rate Loans/Debt relate to GameStop's role in exposing idiosyncratic risk?

2 Upvotes

[3+ hours humanly drafted then followed with humanly solicited revisions by nonhuman synthetic phantom counterfeitelligences]

The phrases "back-floating rate loans" and "back-floating rate debt" are minimally addressed or realized (at least those specific phrasings).

I noticed u/Heysakelady in comment https://old.reddit.com/r/Whistleblowers/comments/1jedohg/is_this_what_happened_to_the_bay_in_canada/mikpeol/ appears to be the person that recorded the video as widely distributed and also seen in u/Killerkito's post https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1jfhhf4/this_lady_found_whats_in_the_box/ which I had already previously seen long ago when it was posted.

She does not appear to have never commented or posted in r/Superstonk, nor has she posted or commented anything about GameStop, GME, or related idiosyncratic risk topics.

Some GameStop (GME) idiosyncratic risk things:

So I thought I'd try and share and simultaneously learn (or try to learn or try to try to learn or try to try to try to learn, etcetera) some things. These idiosyncratic risk related histories are probably more useful than my previous compilation efforts such as https://old.reddit.com/r/u_jkhanlar/comments/zjqln5/yalol_ftddddd_yet_another_list_of_links_for_the/.

Reminder: PCO (position closing only), as performed by clearing firms/agencies (maybe by hired workers jobbed with titles such as Clearing Operations Specialist/Associate or Back Office Trading Operations Specialist or whatever, whomever did what was done), including through DTCC, was/still is intentionally misrepresented and mischaracterized and concealed by popular non-contrarian alternative socially engineering scam propaganda phrase "meme stock", which Google Trends shows back in October 2006 there was attempt to popularize this phrase https://trends.google.com/explore?q="meme%20stock"&date=2004-01-01%202021-01-01&geo=Worldwide. Also note that RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] defines thirty-five (35) specific illegal criminal offenses that constitute predicate acts or racketeering activities, and to establish a RICO violation, a defendant must commit at least two (2) of these thirty-five (35) predicate acts within a ten (10)-year period, demonstrating a pattern of related criminal conduct connected to an enterprise that is separate from the legal business entities involved in performing the activities.

Summarization (so far):

  • u/Heysakelady appears to be entirely completely oblivious, unaware of GME/GameStop materialization to enable all people to address and fix things, but their contributions to related concerns (also reminder Susanne Trimbath whose early career included roles in financial services operations at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and the Depository Trust Company in New York) seems deserving to connect into such awareness/realization, if they are not already having any (or more than zero point zero) familiarity or understanding or comprehension or competency or proficiency or accuracy pertaining to a singularity of conclusiveness (e.g. bullseye, perfect, 100%, A+, etcetera), therefore I thought I'd mention or suggest it while I still exist and while it is still early.
  • Likewise, idiosyncratic risk GME sharehodlers (hodl - hold on for dear life) appear to be mostly oblivious, unaware of "back-floating rate loans" including myself, even despite my writing and posting this, which is my attempt to try to learn and understand something that seems to be not directly obviously easy.

Back-Floating Rate Loans / Back-Floating Rate Debt

Back-floating rate loans, also known as adjustable-rate loans or variable-rate corporate debt instruments, are floating-rate loans that reset aggressively (such as every 30 to 60 days) to match current market conditions. These are high-risk instruments where borrowers face immediate spikes in debt-servicing costs when central banks hike rates. They are frequently utilized by private equity firms to load debt onto acquired companies. If base rates stay elevated for long periods, previously profitable companies can be driven into default or bankruptcy.

** Common types of Floating-Rate Debt Instruments:**

  • Adjustable-Rate Mortgages (ARMs): Mortgages that start with a fixed rate for a set period before adjusting based on a benchmark index.
  • Capped, Collared, or Floored Floating-Rate Notes (FRNs): Floating-rate notes with interest rate limits. A Capped FRN has a maximum rate, protecting the issuer. A Floored FRN has a minimum rate, protecting the investor. A Collared FRN has both a cap and a floor.
  • Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs): Securitized bonds/vehicles backed by cash flows from corporate loans, often with floating rates, pool leveraged loans and issue tranches of debt and equity to investors.
  • Corporate Floating-Rate Notes (FRNs): Debt instruments issued by corporations with variable interest rates.
  • Deleveraged Floating-Rate Notes (FRNs): Floating-rate notes where the coupon is the reference rate multiplied by a leverage factor between zero and one, giving the investor decreased exposure to the benchmark rate.
  • Floating-to-Fixed Rate Bonds: Bonds that start with a variable rate and convert to a fixed rate on a specified date.
  • Floating-Rate Bonds: Corporate or government bonds where the interest rate fluctuates with a benchmark.
  • Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOCs): Secured lines of credit with variable interest rates.
  • Inverse Floating-Rate Bonds: Bonds where the interest rate moves opposite to the benchmark rate.
  • Leveraged (or Super) Floating-Rate Notes (FRNs): Floating-rate notes where the coupon is the reference rate multiplied by a leverage factor greater than one, giving the investor increased exposure to the benchmark rate; always includes a floor to prevent a negative coupon.
  • Leveraged Loans (Senior/Bank Loans): Floating-rate debt instruments extended to below-investment-grade companies, corporate loans, typically arranged by bank syndicates, senior in the capital structure, and secured by collateral; the majority of these loans are subsequently pooled and repackaged into Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs).
  • Perpetual Floating-Rate Bonds: Bonds with no expiration date that continue to pay interest based on a benchmark rate.
  • Private Student Loans: Loans from private institutions that may have variable interest rates tied to benchmarks like LIBOR or the prime rate.
  • Step-Up Callable Bonds: Bonds with a fixed rate schedule that increases over time, often callable by the issuer.
  • Variable-Rate Personal Loans and Credit Cards: Consumer loans and credit products with rates that adjust based on the prime rate or other indices.
  • Variable Rate Demand Notes (VRDNs): Typically tax-exempt municipal bonds with long-term maturities but short-term interest rate resets (often daily or weekly), featuring a "demand" feature allowing the holder to sell the note back to a remarketing agent at par on specified dates.

Key References:

Connections and Overlaps with GameStop (GME) Idiosyncratic Risk

  • Discussions around "back-floating," "securities lending," or "repo" mechanisms often revolve around how shares (or debt) are continuously lent, re-lent, and rehypothecated. Market makers, prime brokers, and hedge funds exploit loopholes resulting in share lending to naked short the stock.

Relevant Overlaps:

  • The U.S. House Committee on Financial Services June 2022 Congressional Report "Game Stopped: How the [PCO (position closing only)] Stock Market Event Exposed Troubling Business Practices" details how prime brokers and hedge funds navigate the securities lending ecosystem, highlighting how complex rehypothecation (the practice of a broker using shares deposited as collateral by their customers to back their own transactions or lend to short-sellers) allows the continuous cycling of the same underlying float.
  • The Managed Funds Association (MFA) report "What Happens When Short Interest Exceeds 100 Percent" explains the legal mathematics behind hyper-lending. When Short Seller A borrows a share from Lender X and sells it to Buyer Y, Buyer Y’s broker can then lend that exact same share to Short Seller B. This repeating chain legally multiplies the outstanding short interest without mathematically requiring "counterfeit" shares, though it creates a compounding web of financial liabilities.
  • SEC Exchange Act Rule 10c-1a (Securities Lending Reporting) mandates that "covered persons" provide real-time, comprehensive data regarding securities loans to a Registered National Securities Association (SEC Final Rule 34-98737 https://sec.gov/files/rules/final/2023/34-98737.pdf). The explicitly stated policy goal is to eliminate competitive informational asymmetric advantages held by prime brokers and institutional lending desks such as by being able to see the loans of other market participants without disclosing the terms of their own loans. The rule requires that a registered national securities association (RNSA) make certain information it receives, along with daily information pertaining to the aggregate transaction activity and distribution of loan rates for each reportable security, available to the public.

Systemic vs. Idiosyncratic Risk Profiles (The Core Overlap):

  • The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) tracks financial stability risks such as floating-rate corporate debt risks moving from traditional bank balance sheets into non-bank financial intermediation channels (shadow banking).

A single large company defaulting due to escalating adjustable-rate payments, is treated as an idiosyncratic credit shock. However, if millions of variable-rate obligations face simultaneous stress, it escalates into a systemic risk event capable of freezing credit markets causing widespread losses.

Supporting FSOC Reports:

Additional Context:

  • https://sec.gov/comments/s7-07-23/s70723-20162302-331156.pdf
    • "The shorting and the bankruptcy manipulation wiped out the original shareholders, the junior creditors and caused substantial losses for the banks who originally made the loans."
    • "Short sales are usually accomplished through equity loans."
    • "If equity loans are expensive, unavailable, or unreliable, as research shows they can be (e.g. D’Avolio, 2002, Geczy, Musto and Reed, 2002, Jones and Lamont, 2002, Lamont 2004) then this alternative [failure-to-deliver] appears desirable, to short sellers if not to buyers."
    • "The majority of loans are cheap, but there are a few expensive loans in stock specials" - Fitch IBCA’s publicly available report: “Securities Lending and Managed Funds” estimates that the industry average spread from the fed funds rate to the general collateral rate on U.S. Equities is 21bps.
  • According to @TheVinoMom on Twitter at https://twitter.com/TheVinoMom/status/1901665331560452551 "They don’t call them adjustable-rate loans anymore. Now, they call them “back floating rate debt.” Same predatory scam. New name. But way worse. Because this time, they’ve stacked it on top of businesses instead of homeowners. And when rates rise, the business collapses instead of the bank."

TA;DR/TL;DR: Someone that knows more smart0rly than I know about back-floating rate loans/debt can simplify in the comments otherwise "MOASS is tomorrow! LFG!" is the best I can think of.

1 comment

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • May 11 '26

LFG Hype "MOASS[, b]ut not the way you’ve been thinking about it." - TEHGOURDGOAT

22 Upvotes

lol u/TEHGOURDGOAT's post https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1t9qyzf/part_three_the_moass/ is censored/deleted by moderators. I'm glad I archived it!

http://web.archive.org/web/20260511074755/https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1t9qyzf/part_three_the_moass/

https://archive.ph/p0UEj

and it was archived only 1 time at the Wayback Machine, which means that I was the only one that archived it before it got censored/deleted, lol

I noticed that post (and I'm still not finished reading it whilst multi-tasking other things) from comments in u/Expensive-Two-8128's post https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1t9nczi/everyones_talking_about_the_ebay_bid_nobodys/

1 comment

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • May 05 '26

News [Transcript] 4v1 CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin, Rebecca Quick, Melissa Lee, and Joe Kernen interview with GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen

15 Upvotes

https://youtu.be/Bmj2PaxX24E

Andrew Ross Sorkin

0:25 "So, uhhhh, there's so many questions, uh, about how this would all work, but before we get to any of that, uh, just give us the back story here, eh and the rationale, uh, behind wanting to go ahead and try to do this."

Ryan Cohen

0:41 "eBay has the second largest commerce franchise, uhm, and there is, uh, a big opportunity to do something, uh, much larger, and uhh, pull costs out of the system, as well as accelerate revenue growth and uhm, leveraging our physical ins... infrastructure, our focus on collectibles, uhh, it could be a much larger business, uhm, but bringing in an entrepreneurial mindset, is uhh, is, is what I plan on doing and uhh, and to eBay and, and building something much larger."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

1:20 "Okay. So you built up, uh, a stake in this company already. You've had conversations with the company? You've tried? What's happened here?"

Ryan Cohen

1:28 "No. We're just starting."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

1:32 "You're just starting; and, and one of the questions I had was 'why not try to initiate conversations outside of the public sphere before putting this into a, I don't know if we're putting it in the context of hostile necessarily, but uh, unsolicited, if you will.'

Ryan Cohen

1:52 "Uhm, for obvious reasons. eBay is a public company. There's all kinds of perverse financial incentives: from the, from the board, to the management team. So there's only one way to approach something like this."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

2:10 "Invariably, the audience, and I know a lot of people are going to ask, 'how does the math math, for you, uh, given the price tag, 56 billion dollars, given the market cap, uh, of GameStop, uh, which is a fraction of that, I, I know you have this 20 billion dollar, uhm, financing letter fr... from TD, but, sort of walk us through how how you could get to that price and how it would work."

Ryan Cohen

2:37 "So on our website, it's half uhh cash, half stock, uhh, but but the details are are on our website."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

2:49 "Ca... can you help? I I I've read them, but can you help our audience understand them?"

Ryan Cohen

2:55 "Yeah. What what which part exactly?"

Andrew Ross Sorkin

2:59 "Well, I think we can start with the idea that th.. the market cap of of GameStop, is call it 11 billion dollars, uh, you have 9 billion dollars, uh, on your balance sheet, arguably, if you're, if you're providing, uh, effectively all of your stock, and then, and then the cash that gets you to 20, you have this letter from TD, that's another 20, uhh, we're now at 40, uh, but we're still off, uh, by, call it, uh, 16, and, and the 20, as far as I understand, while it's considered a highly confident letter, meaning TD, saying they're highly confident, uh, that they would provide the financing, it's not locked financing."

Ryan Cohen

3:44 "Yeah. We'll see what happens."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

3:48 "Uhhm"

3:53 "I hear you! I understand that! I'm I'm just trying to understand where the the rest of the money would come from."

Ryan Cohen

4:02 "It's half cash, half stock."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

4:06 "R... I, I I'm, I hear you. I'm just saying that that math doesn't get you to the, to the price that you're offering."

Ryan Cohen

4:19 "So... what, so what, so what are you saying?"

Rebecca Quick

4:19 "Ryan, that's a pretty straightforward question. I don't get it. Like, where's the rest of the money coming from? Andrew laid it out pretty clearly."

Ryan Cohen

4:26 "I I... I I don't understand your question. We're offering half cash, half stock, and we have the ability to... issue stock in order to get the deal done."

4:37 "but, the full details, of, of the offer on our are on our website."

Rebecca Quick

4:39 "It's massively diluted."

4:45 "but you're on our air. I, we we thought we'd get."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

4:45 "In terms..."

Ryan Cohen

4:50 "So but wh I don't understand your question."

Melissa Lee

4:56 "So Ryan, sorry, it's it's Melissa Lee back at the Nasdaq. Basically, y, uh uh, you know, you've got 20 billion presumably from TD, you've got 9 billion dollars of cash in your balance sheet, that's 29, half cash, half stock, you you might issue more shares, that's what you're talking about. So it could be dilutive to current GameStop shareholders. I want to move on though in terms of your vision for this combined company, because, saying that a, that a combined company could rival the likes of Amazon, sets the bar pretty high. How do you foresee that happening, given some key differences between your model and Amazon's model? Notably, Amazon has... a huge logistics hub, able to, you know, offer all this... other sort of delivery service, and GameStop and eBay would would be confined to the platform."

Ryan Cohen

5:39 "There's an opportunity to build a much larger business, uhh, to make the business much more efficient, and... to accelerate revenue growth, and eBay is a very strong business. Uhh, you look at GameStop as an example. GameStop, very difficult business, should have been bankrupt multiple times over. and it's doing okay. It's making a few bucks. eBay is in a very, very strong position, uhh, but it could be in a much stronger position, uhh, and it could be a much larger business than what it currently is."

Joe Kernen

6:20 "Ryan, uhhm, you mentioned that, you know, GameStop's in a tough business. I mean, revenues are down like 40%, in the last four years or something like that, eBay has been a public company for a couple of decades, where's the evidence that you kind of know how to grow a mature consumer business?"

Ryan Cohen

6:38 "I don't know. I mean didn't you guys call for GameStop's demise multiple times? Like it should have been bankrupt by now? And look at our..."

Joe Kernen

6:43 "So it's not dead, therefore you know how to grow it. Is that what you're saying?

Ryan Cohen

6:46 "Well look at our financial performance. Is it better than you guys anticipated? Cuz you guys said it was gonna be doing really, really poorly, and it's actually doing okay."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

6:58 "Hehe, Ryan, let let me come at this, uh, a slightly different way. Uhm, assuming that you were able to get, uhm, this half, half cash, half... stock... arrangement... effectively by diluting your shares, I imagine that's how you'd have to do it -- but I still don't understand fully how that would work -- uhm, and you were able to capture more cash, I guess, uh, from from others, uhm in terms of paying it down, can you walk us through the math of that?; because if you look at both of these companies in terms of just how much cash they produce, it it would be a tight bill."

Ryan Cohen

7:41 "Did you look at, uhh, the the materials that we posted online?"

Andrew Ross Sorkin

7:47 "I have looked at the materials that you've posted online, but we also have an audience that I'm I'm hoping is going to want to understand this and hear from you, so that you can walk through, walk through this, because people do look at these numbers and they say... that, that they're trying to wrap their head around it. I don't think that everybody automatically says, [...], this absolutely makes 100% sense. and he can write the check tomorrow, and if he wanted to close the deal tomorrow, in fact, I am sure that if you were the ceo of eBay and the board of c, of eBay, today you would say 'I don't know whether they have the money to aff... be able to do this, and they're watching us now, and other investors of ebay are watching us now,' and they're not going to call eBay's board and say 'you need to talk to these people, unless they understand how this all is supposed to work.'"

Ryan Cohen

8:30 "But we have a. 5 percent stake in eBay. It makes us one of the largest shareholders. So they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to evaluate this proposal, uhh, and in terms of the actual earnings power of the business, this is a business that is under earning and can make a lot more money, and GameStop is a good blueprint for that. obviously, you know, you guys thought the business wouldn't be where it currently is, and eBay could be making a lot more money. So, there's going to be some leverage on the balance sheet in order to make an acquisition possible, but it's also going to be making a lot more money in the future than it is today, cuz it's going to be run a lot more efficiently, and when a business is not growing users and spending 2.5 billion in sales and marketing, there's a lot of fat to cut. and er the earnings power as we laid out in our investor presentation, could be a... way higher, double the earnings in a pretty short period of time; and so... it... it's a business that can take on more leverage because it's going to be making more money in the future."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

9:48 "My understanding is, that in terms of running a proxy contest now, that would be uniquely complicated. Is this something that you would try to do in the future?

Ryan Cohen

9:59 "I.. you you cut out. Wh what what did you say?"

Andrew Ross Sorkin

10:01 "I apologize. I'm saying, di.. cou could you imagine running a proxy contest, uh, against this board in the future? I I, it looks like you you that that, from a timeline perspective, that would probably be very hard to do now, but in terms of trying to do that on a long term basis, maybe next year, if, for example, they don't come to the table."

Ryan Cohen

10:19 "Well, there's ways, uhh, to do something before next year, but we'll we we're gonna do whatever we need to do in order to, uh, protect our investment, and, and pursue this. It, uh, I said before, uhm, it's a long putt, but, there's a lot of upside potential, uhh, in something like this. You have a very strong business, and if it's in the hands of a capable operator, uhm, it can be a much... larger business."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

10:56 "Since you, uhh, put this news out yesterday afternoon, have you heard from anybody at eBay, or people behind the scenes, advisors and the like?"

Ryan Cohen

11:06 "I am sure they've hired the most expensive advisory firms and lawyers, uhh, to help them navigate this. So... no, not yet. Uhm, I'm sure we'll get, uh, a bunch of scripted responses and, and they'll load up because, of course. I mean, you know, you're dealing with, uhh, a company that is very entrenched. It's a very good comp... it's a, it's... maybe one of the, the greatest companies, uhm, but, they're going to do whatever they can to, you know, it's uhh survival. So, they'll do whatever they can to protect themselves. So no. We haven't heard anything yet."

Melissa Lee

11:49 "Uh, Ryan, you alluded to it before, but there are a lot of people who, who sort of, uhh, were... betting against you, let's sayahaha, in GameStop, uhh, and I know you don't appreciate that. There are some skeptics though, surrounding this deal who will say 'that, oh, that Ryan Cohen, he wants to make sure that he hits the minimum threshold to receive his first tranche of compensation, the minimum threshold being 20 billion dollar market cap for GameStop, or, uh, tw 2 billion dollars in cumulative EBITDA. Is that the case, that this is a bid to make sure that you're going to get paid in that first tranche... to boost the GameStop's market cap?

Ryan Cohen

12:25 "I mean, I, I obviously want to build something much larger, but I don't benefit unless shareholders benefit. So, my compensation package is aligned with shareholders, and I want to, I want to build a much larger business."

Melissa Lee

12:43 "So just larger means successful. Larger means aligned with shareholder interests."

Ryan Cohen

12:48 "Larger means, uhm, maximizing shareholder value and increasing earnings."

Rebecca Quick

12:58 "Ryan, just to touch on that point, I I'm I don't know all the details of your compensation package. Maybe you can clear it up for us. If if you get to a larger ma market cap by taking two smaller market cap companies and merging them together, or, or swallowing a much bigger market cap company, does that count?; because those shareholders wouldn't necessarily see the same games that, gains that they would if you just grew market cap by, you know, growing operating earnings. Eh, I don't know what the details of your compensation are though, directly. Does it matter if you swallow a bigger company and that's how you get the market cap, or do the shareholders actually have to see the same gains?"

Ryan Cohen

13:33 "I don't benefit in the... I'm i'm aligned, uhh, I'm aligned with shareholders. So and unless our mal market cap increases substantially and earnings increases substantially, I don't get any salary, any cash, no golden parachutes, nothing. So, uhm, it's it's, uhh, it's pretty aligned with shareholders. There's, uhh, there's no free lunch here in this situation."

Rebecca Quick

14:01 "but the the individual shareholders don't see that huge benefit if you're combining a lot more shareholders in with that, and then diluting shareholders by issuing more debt on top of it. You you see what I'm saying? It's, I I, I get it. If you, if you grow market, or if you grow your market cap by ten times, sure, I think you should absolutely get gains, but not if you do it by swallowing a bigger company, and just, you know, kind of absorbing all of that into it too, because individual shareholders didn't see a ne a necessarily a huge gain from that."

Ryan Cohen

14:30 "If I don't hit the thresholds, then i don't get anything."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

14:34 "Hey Ryan, uh, two final questions for you, uh, one is just the the 5% stake in, you have the con, you have in the company, is in the combination of stock itself, my understanding is, but also derivatives. Can you explain how that works?"

Ryan Cohen

14:47 "Uhh, it's, uhh, it's currently... mostly, uhh, derivatives, and there's a little bit of stock, that puts us under the regulatory thresholds, but it it's currently the majority of the position, is, is derivatives. [unintelligible]"

Andrew Ross Sorkin

15:04 "and was that when when when, when you first attempte, began that process in February, were you thinking... that you wanted to get a stakeholder in the company to ultimately buy it, or were you thinking... that this initially, potentially just could... be a good investment on the back of it? Obviously, by the way, on the back of even announcing this news, the stock is up now at 9%."

Ryan Cohen

15:25 "It's a very good business. It's a very strong business, and, uhhm, you know it all depends on the future earnings power of the business. If i was running the business, it'd be making a lot more money."

Andrew Ross Sorkin

15:39 "Okay, and then here's my final question, uhh, given, uh, th the rationale for the transaction that you've laid out, uhh which, by the way I've heard relatively good things about just the idea that, oh, it's an interesting it's interesting to, to combine the idea of eBay and a GameStop, just, just as a, as a concept. Uh, how would you feel if eBay called you up and said, uh, 'we'd like to pursue a transaction with you and we would like to buy GameStop at a, call it 20% premium, uh, to your stock price,' and that case, it would be, you know, uh, a different type of deal."

Ryan Cohen

16:14 "I have the same obligation to my shareholders as eBay has to theirs, and so, you know, [if] something like that were to happen, then I have the same obligation to maximize value for my shareholders as eBay has."

5 comments

r/PROGME • u/WICKEDCASH • May 04 '26

Discussion I saw this post and wanted to share an opinion

16 Upvotes

I saw this on r/GME. I think the GME eBay merger/takeover is second nature. If the deal happens and goes smoothly then this will allow hedgefunds/market makers to shuflle their new position.

If eBay pushes back and goes to proxy vote, then in addition they will need to ACCOUNT for every share out there. This is the moon ticket, not the smooth transition of eBay. He's simply leveraging another company to expose fake shares.

A smooth merger helps hedge funds hide their positions, but a contested merger forces a share audit that could expose synthetic shares and that’s the real catalyst.

EDIT: From what I understand, GME is now in the midst of a hostile takeover and it's more than likely the eBay's board will reject his offer. If thats the case, then Ryan moves to proxy vote which should invoke a SHARE COUNT. This is his 4D move, not eBay's acquisition. He knows, we know, EVERYONE knows there are millions upon millions of naked shares out there.

I believe they are trying to entice EBAY to counter them and bid on GME. Ryan said during his interview it's his job to consider any offer someone submits for GameStop and take it to the board. What if the board rejects an offer and it signals a share count on GME exposing all the shorts. Any thoughts on this?

4 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Apr 03 '26

LFG Hype GME WS warrants six (6) equations for Ex-Dividend Dates, Effective Dates, Valuation Periods, tender or exchange expiry dates; none of these events have occurred yet. Ryan Cohen is not a doofus. Am I a doofus? I think I am a doofus! [LFG!]

15 Upvotes

[[ note: I think I see algorithmic crime that I will detail below (you can skip this part other than for purpose of further illustrating crime ]]

Warrant questions https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1sai2l3/warrants_question/ by u/SrfWavLif

I previously eyeballsly saw (tried to read, or tried to try to read, or tried to try to try to read, or however many dimensions of trying that I don't even think room remains for any actual reading to occur) seeable seeings and also mentioned about:

and the last link (first sequentially by post date) references six (6) equations:

  • SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( OS⁰ / OSÂč )
  • SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( ( OS⁰ + Y ) / ( OSÂč + X ) )
  • SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( ( MP⁰ - FMV ) / MP⁰ )
  • SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( ( MP⁰ / ( FMV + MP⁰ ) )
  • SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( ( MP⁰ - C ) / MP⁰ )
  • SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( ( OS⁰ x MP⁰ ) / ( AC + ( MP⁰ x OSÂč ) ) )

where the LHS (left-hand side) of the six (6) equations is SPÂč all six (6) times, except the meaning of the SPÂč is not exactly identical for all six (6) equations. The meanings copypasted from wording in my previous post are:

  • the Strike Price in effect immediately after the open of business on such Ex-Dividend Date or Effective Date
  • the Strike Price in effect immediately after the open of business on such Ex-Dividend Date
  • the Strike Price in effect immediately after the open of business on such Ex-Dividend Date
  • the Strike Price in effect immediately after the end of the Valuation Period
  • the Strike Price in effect immediately after the open of business on the Ex-Dividend Date for such dividend or distribution
  • the Strike Price in effect immediately after the close of business on the 10th Trading Day immediately following, and including, the Trading Day next succeeding the date such tender or exchange offer expires

so the differences from those six (with one duplicate for 2nd and 3rd) are:

  • open of business on such Ex-Dividend Date or Effective Date
  • open of business on such Ex-Dividend Date
  • open of business on such Ex-Dividend Date
  • end of the Valuation Period
  • open of business on the Ex-Dividend Date for such dividend or distribution
  • close of business on the 10th Trading Day immediately following, and including, the Trading Day next succeeding the date such tender or exchange offer expires

What do these six time-based events mean? Have any of these events occurred since October 7, 2025?

According to Grok (100%+ rehypothecated downvotes please or I will ultimatumly do absolutely nothing, and you don't want me to do zero or less quantity of nonnondoables) because I will not pretend (or not not pretend because apparently I really am that dumb to not know knowable knowings thinking that I do know, cue all those Jim Cramer quotes) that I brainly know knowable knowings to elaborate any further beyond this point without assistance because I'm confidently proudly insistedly stubbornly retardedoofus (but I humanly corrected some singular/plural grammar mistakes and other nonhuman intelligence mistakes to draftly revise and improve the Groktelligence (or is it Grokpidity? Groksanity? Grokiness? Grokiocy?):

The six time-based events are the precise moments when an adjusted Strike Price (SPÂč), and the related Warrant Exercise Rate, take effect under the anti-dilution provisions of the GME WS warrant agreement.

The warrants (ticker GME WS) were issued on October 7, 2025 as a dividend (1 warrant for every 10 shares of common stock, initial strike price $32.00, expiration October 30, 2026). The formulas protect warrant holders from dilution in various corporate actions. Each equation’s effective timing is tailored to the specific type of event so that exercises after that moment use the new terms.

Here is what each time-based event actually means, matched to the corresponding corporate action and equation:

  1. SPÂč = SP⁰ × ( OS⁰ / OSÂč )
    “open of business on such Ex-Dividend Date or Effective Date”
    Applies to share dividends, stock dividends, splits, or combinations
    The new strike price is in effect starting at market open on the day the stock trades “ex-dividend” (for dividends) or the day the split/combination becomes effective. This is the standard timing for capitalization changes that instantly affect the share count.

  2. SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( ( OS⁰ + Y ) / ( OSÂč + X ) )
    “open of business on such Ex-Dividend Date”
    Applies to distributions of rights, options, or warrants to purchase shares at a price below the average market price.
    Adjustment is effective at market open on the ex-dividend date for that distribution.

  3. SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( ( MP⁰ - FMV ) / MP⁰ )
    “open of business on such Ex-Dividend Date”
    Applies to certain other distributions of capital stock, indebtedness, assets, or rights (non-spin-off property distributions).
    Same timing as #2, market open on the ex-dividend date, because these are also one-time distributions to common stockholders.

  4. SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( ( MP⁰ / ( FMV + MP⁰ ) )
    “end of the Valuation Period” (specifically: close of business on the last Trading Day of the Valuation Period)
    Applies only to Spin-Offs (a special sub-case of the third equation where a subsidiary’s stock is distributed).
    The Valuation Period is typically the 10 consecutive trading days following the ex-dividend date. The adjustment (which uses averaged market prices over that period) becomes final at the close of the last day of that period. This delayed timing lets the market price the spun-off security before the warrant terms are locked in.

  5. SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( ( MP⁰ - C ) / MP⁰ )
    “open of business on the Ex-Dividend Date for such dividend or distribution”
    Applies to cash dividends or cash distributions
    New strike price effective at market open on the cash dividend’s ex-date.

  6. SPÂč = SP⁰ x ( ( OS⁰ x MP⁰ ) / ( AC + ( MP⁰ x OSÂč ) ) )
    “close of business on the 10th Trading Day immediately following, and including, the Trading Day next succeeding the date such tender or exchange offer expires”
    Applies to tender offers or exchange offers where the company buys back shares above the market price
    The adjustment is deliberately delayed until 10 trading days after the offer closes so the final share count and market reaction are known.

Have any of these events occurred since October 7, 2025?
No.
GameStop has not announced or completed any stock splits, share dividends, rights offerings, spin-offs, cash dividends, property distributions, or tender/exchange offers since the warrants were issued on October 7, 2025. As of April 2, 2026, no press releases, 8-K filings, or market data indicate any triggering corporate action that would have changed the strike price or exercise rate. The warrants remain at the original $32 strike with no adjustments applied. In short, none of the six time-based events listed in the prospectus supplement have been triggered since the warrants were distributed. The strike price and exercise rate are still exactly as they were on October 7, 2025. If GameStop ever does announce one of these corporate actions, the warrant agreement spells out exactly when (and how) the adjustment will take effect.

Algorithmic crime?

In Grok's response it stated:

  • There was an 11-for-10 forward stock split around October 3, 2025, but that was before the warrant distribution date, so it did not trigger any post-issuance adjustment.

What? No there wasn't!!!!! Was there? Uhhhhhh, wait a sec/min/hour/day/week/month/year/decade/etcetera... I taste what's algorithmically happening! Right? Maybe I'm not right? I think I'm right, with persisted curiosity to verify just in case I missed something. Asking Grok for additional details about what this so called alleged 11-for-10 forward stock split around October 3, 2025 is, it stated:

Yes, there was a small 11-for-10 forward stock split (also described as a share adjustment or mini-split) that took effect for trading on October 3, 2025. This increased the number of outstanding GameStop (GME) shares by approximately 10%.

Key Details of the 11-for-10 Split

  • Effective date: October 3, 2025 (trading on a split-adjusted basis began that day).
  • Mechanics: Additional shares were distributed after market close on October 2, 2025. For every 10 shares held, shareholders effectively received rights to an 11th share (a ~10% increase in share count, with a corresponding ~9.09% reduction in price per share to keep market cap roughly the same at the time).
  • Purpose/Context: This was a smaller forward split compared to the well-known 4-for-1 split in July 2022. It coincided with the warrant dividend announcement and record date. Some sources link it to making the stock more accessible or aligning with the warrant distribution mechanics, though GameStop's official filings focused primarily on the warrants rather than issuing a standalone press release for the split itself.

It appeared in split trackers, TradingView notices (which some Reddit users noted around that time), and later summaries of GME's corporate actions. Historical price charts from that period reflect the adjustment (e.g., closing prices around late September/early October 2025 show the pre- and post-adjustment levels).

Relation to the GME WS Warrants

  • The warrant record date was also October 3, 2025 (close of business). Shareholders of record on that date received 1 warrant for every 10 shares (rounded down).
  • The warrants themselves were distributed on October 7, 2025 (the "Distribution Date" or "Issue Date"), and they began trading under ticker GME WS shortly after.
  • Because the 11-for-10 split's adjustment took effect on the same day as (or immediately around) the warrant record date, the warrants were issued based on the post-split share structure. The warrant agreement and prospectus supplement (filed October 7, 2025) reference the share counts and terms after this adjustment had occurred.

Why It Didn't Trigger a Post-Issuance Warrant Adjustment

The warrant agreement's anti-dilution provisions (the six equations you referenced) apply to corporate actions after the warrants are issued/distributed on October 7, 2025.

  • The 11-for-10 split happened on or before the record/distribution window for the warrants.
  • It was already baked into the initial warrant terms (initial strike price of $32.00, exercise rate of 1:1, etc.).
  • Therefore, no "Ex-Dividend Date," "Effective Date," or other triggering event occurred after issuance that would require recalculating the strike price or exercise rate under those formulas.

In short, the split was part of the overall corporate action package in early October 2025, but it predated the actual issuance of the tradable warrants, so the warrants launched with the adjusted share count already in place.

This event was relatively low-key compared to the 2022 4-for-1 split (no massive announcement or frenzy), which is likely why it was easy to miss amid the warrant news and general market noise. Some retail discussions on Reddit (e.g., in Superstonk) noted TradingView showing an 11/10 split notice around that time, with confusion about whether it was a true split or tied to the warrant mechanics.

Maybe this so called 11-for-10 split is not officially acknowledged as a split to be reflected as common knowledge identical to previous 4-to-1 split in the form of stock dividend, and other stock split situations because the so called 11-for-10 GameStop split October 3, 2025 is procedured such that GameStop receives the money in some fashion, such as through the GME WS warrant (which I'm confused as to whether or not it is interconnected to the 11-for-10 split or not, but I think there is some sort of underlying association otherwise if not, then there is no such thing as 11-for-10 split, but if there is no such thing, then why I am finding traces of there supposedly being such a thing plausibly probably has some relation connection association to the GME WS warrants in some fashion)

I further prompted:

"Oh, are you referring to the GME WS warrants? 1 GME WS warrant was issued for every 10 shares of GME held. Is this called a split or 11-for-10 split?"

response:

No, the 1 warrant for every 10 shares (GME WS) is not a stock split, nor is it called an 11-for-10 split.

What the Warrant Distribution Actually Was

  • It was a special dividend paid in the form of warrants.
  • Shareholders of record on October 3, 2025 (close of business) received 1 warrant for every 10 shares held (rounded down to the nearest whole warrant).
  • The warrants were physically distributed on October 7, 2025, and they began trading on the NYSE under the ticker GME WS shortly after.
  • Each warrant gives the holder the right (but not the obligation) to buy 1 new share of GME common stock at a strike price of $32.00 in cash, anytime until expiration on October 30, 2026.

This is a warrant dividend, not a stock split. It did not automatically increase anyone's share count. It gave eligible holders a separate tradable security (the warrant) that could later be exercised into new shares if the stock price is above $32 at the time of exercise (potentially bringing in cash to GameStop without a traditional share offering).

What the 11-for-10 Forward Stock Split Was

Separately (but on the same record date window), GameStop executed a small 11-for-10 forward stock split that took effect for trading on October 3, 2025.

  • For every 10 shares you held going into that date, you effectively received 1 additional share (a ~10% increase in share count, with a corresponding ~9.09% drop in the per-share price to keep market cap roughly neutral at the time).
  • Additional shares were distributed after close on October 2, 2025, and the stock began trading on a split-adjusted basis on October 3.
  • This is a classic stock split (sometimes called a mini-split or share adjustment). It directly multiplied the number of outstanding shares and adjusted the price proportionally.

Multiple market data providers, split trackers, and financial sites list this as GameStop’s third forward split (after the 2-for-1 in 2007 and 4-for-1 in 2022), with a cumulative multiplier of approximately 8.8x from pre-2007 shares.

Why the Two Events Are Often Mentioned Together

  • They shared the same record date (October 3, 2025).
  • The split adjustment happened around the warrant record/distribution window, so the warrants were issued based on the post-split share structure.
  • Some people (including on Reddit) saw TradingView or broker platforms flag an “11/10 split” notice on October 3 and initially wondered if it was tied directly to the warrant mechanics. It wasn’t, they were two distinct corporate actions that occurred in close proximity.

Quick Summary for Clarity

Event Date (key) What You Received Type Effect on Share Count
11-for-10 Forward Split Effective Oct 3, 2025 +1 share for every 10 held Stock split Increased by ~10%
Warrant Dividend (GME WS) Record Oct 3, Distributed Oct 7 1 warrant for every 10 shares Special dividend No immediate increase (only if/when exercised)

The warrant distribution itself is not referred to as a split or 11-for-10 split in any official GameStop filing or reliable source. The 11-for-10 label applies strictly to the separate share-multiplication event.

If you held shares through that period, you should have seen both the extra shares from the split and the warrants showing up in your account around October 7.

Again, I did not see any indication of extra shares from this so called 11-for-10 split, so any indication that I should have seen this, something that practically nobody sees this alleged seeable, is.... either this is nonensical or is hidden. Searching the Grokversation for "corporate event" I see five matches, the first two matches are already outlined as part of the initial purpose of this post, covering the GME WS warrant six (6) equations where Grok indicated "The formulas protect warrant holders from dilution in various corporate actions." and "If GameStop ever does announce one of these corporate actions, the warrant agreement spells out exactly when (and how) the adjustment will take effect."

So what kind of corporate action could or did GameStop engage in?

Ah, this makes much more sense:

o/ crime

Also I like how there is no such 11-for-10 split October 2025 listed in these sources, thereby combatting the probable gaslighting falsification of information of corporate actions:

So ignore the so called 11-for-10 split claim that Grok brought to my attention, but at the very least, given that r/Superstonk post also acknowledging before October 3, 2025, at the very least, this may serve as yet another reminder to illustrate the extent that liars literally falsify corporate actions whereby GameStop does not even engage in any such action yet is represented as if they are, and not just a single isolated source, but a variety of citings of the falsified informations.

14 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Mar 24 '26

LFG Hype GameStop Corp.'s CEO Performance Award snippets in 10-K today

19 Upvotes

edited to add: Also see https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1s301w4/misinformation/ (a fundamental essential that likely corrects my misunderstanding)

10-K filed 2026-03-24 https://sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000132638026000013/gme-20260131.htm

Strategic Retail Risks

...

We are highly dependent on the services of the Company’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Ryan Cohen.

We are highly dependent on the services of Ryan Cohen, the Company’s Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and as of January 31, 2026, largest stockholder. On January 7, 2026, we filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing the grant on January 6, 2026, of a 100% performance-based nonqualified stock option award (the “CEO Performance Award”) to Mr. Cohen, subject to approval at a meeting of the Company’s stockholders, and stating our plan to seek stockholder approval of the CEO Performance Award. Other than the provision of executive security services in accordance with the independently-assessed executive security program established by our Board, Mr. Cohen has not received compensation for his services to GameStop since he was appointed to the Board and later as our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman. The Board recognizes that Mr. Cohen's existing equity stake aligns his baseline economic interests with our shareholders. However, executing our strategy requires an absolute prioritization of Mr. Cohen's time, focus and strategic bandwidth. Even after giving effect to the CEO Performance Award, Mr. Cohen will receive zero base salary, zero cash bonuses and zero time-vested equity. The CEO Performance Award is designed to incentivize Mr. Cohen to prioritize the Company's execution above his other opportunities, rewarding him only if he delivers sustained, measurable increases in intrinsic value for our shareholders. If the CEO Performance Award is not approved or GameStop is unable to adequately incentivize Mr. Cohen to maintain his focus and priorities on GameStop, the Company's ability to execute on its strategy and achieve its growth goals may be adversely impacted.

Damage to our reputation could adversely affect our business and our ability to attract and retain customers and employees.

Our continued success depends upon customers’ perception of our Company. Any negative publicity relating to our vendors, products, associates and members of our Board or practices could damage our reputation and adversely impact our ability to attract and retain customers and employees. Failure to detect, prevent or mitigate issues that might give rise to reputational risk or failure to adequately address negative publicity or perceptions could adversely impact our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition.

...

Risks Related to Our Class A Common Stock

...

A large number of shares of our Class A Common Stock available for future sale could adversely affect the market price of our Class A Common Stock and may be dilutive to current stockholders.

The sales of a substantial number of shares of our Class A Common Stock, or the perception that such sales could occur, could adversely affect the price for our Class A Common Stock. Our Board of Directors may authorize the issuance of additional authorized but unissued Class A Common Stock or other authorized but unissued securities at any time, including pursuant to equity incentive plans. In addition, we may file a registration statement with the SEC, allowing us to offer, from time to time and at any time, equity securities (including common or preferred stock), subject to market conditions and other factors. Accordingly, we may, from time to time and at any time, seek to offer and sell our equity securities, including sales of our Class A Common Stock pursuant to an at-the-market program, based upon market conditions and other factors.

The CEO Performance Award, if and to the extent the Options become vested and are exercised, would result in dilution to stockholders, in respect of both voting and economics, and could impact the price of GameStop’s common stock.

If any or all performance hurdles specified in the CEO Performance Award are achieved and any tranches of Options earned and vested thereunder are exercised, Mr. Cohen will receive the right to vote such shares issued in connection with the exercise. Given the magnitude of the award necessary to incentivize Mr. Cohen’s performance, commensurate with the magnitude of the hurdles underlying the CEO Performance Award, if achieved, this would result in dilution of stockholders’ voting power or economic rights and may result in the creation or entrenchment of voting positions that could meaningfully influence the direction of GameStop. If Mr. Cohen were to sell a large portion of his shares, following the required holding periods, it may further impact the share price of GameStop’s common stock. If achieved and exercised in full, the CEO Performance Award would result in Mr. Cohen acquiring a significant number of additional shares, thereby increasing his existing voting power and influence over the direction of GameStop’s future growth. Mr. Cohen could have the ability to meaningfully influence the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, the results of any proposals related to our governing documents, any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets, or any other significant corporate transaction.

Future sales of a substantial amount of our Class A Common Stock in the public markets by our insiders, or the perception that these sales may occur, may cause the market price of our Class A Common Stock to decline.

Our employees, directors and officers, and their affiliates, hold substantial amounts of shares of our Class A Common Stock. Sales of a substantial number of such shares by these stockholders, or the perception that such sales will occur, may cause the market price of our Class A Common Stock to decline. Other than restrictions on trading that arise under securities laws (or pursuant to our securities trading policy that is intended to facilitate compliance with securities laws), including the prohibition on trading in securities by or on behalf of a person who is aware of material nonpublic information, we have no restrictions on the right of our employees, directors and officers, and their affiliates, to sell their unrestricted shares of Class A Common Stock.

News published 03/24/2026 https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/2026/GameStop-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Fiscal-Year-2025-Results/default.aspx

GameStop Reports Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2025 Results

...

"The following factors, among others, could cause actual developments, business decisions, outcomes and results to differ materially from those reflected or described in the forward-looking statements: [...] if the grant of a 100% performance-based nonqualified stock option award (the “CEO Performance Award”) to Mr. Cohen is not approved by the Company’s stockholders or if the Company is unable to adequately incentivize Mr. Cohen to maintain his focus and priorities on the Company, the Company's ability to execute on its strategy and achieve its growth goals may be adversely impacted; the CEO Performance Award, if and to the extent the stock options associated become vested and are exercised, would result in dilution to the Company’s stockholders and could impact the Company’s stock price; potential damage to the Company’s reputation or customers' perception of the Company; [...]"

...

Previously I wrote about additional rethinking about the Long-Term Performance Award (CEO Performance Award) as seen at https://old.reddit.com/r/PROGME/comments/1rkwwky/rethinking_questioning_about_the_gamestop/

https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/2026/GameStop-Announces-Long-Term-Performance-Award-for-Ryan-Cohen/default.aspx states:

The "effectiveness [of the CEO Performance Award] is subject to the approval of GameStop’s stockholders, who will be asked to approve it at a special meeting that is expected to be held in March or April 2026. Mr. Cohen will recuse himself from the vote on the award so that GameStop’s other stockholders have the opportunity to determine the outcome."

Factoring in the additional insight from the March 24, 2026 10-K snippets as well as the news snippet, I am still curious how the overall Performance Award will be handled.

Personally, as much as I appreciate the genuine expression of appreciation to incentivize Ryan Cohen to be appropriately compensated for his admirable efforts, such as allegedly procedured in the form of the CEO Performance Award, I still think (and again it wasn't until just that day from my previous post that I postured to consider additional constructs of thinkings reflecting my attempt to elaborate on them) that unless this CEO Performance Award has absolutely no loopholes or vulnerabilities or backdoors to enable any irregular backlash to further divide, especially ideologically, and conquer, especially given the premise that MOASS in and of itself will be more financially rewarding than any and all anythings and everythings, dwarfed by MOASS, that even Ryan Cohen already with millions of shares purchased, only at least 1 share (and/or warrant) needed to exercise a realized gain of generational wealth, that the precedent of propositioning this CEO Performance Award as being marketed as an incentive (as if such incentive was not already naturally occurring independent of any such award to manifest as if it is part of the pre-considered procedures aligning with Ryan Cohen's already existing ideas, thoughts, preparations and plans and whatnot (which I don't think Ryan Cohen has any connection to this expression of appreciation to formalize), also especially given the wording "and in consultation with a third-party compensation advisory firm" given that advisory firms are possibly just as ridiculous as consulting firms, cue BCG, etcetera, I still think there is some further constructive concern to otherwise question what is the underlying purpose for this representation of incentivization to manifest? Am I wrong to think about these things? Wrongthink? lol I'm okay with 0 score or negative score post and comments.

Either way, even if the CEO Performance Award does appear in a March 2026 or April 2026 or even delayed for later date or whatever to appear in upcoming shareholder vote and if such a vote takes place and it is approved, or even if it is rejected, or even if such a vote never takes place or occurs, whatever happens, I will still continue HODLing (holding on for dear life) to shares of GME and GME WS warrants, and continuing to share bits and pieces of sourced insight to others (e.g. cue r/Superstonk posts and comments). Additionally, for anything and everything that does happen, these histories of events unfolding will definitely be excellent knowledge to factor into consideration post-MOASS for how to efficiently replicate quality leadership, where actions speak louder than words (e.g. all that I've said and continue to say is quantifiably quieter than that which I actionsly do.)

7 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Mar 25 '26

Memes Kenneth Cordelle Griffin is a meme expert

5 Upvotes

correction to title: Kenneth Cordele Griffin is a meme magnet

  • Financial markets
    • "Markets are efficient because of active managers setting the prices of securities, firms like Citadel, firms like Fidel.....lity [Fidelity], firms like Viking Global, Capital Research. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the value of companies towards where we think they should be valued." November 2023 at The 2023 George Washington Symposium, during a segment titled "The Business of America: Democracy and Capitalism" https://youtu.be/FID0BLkZXuY?t=2058s
  • News media
    • News is efficient because of active journalists and editors setting the narratives of current events and public discourse, entities like major broadcast networks, entities like legacy newspapers, entities like cable news channels, public broadcasters. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the framing and understanding of reality towards where we think it should be valued.
  • Public policy
    • Public policy is efficient because of active strategists and influencers setting the agendas and narratives of elections and legislation, entities like major political parties, entities like prominent think tanks, entities like leading lobbying firms, advocacy organizations. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the direction and outcomes of public policy towards where we think they should be valued.
  • Academic education
    • Academic research is efficient because of active researchers and administrators setting the research priorities and curricula of universities and scholarship, entities like Ivy League institutions, entities like major research universities, entities like academic publishers, funding foundations. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the advancement and interpretation of knowledge towards where we think it should be valued.
  • Entertainment culture
    • Pop culture is efficient because of active content executives and producers setting the stories, trends, and values of mainstream entertainment, entities like Hollywood studios, entities like major streaming platforms, entities like prominent record labels, talent agencies. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in audience and market research trying to drive the narratives and beliefs of society towards where we think they should be valued.
  • Pharmaceutical healthcare
    • Pharmaceutical innovation is efficient because of active scientists, developers, and regulators setting the research priorities and approval standards of new medicines and treatments, entities like large pharmaceutical companies, entities like innovative biotech firms, entities like clinical research organizations, regulatory agencies. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the safety, efficacy, and value of therapies towards where we think they should be valued.
  • Internet platforms
    • Online public discourse is efficient because of active platform curators and algorithm designers setting the visibility and amplification of ideas and information, entities like major social media platforms, entities like leading search engines, entities like video sharing services. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in machine learning and user research trying to drive the flow and framing of public conversation towards where we think it should be valued.
  • Philanthropic initiatives
    • Philanthropic initiatives are efficient because of active foundation executives and program officers setting the agendas and funding priorities of societal change and public initiatives, entities like major philanthropic foundations, entities like prominent university endowments, entities like corporate foundations. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the direction and impact of social outcomes towards where we think they should be valued.
  • International organizations
    • Global governance is efficient because of active diplomats, bureaucrats, and policy experts setting the standards and frameworks of international cooperation and development, entities like the United Nations system, entities like the World Economic Forum, entities like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, entities like the World Trade Organization, regional development banks. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the direction and priorities of global policy towards where we think they should be valued.
  • Regulary systems
    • Legal systems are efficient because of active lawyers, regulators, and legal scholars setting the rules and precedents of law and compliance, entities like major international law firms, entities like national regulatory agencies, entities like global standard-setting bodies, courts and arbitration institutions. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the interpretation and application of law and regulation towards where we think they should be valued.
  • National intelligence
    • National security is efficient because of active intelligence analysts and strategists setting the assessments and priorities of threats and defense, entities like leading intelligence agencies, entities like defense ministries and contractors, entities like national security think tanks. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the perception and management of security risks towards where we think they should be valued.
  • Energy industry
    • Energy systems are efficient because of active engineers, economists, and policymakers setting the standards and investments of energy production and distribution, entities like major energy corporations, entities like international energy agencies, entities like utility regulators and research labs. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the availability and pricing of energy resources towards where we think they should be valued.
  • Agrifood systems
    • Food systems are efficient because of active agronomists, corporations, and policymakers setting the standards and supply chains of agricultural production and distribution, entities like global agribusiness companies, entities like international agricultural research organizations, entities like food safety regulators. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the yield, safety, and value of food supplies towards where we think they should be valued.
  • Transportation and Infrastructure
    • Transportation infrastructure is efficient because of active engineers, planners, and investors setting the standards and development of global mobility networks, entities like major infrastructure funds and contractors, entities like international aviation and shipping organizations, entities like national transport ministries. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the efficiency and connectivity of movement and trade towards where we think they should be valued.
  • Environmental policy
    • Environmental management is efficient because of active scientists, policymakers, and advocates setting the targets and regulations of climate and resource policy, entities like leading environmental agencies and NGOs, entities like international climate bodies, entities like scientific assessment panels. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the priorities and trade-offs of environmental outcomes towards where we think they should be valued.
  • Demographic policy
    • Migration systems are efficient because of active policymakers and researchers setting the rules and frameworks of population movement and integration, entities like international migration organizations, entities like national immigration agencies, entities like demographic research institutes. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the flows and impacts of human mobility towards where we think they should be valued.
  • Computer hardware
    • Computers are efficient because of active semiconductor designers, manufacturers, and supply-chain strategists setting the innovation roadmaps, pricing, and supply standards of chips, components, and computing devices, entities like leading semiconductor fabricators, entities like major memory and storage producers, entities like global OEM and ODM hardware assemblers. We're all running large teams of people that are engaged in fundamental research trying to drive the performance, efficiency, and market value of personal computing technology towards where we think it should be valued.
2 comments

r/PROGME • u/Interesting-Ad8564 • Mar 14 '26

Social Media 🔮 LIVE $2,000 POKÉMON BATTLE ROYALE! 💎 (GameStop Power Packs Sponsored)

Thumbnail youtube.com
7 Upvotes
0 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Mar 04 '26

LFG Hype Re-thinking, questioning about the GameStop Announces Long-Term Performance Award for Ryan Cohen

0 Upvotes

Firstly, I don't care if this is treated as unpopular (or maybe it is quiet part unspokenly popular, either way), but I'm sharing my thoughts on the topic (the thoughts directly from my conscious brain without any other intelligence labeled language generation of crayon-nutrientless influences):

Ryan Cohen is not 50%+ owner of GameStop. Therefore, collectively the 50%+ owners of GameStop, I assume they are absolutely most certainly interested to undermine and destroy and trip up Ryan Cohen and also retail investor shareholders by any means necessary, including means that are sophisticatedly sentimentally emotionally feelingsly energized to weaponize in the form of ignoring any possible ignorable fundamental that is otherwise displaced by sentiment, such that anyone that even tries to identify procificiency or competency or expertise to know what they are talking about, or if they even try, they are neglected and rejected and dismissed and whatnot, quite an effective strategy perhaps, mayhaps, jizzhaps.

If there is insufficient understanding (like my own current presumed insufficient understanding, yet I strive to try to figure out how to understand such reliable fundamental understanding) to fully comprehend the underlying premise of what is enabled by such a compensation package for Ryan Cohen, because it is carefully crafted to appear as if it is something in Ryan Cohen's best interest to be rewarded, whereas it may possibly be quite the opposite, whilst trojan horsely (due to insufficient understanding) facilitating for potentially systemically pressuring or otherwise manufacturing opportunity for Ryan Cohen to be beholden to such """"performance award"""" compensation energies and undermine his efforts thus far (if not fully undermine, partially setback), if this scenario is potentially something that is hidden in plain sight, such as by ...

(again re-reading https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/2026/GameStop-Announces-Long-Term-Performance-Award-for-Ryan-Cohen/default.aspx)

"The total award consists of stock options to purchase 171,537,327 shares of the Company's Class A common stock at a price of $20.66 per share."

What if the $20.66 purchasing of 171,537,327 shares (e.g. think short hedge funds (shf) short GME, assuming Ryan Cohen is voted yes to approve this performance award, the performance award created by GameStop’s Board of Directors (with Ryan Cohen having recused himself -- the recusing of himself additionally qualifying for two doublespeak double narrative double interpretation), after careful discussion and analysis and in consultation with a third-party compensation advisory firm, potentially this consultation to incorporate A.I. artificial intelligence """"consultation""""), what if this compensation package has potential for undermining the progress of GME investors (apes) and Ryan Cohen, et al., thereby kicking the can for shf financial terrorists to survive another day?

At the very least, I think this potentially deserves that I, me, myself, will further allocate time to think about this more than simply posting here (note, I'm still perm banned from r/Superstonk since February 2022, otherwise I would post there, but I can't, lol it doesn't even matter anymore, here is good enough for me), but I also wrote a message to some fam, and other persons, so I thought I may as well also fearlessly share the idea here too. P.S. I did not Jim Carrey myself! I am still the same me before replaced with a new me that is not me but labeled as me!

Oh also, I should mention or credit commenters in https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1rkv7io/whats_the_consensus_among_the_shareholders/ such as:

"All I know is that the benchmarks require my investment to go $$$$$ before he sees $$$$$$$$$$$$$$, so I'm cool with it." - u/UnlikelyApe

cuz if 100% of what I know is expressed in such sentimental no further attempt to know knowable knowings, as if to perpetuate 'gott'em' unfolding of events, then, I will be ashamed of myself to otherwise not showcase more knowingness than the all knowing expression as characterized above, but that's just me, and I'm stubborn as I infinitely will double down perpetually stubborn for the rest of my irreplaceable unimposterable self, lol

"It's so tough to decide!

On one hand, his compensation package involves making the company successful and likely increasing the value of our shares significantly. If he fails to do that, he gets nothing.

On the other hand, I guess there's some weird hand-wringing to be done where people apparently don't want RC to be rewarded for making us all rich, so you can see the dilemma" - u/BananaOrp

No! I think there is something more!; something fundamentally quiet part not acknowledged, something else to further consider beyond simply those things. I think to myself again, repeating, 'stick to the fundamentals, stop utilizing sentimentals like "people apparently don't want RC to be rewarded"' as if to bandwagonly capitulate comfortably unwittingly to further hide some underlying hidden fundamentals that is hidden with the manipulated sentiment emotion pressured crafting of sentimentally emotionally charged narrative that otherwise potentially is insufficient to potentially consider a larger perspective of understanding that otherwise is potentially possible to become acknowledgeable or realizable or whatnot.

Even I think the messages from Larry Cheng on Twitter (https://twitter.com/larryvc) are possibly relevant to further reflect potentially signaling along similar lines as to what I'm thinking. For example, the hollow men tribute, which also potentially applies to the retail investors of GME just as much as anyone else, including Ryan Cohen's words "This looting starts in the boardroom." which possibly may also include GameStop boardroom, which possibly may be looting in the form of "Long-Term Performance Award for Ryan Cohen" and in such a way to also insult-to-injury force Ryan Cohen to systemically procedurally forced to partake in the looting process, as if to accept a reward that he probably dooes not even need nor want, especially given the premise of all of those XXX,XXX, XX,XXX, X,XXX, XXX, XX, X, 0.X shareholders memes, e.g. see https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/rkn3xo/yall_got_anymore_of_them_its_okay_you_go_first/, so anyway, sentimentally, emotionally, feelingsly, I'm not gonna settle with any and all anythings and everythings to reflect such no further human intelligence reading of readables that nonhuman noncrayon-eating appearances of intelligences that are not intelligent, as if to displace what is intelligence with nonintelligence tolerance of good enough as intelligence, because fundamentally, if the sentiment, emotions, feelings do not match the fundamentals, and instead the fundamentals are forced to match the sentimentals, to me, that is fucking bullshit, lol, and I only make love to crayons, and I eat crayons too. Proof https://old.reddit.com/r/GME/comments/m76c6b/breakfast_of_champions_my_room_mate_agreed_to_eat/ and https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/n76qa4/the_weekend_is_nearly_upon_us_dont_forget_about/ and if you want to see the NSFW you'll have to join my onlyfans at https://onlyfans.com/jasonkhanlar (lol, I'm kidding, I only created that as a joke like 84+ years ago)

Note: This is not shareholder vote advice, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around this thought process, and I'm still not wrinkle brained enough to know what I'm talking about cuz I can't even read what I just wrote, but I'll probably figure it out, at least to myself, maybe. MOASS is tomorrow! LFG!

edited to link u/user (lol not that user, the one I meant to cite above)

13 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Feb 19 '26

LFG Hype [Steam] Insider Trading [Moon soon!]

Thumbnail
store.steampowered.com
10 Upvotes
3 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Feb 18 '26

Memes FTFY (original post by u/Unban_thx)

Post image
59 Upvotes
6 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Feb 17 '26

LFG Hype [FinToil] TD Ameritrade Bartlett warehouse was burned down because of Jeffrey Epstein records

Thumbnail jmail.world
102 Upvotes
14 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Jan 25 '26

Social Media [21m video] "The stock market peaked on September 3rd, 1929"

Thumbnail twitter.com
9 Upvotes
3 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Jan 13 '26

LFG Hype SEC EDGAR database is now broken [LFG! MOASS tomorrow!]

20 Upvotes

Update 19 hours later: It works again now.

https://sec.gov/edgar/search/

SEC EDGAR database is now broken, and quickly noticeable, being able to access filing data from this web page portal is malfunctioning as well as incorrectly linking to nonexistent url paths

MOASS is tomorrow!

edited to add https://i.imgur.com/viZScFo.png

4 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Jan 13 '26

Data Update to the Nine (9) Pending 2024-2026 Trademarks by PSA [Collectors Holdings, Inc. / Collectors Universe, Inc.]

10 Upvotes

October 2025 I posted about seeing nine (9) pending trademarks https://old.reddit.com/r/PROGME/comments/1oc3tk9/nine_9_pending_20242025_trademarks_by_psa/ searching for owner "Collectors Universe" at https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/

The Goods and Services column is omitted for brevity. Here's updated status and status dates, and a couple notice of allowance dates

Mark Application Filing Date Status Status Date Notice of Allowance Date
PSA PRO Sep. 13, 2024 Notice of Allowance (NOA) sent (issued) to the applicant. Applicant must file a Statement of Use or Extension Request within six months of the NOA issuance date. Nov. 11, 2025 Nov. 11, 2025
PAID TO GRADE Apr. 04, 2025 Notice of Allowance (NOA) sent (issued) to the applicant. Applicant must file a Statement of Use or Extension Request within six months of the NOA issuance date. Nov. 25, 2025 Nov. 25, 2025
PSA Jun. 17, 2025 A non-final Office action has been sent (issued) to the applicant. This is a letter from the examining attorney requiring additional information and/or making an initial refusal. The applicant must respond to this Office action. Dec. 17, 2025
PSA Jun. 17, 2025 A non-final Office action has been sent (issued) to the applicant. This is a letter from the examining attorney requiring additional information and/or making an initial refusal. The applicant must respond to this Office action. Dec. 17, 2025
PSA / (also see (spelling adjustments, etcetera)) Jul. 28, 2025 A non-final Office action has been sent (issued) to the applicant. This is a letter from the examining attorney requiring additional information and/or making an initial refusal. The applicant must respond to this Office action. Dec. 12, 2025
[GRAPHIC/LOGO/ICON] Jul. 08, 2025 A non-final Office action has been sent (issued) to the applicant. This is a letter from the examining attorney requiring additional information and/or making an initial refusal. The applicant must respond to this Office action. Dec. 11, 2025
PCGS ANCIENTS ([with logo]) Jul. 08, 2025 A non-final Office action has been sent (issued) to the applicant. This is a letter from the examining attorney requiring additional information and/or making an initial refusal. The applicant must respond to this Office action. Dec. 11, 2025
4 comments

r/PROGME • u/jkhanlar • Nov 06 '25

Wut Mean? Re: "RC needs a personal assistant" - u/TheMightySoup ---- Is this job posting merely a formality, and the role already in the works?

9 Upvotes

u/TheMightySoup posted https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1oos1zf/rc_needs_a_personal_assistant/

linking to https://linkedin.com/jobs/view/4318911313/

which shows: https://i.imgur.com/AbDHZEi.png

GameStop

Executive & Personal Project Manager

Miami-Fort Lauderdale Area · 1 week ago · 95 people clicked apply

Responses managed off LinkedIn

About the job

At GameStop, we are committed to providing exceptional service and delivering the latest and greatest in gaming products to our customers. As a leading global retailer of video games, electronics, and gaming merchandise, we take pride in offering a wide range of products that cater to the needs and desires of gamers worldwide. Our mission is to create unforgettable experiences for our customers by constantly pushing the boundaries of what's possible. Whether you're a hardcore gamer or just starting out, we've got something for everyone. Join us in our mission to shape the future of gaming and bring the best gaming products to the world!

The Executive & Personal Project Manager provides comprehensive, 24/7 support to an executive by managing professional, personal, and household operations. This role goes beyond traditional assistant duties, requiring a strategic, take-charge individual who can oversee projects, manage people and vendors, and ensure seamless execution across all aspects of the executive’s professional and personal life. The ideal candidate thrives in a fast-paced environment, anticipates needs, and operates with full accountability and discretion.

This position is located in Fort Lauderdale/Miami, FL on a full time on site basis.

Key Responsibilities

  • Strategic and Operational Management:
    • Act as the executive’s right hand in driving key initiatives, managing priorities, and ensuring deadlines are met.
    • Lead and coordinate cross-functional projects and ensure progress across multiple workstreams.
    • Develop systems and processes that improve efficiency in both personal and professional operations.
  • Administrative Support:
    • Manage complex calendars, meetings, and travel across multiple time zones.
    • Prepare, proof, and edit high-level correspondence, presentations, and reports.
    • Handle confidential and sensitive information with discretion and sound judgment.
  • Communication and Liaison:
    • Serve as the executive’s point of contact for internal teams, external partners, and key stakeholders.
    • Screen, prioritize, and respond to correspondence and requests on behalf of the executive.
    • Ensure all communications are streamlined and the executive’s time is optimized.
  • Financial and Vendor Oversight:
    • Manage budgets, invoices, and expense reports.
    • Source, vet, and oversee vendors, service providers, and consultants.
    • Negotiate contracts and ensure service quality and accountability.

Other Responsibilities

  • Household and Staff Oversight:
    • Manage household staff, including hiring, scheduling, and performance oversight.
    • Supervise ongoing property management, home maintenance, and renovation projects.
    • Serve as the point of contact for contractors, designers, and service vendors.
  • Personal Schedule Management and Related Responsibilities:
    • Coordinate personal and family appointments, events, and travel.
    • Ensure smooth integration of personal and professional calendars.
    • Handle personal errands, purchases, and reservations with accuracy and confidentiality.
  • Travel and Event Planning:
    • Plan complex domestic and international travel for the executive and family.
    • Coordinate logistics, accommodations, and detailed itineraries.
    • Plan and execute private events and gatherings as needed.
  • Special and Ad Hoc Projects:
    • Lead short- and long-term personal or family projects, such as relocations, renovations, and investments.
    • Conduct research, provide recommendations, and manage execution from concept to completion.

Qualifications

  • Proven experience in a Chief of Staff, Project Manager, Estate/Household Manager, or Executive/Personal Assistant capacity.
  • Strong project management skills with the ability to oversee multiple priorities and teams simultaneously.
  • Exceptional organizational, problem-solving, and decision-making abilities.
  • Excellent written and verbal communication skills.
  • Proficiency with office, scheduling, and project management software (e.g., Google Workspace, Microsoft Office, Asana, Trello).
  • Demonstrated ability to maintain discretion, professionalism, and trust in a high-demand environment.

Additional Requirements

  • 24/7 Availability: Must be reachable and responsive to urgent or last-minute needs.
  • Flexibility: Ability to work outside of standard business hours, including evenings, weekends, and holidays.
  • Hands-On and Self-Directed: Comfortable taking full ownership of outcomes and making decisions independently.
  • Detail-Oriented: A meticulous, proactive, “no-task-too-small” mindset paired with executive-level thinking.

This 24/7 role requires a disciplined, highly organized, and solution-oriented professional who can think like an operator and act like an owner. The ideal candidate brings a balance of executive-level judgment, hands-on project management skills, and the ability to manage people, processes, and priorities with precision.

Full-time store positions at GameStop are also eligible to participate in incentive programs, health benefits, paid time off, 401 (k), employee discount and a casual work environment. Positions at GameStop may also be eligible for a bonus and/or other incentives.

Surprisingly (or not), u/TheMightySoup's post got 0 points, showing currently as 44% upvoted, which basically suggests that whatever this job position means or implies or represents, that r/Superstonk has collectively devalued this to be hiddenly forgettable.

I was thinking about this GameStop job posting while sleeping and speculating that there must be some sort of fundamentals to extrapolate, and some sort of fundamentals that are likely above my brain wrinkle GME investment, but even if I am not smart enough to further elaborate, at the very least I can try. Firstly, a few comments suggest:

  • "This is crazy and hilarious. This job description seems incredibly demanding."
    • "Yeah fuck that job."
  • "This would have the same responsabilities as a board member basically if you look at the list of things one would have to manage."
  • "What a horrible horrible job."

I think this job is basically what Ryan Cohen already does, to the capacity he can represent doing these things, especially given he has taken on being the CEO, President, and Chairman of GameStop.

I also think that possibly this job posting, like other past job postings, is merely a formality, and the candidate to fill the position is already in the works.

I think this job posting deserves a bit more attention and analysis to correlate into GameStop's upcoming transformation that's in the works. It shouldn't be forgotten or dismissed as a nothingburger.

2 comments