jersan

joined 2 years ago
 

Noticed this post on reddit, decided to give this >40 minute documentary a watch.


A review of GAMESTOP to the MOON - How Reddit almost triggered an Economic Crisis | FD Finance

★★☆☆☆

2/5, would not recommend.

TLDR: documentary focuses primarily on the events of late 2020 and early 2021, conflates AMC and GME as equivalent things, concludes with the insinuation that all AMC, GME, and NFT investors are losers that have lost almost everything


  • Title of the documentary does not match the content of the documentary. A more appropriate title might have been "the story of Reddit day traders pumping AMC and GME." That is what this documentary was about.
  • paints most of these investors as either foolish day traders or naive investors, uses words like "gambling", "casino"
  • lots of FUD sentiment throughout
  • a few of these investors made a lots of money while most investors were losers
  • 32:04 "GameStop led the way. And, as a group, the totality of the group picked AMC next.
    And, it wasn't like somebody said oh man we're all gonna go over to AMC, it's just kind of you know, that's where the flow goes, that's where the chatter goes, and AMC was the next stock."
  • for some reason, out of nowhere, in the final 5 minutes the documentary suddenly starts talking about NFTs and makes them out to be pointless. Doesn't mention GameStop's relationship with NFTs but in stead focuses on how NFTs were a speculative bubble with foolish investors, just like with AMC and GME.

Total waste of time. I don't know who the intended audience was for this, but this is just more pointless narrating about the lives of people that experienced events that happened 3 years ago, concluding that the story is over and all those people that didn't get out with gains are losers that are never going to win.

It's as if the media like this is stuck in the year 2021. Reddit. Wallstreetbets. AMC. GameStop. Day traders. Robinhood. Down 90% since peak. The end.

 

Here is another representation of GameStop's FY23 income statement, this time showing clearly that GameStop had an operating loss of $34.5 M ( compared with an operating loss of $311 M FY22 !)

If not for the $49.5 M from interest income, GameStop would not have had positive net earnings in FY23.

 

Operating loss of $35 M (compared with operating loss of $312 M in FY22)

Small but notable net earnings of $6.7 M (compared with net loss of $313 M in FY22)

How did GameStop make $50 million in interest income?

 

GameStop was profitable for the first time in 6 years

GameStop reported full-year profitability for fiscal year 2023, contradicting the prevailing media sentiment that GameStop is a terrible company destined for bankruptcy


Summary

  • On March 26, 2024, GameStop released financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended February 3, 2024, demonstrating small but not insignificant full-year profits for the first time in 6 years, despite reduced revenues. "Net income was $6.7 million for fiscal year 2023, compared to a net loss of $313.1 million for fiscal year 2022."
  • Sentiment of GameStop found in financial media continues to be negative, dishonest, and cynical, despite the undeniable but often ignored improvements to the fundamentals of the company that have been achieved by the new management team. In most cases, the fact that GameStop was profitable for the first time in 6 years is not even mentioned at all.

Historical context

From a historical point of view, GameStop was consistently profitable every fiscal year from 2005 through 2016, with the exception of 2012. Starting in fiscal year 2017, GameStop began showing reduced profitability, and from FY 2018 through FY 2022, was unprofitable.

Source: GameStop 10-K filings - Google Sheets

Looking exclusively at revenue, it is clear that there has been a significant reduction starting approximately with fiscal year 2019. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that gamers are increasingly buying games digitally rather than in the form of physical discs such as can be purchased at a brick-and-mortar retail store like GameStop.

Yet, even in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, it is clear that despite high revenues the company was not performing well.

Heading through 2020, GameStop was undeniably a struggling company facing significant challenges, and according to many was destined for bankruptcy. The trading price of GME reflected this prevailing sentiment, and the financial media was dutifully critical.


Company turnaround

In 2020, activist investor Ryan Cohen began purchasing shares of GME, ultimately becoming the largest individual owner of the company with approximately 12% ownership. By June 2021, the entire board of directors of the company was replaced by Ryan Cohen and his associates, with Ryan Cohen becoming chairman of the board. From this time onward, control of the company was completely in the hands of this new leadership team.

"We inherited a bunch of legacy everything, and under-investment across the entire business –- people, the entire technology stack, just decades of neglect, and so it’s hard to turn around a brick and mortar retailer that’s under the kind of pressure that GameStop was and continues to be under, but that was also part of the attraction going into GameStop was that a transformation the likes of GameStop was really unprecedented and I was motivated by that."

The company went from a situation where it was losing hundreds of millions of dollars per year to net profitability in fiscal year 2023.

While this is an undeniably positive result for the company in this time period, GameStop continues to face numerous challenges and must continue to improve and adapt in order to successfully compete in the modern video game industry.


Media sentiment

What does mainstream financial media have to say about GameStop achieving full-year profitability for the first time in 6 years?

Searching for recent news about GameStop yields mostly negative sentiment that fails to even mention at all that GameStop achieved full-year profitability for the first time in 6 years.

Failing to mention this important detail is a deliberate decision that reveals a clear bias in the media. It goes beyond just reporting about true negative facts about GameStop. It demonstrates a deliberate effort, by those culpable writers and media outlets, to propagate a specific sentiment about the company that is not allowed to even mention contextually important true positive facts about the company.

GameStop was profitable for the first time in 6 years - this is the news headline that captures the significance of GameStop's recent earnings report. Yet, an unassuming person who consumes mainstream financial media likely would not even learn about this important fact at all.

Who would benefit from that?


Ongoing financial conflict

Why are there competing, mutually exclusive narratives?

There are competing narratives because there are competing financial interests.

One of the listed news articles, GameStop saga ends. Winner: capital markets, from Reuters, draws some attention to this ongoing conflict while declaring that the conflict is actually over and one side has won and one side has lost.

GME shareholders that believe in the company turnaround and leadership, despite the real challenges faced by GameStop, have a vested financial interest in the success of the company, with a desire for the share price of GME to go up, and naturally will promote the narrative that supports this financial interest.

In opposition to GME shareholders are all of the financial market participants that have a vested financial interest in the share price of GME going down. An example of such a participant would be any hedge fund that has a net short position on GME. The article refers to this faction as "shorts", recogonizing that such a faction with an interest does exist. Naturally, members of this faction will promote the narrative that supports their financial interest.

If the prospect of GameStop's success was not an ongoing threat to one faction of incumbent market participants, then there would be no reason to deliberately omit the fact of GameStop's profitability, to pretend that it isn't something that even happened at all.

Recognizing that there is an ongoing financial competition between factions that stand to benefit financially from a particular outcome of the GME share price, which faction benefits when most mainstream financial media articles propagate negative sentiment about GameStop and deliberately ignore the contextually significant fact that GameStop was profitable?

It is clear: much of mainstream financial media is actively propagating biased narratives to the benefit of the faction that has a vested financial interest in the share price of GME going down.


An interactive version of this article can be found at gmetimeline.org/fy23-profitability

 

For the first 3 quarters of FY 2023, GameStop has posted a total net loss of $56.4 million.

Therefore, in order to achieve full-year profitability, GameStop must achieve greater than $56.4 million in net profit for Q4 2023.

This is certainly achievable, though not guaranteed.

Something like a $100 million net gain for Q4 is possible, but not necessarily very likely.

Therefore, in any case of full-year profitability, at best, the PE ratio for GME will almost certainly be above 100, but will more likely be in the several hundreds, or worse.

By comparison, the average PE ratio for S&P500 is around 25.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2577/sp-500-pe-ratio-price-to-earnings-chart

Some PE ratios of other companies:

  • Microsoft: 37
  • Apple: 26
  • Nvidia: 213
  • Amazon: 89
  • Alphabet: 27
  • Meta: 42
  • Berkshire Hathaway: 10

TLDR: Full-year profitability will be a momentous achievement, but in almost all cases, GME would have a very high PE ratio. Over the following quarters / years, GameStop will still need to increase profits substantially in order to obtain a good PE ratio.

 

Breakdown of GameStop stores by Technology Brands stores versus Video Game Brands stores versus all International stores

Google Sheets Link

 

And for fun,

GameStop Net Income Per Store


Fiscal Year Revenue Net Income Store Count Revenue Per Store Net Income Per Store 10-K
2005 $3,091,783,000 $100,784,000 4490 $688,593.10 $22,446.33 link
2006 $5,318,900,000 $158,250,000 4778 $1,113,206.36 $33,120.55 link
2007 $7,093,962,000 $288,291,000 5264 $1,347,637.16 $54,766.53 link
2008 $8,805,897,000 $398,282,000 6207 $1,418,704.20 $64,166.59 link
2009 $9,077,997,000 $377,265,000 6450 $1,407,441.40 $58,490.70 link
2010 $9,473,700,000 $408,000,000 6670 $1,420,344.83 $61,169.42 link
2011 $9,550,500,000 $339,900,000 6683 $1,429,073.77 $50,860.39 link
2012 $8,886,700,000 -$269,700,000 6602 $1,346,061.80 $40,851.26 link
2013 $9,039,500,000 $354,200,000 6675 $1,354,232.21 $53,063.67 link
2014 $9,296,000,000 $393,100,000 6690 $1,389,536.62 $58,759.34 link
2015 $9,363,800,000 $402,800,000 7117 $1,315,694.82 $56,596.88 link
2016 $8,607,900,000 $353,200,000 7535 $1,142,388.85 $46,874.59 link
2017 $9,224,600,000 $34,700,000 7276 $1,267,811.98 $4,769.10 link
2018 $8,285,300,000 -$673,000,000 5830 $1,421,149.23 $115,437.39 link
2019 $6,466,000,000 -$470,900,000 5509 $1,173,715.74 $85,478.31 link
2020 $5,089,800,000 -$215,300,000 4816 $1,056,852.16 $44,705.15 link
2021 $6,010,700,000 -$381,300,000 4573 $1,314,388.80 $83,380.71 link
2022 $5,927,200,000 -$313,100,000 4413 $1,343,122.59 $70,949.47 link
 
Fiscal Year Revenue Net Income Store Count Revenue Per Store Net Income Per Store 10-K
2005 $3,091,783,000 $100,784,000 4490 $688,593.10 $22,446.33 link
2006 $5,318,900,000 $158,250,000 4778 $1,113,206.36 $33,120.55 link
2007 $7,093,962,000 $288,291,000 5264 $1,347,637.16 $54,766.53 link
2008 $8,805,897,000 $398,282,000 6207 $1,418,704.20 $64,166.59 link
2009 $9,077,997,000 $377,265,000 6450 $1,407,441.40 $58,490.70 link
2010 $9,473,700,000 $408,000,000 6670 $1,420,344.83 $61,169.42 link
2011 $9,550,500,000 $339,900,000 6683 $1,429,073.77 $50,860.39 link
2012 $8,886,700,000 -$269,700,000 6602 $1,346,061.80 $40,851.26 link
2013 $9,039,500,000 $354,200,000 6675 $1,354,232.21 $53,063.67 link
2014 $9,296,000,000 $393,100,000 6690 $1,389,536.62 $58,759.34 link
2015 $9,363,800,000 $402,800,000 7117 $1,315,694.82 $56,596.88 link
2016 $8,607,900,000 $353,200,000 7535 $1,142,388.85 $46,874.59 link
2017 $9,224,600,000 $34,700,000 7276 $1,267,811.98 $4,769.10 link
2018 $8,285,300,000 -$673,000,000 5830 $1,421,149.23 $115,437.39 link
2019 $6,466,000,000 -$470,900,000 5509 $1,173,715.74 $85,478.31 link
2020 $5,089,800,000 -$215,300,000 4816 $1,056,852.16 $44,705.15 link
2021 $6,010,700,000 -$381,300,000 4573 $1,314,388.80 $83,380.71 link
2022 $5,927,200,000 -$313,100,000 4413 $1,343,122.59 $70,949.47 link
 

As many are aware, the SEC recently published Incoming No-Action Requests Under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8, and there were several shareholder proposals submitted by GME shareholders that were rejected by the company that were published there.

There have already been a few discussions of these proposals on Reddit and on X and on Discord at least.

Some of the discussions about the rejected proposals have been nothing but negative and cynical and even disparaging towards those shareholders that submitted proposals.

So I just wanted to make this post to express some gratitude towards those shareholders that submitted a proposal, despite that GameStop rejected them.

It's really easy to criticize. It's very easy to sit behind a keyboard and put other people down while otherwise contributing nothing. It takes almost no effort to do this.

It's hard to build things, it's much easier to destroy things.

Those shareholders that submitted proposals are the types of people that are builders. They are activists. They are building and advancing our collective knowledge.

Some other people are not builders. They are destroyers. They revel when the builders struggle. They celebrate when the builders face setbacks. They scorn and shame the builders for having tried at all.

I sincerely appreciate the efforts of any shareholder that took the time and energy to submit a proposal, any proposal at all, even if it gets rejected.

Every little thing that GME shareholders do that produces additional knowledge is beneficial overall to all shareholders.

Some parties out there in the world that are in opposition to GME shareholders don't like this. They don't like it when GME shareholders get loud and get active. They would much prefer it if we would all just shut up and go away and forget GameStop.

That's not going to happen. I for one am not going anywhere.

🍻

[–] jersan@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

nice post OP! love your original art.

it often takes me a while to figure out what it says when looking at the static images. this one took me a solid 2 minutes.

TERMINATE DSPP!

[–] jersan@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 1 points 1 year ago

Another example, January 29, 2024.

Why do they do this shit? What possible benefit do the moderators of superstonk get by posting this? Why are they trying so hard to stay in control of the narrative? Why do they act as if they are an authority on this topic?

 

The last time GameStop posted positive full-year earnings was in 2017.

There has been a fair amount of talk of GameStop posting full-year profitability for the 2023 fiscal year, which is definitely within reach, but not guaranteed.

If GameStop posts full year earnings for FY23, it will be the first time in 6 years. It will be a momentous occasion!

It will also demonstrate that the prevailing sentiment put out by mainstream media doesn't reconcile with the reality that this company is not the loser that they want the world to think it is.

[–] jersan@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 4 points 1 year ago

sorry, correction, not ALL of the information in the chart was exclusively from that section of the 10-Q, there was also this section of the revenue:

 

December 6, 2023: GameStop reports 2023 Q3 quarterly results


Net loss of $3.1 million for the quarter


All of the information in this diagram is derived from this section of the 10-Q:


Earnings discussion thread (December 6, 2023)

[–] jersan@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

all in all it was a decent movie.

"but it doesn't talk about [insert thing here] so therefore it was not good!"

i disagree with that notion. no such thing as bad press, and all that, and this movie isn't even bad press. it was fun and entertaining, which is typically the purpose of most movies. it was not a fact-based documentary, it's hollywood entertainment that is shining a light on an important story.

i do find it funny how much hate the movie is getting in superstonk.

In any kind of situation, sorry if I sound like a broken record here, but I always ask myself: who benefits?

We know that Public Relations is something that exists as an industry and as a component of businesses. Businesses use PR in order to shape public perception, away from something negative and sensitive to the business and towards something positive and helpful for the business.

E.g.: what did tobacco / cigarette companies do when research started coming out demonstrating that cigarettes caused cancer? Were those companies honest and forthright, and admit to this true reality even though admitting it would hurt their sales? Or did they do everything in their ability to obfuscate the truth and confuse people, because those actions led to an outcome of continued profits for the company?

We know that wall street and other industries make use of shill farms. Shill farms are basically the modern evolution of PR. If you are a wealthy and powerful incumbent and you are not using shill farms, you will fall behind and lose control of the narrative.

so, in a contest of "promote Dumb Money because it brings positive attention to GameStop", versus "Dumb Money sucks and was bad and was not good and I hated it and it didn't properly represent the story", which one of these thought processes is helpful to GME investors and which one is not?

And in consideration of that, why is it that superstonk is so loaded with antagonism towards this movie?

[–] jersan@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 5 points 1 year ago

I think you might be right, though it is impossible to know for sure.

Like how the price started pumping a few days prior to December 6 earnings because those earnings were going to be decent and cause a positive reaction. So they get ahead of the positive reaction by preemptively pumping it beforehand for the purpose of preventing or slowing any momentum. This is what i suspect happened and may happen again in March of this year prior to earnings date.

[–] jersan@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Another kind of example of the censorship and confusion on this topic that continues to happen to this very day. It is for this reason why the subject needs to be repeatedly discussed and understood by as many GME shareholders as possible, because to this very day they continue to censor and confuse this topic to varying degrees.

January 23, 2024: a post that provides good information about the distinction between DRS and DSPP numbers gets removed from superstonk.

Even if well intentioned, posts like these ultimately are encouraging selling of shares, turning off autobuys, and sowing distrust in ComputerShare. The sources provided don’t back up these claims and how one person is interpreting this does not mean it’s fact. Please do your own due diligence when it comes to making decisions for your investment. Rule 6.

Why is this topic so contentious? Why has there been a sustained campaign to censor and confuse this specific topic, the topic of the distinction of DSPP and DRS, the fact that plan is not DRS?

Who benefits if it is crystal clear and all GME investors understand the truth? GME investors benefit. Who benefits if it is confusing and controversial and omitted (censored) from conversation? Not GME investors.

[–] jersan@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Great post. Insightful but not surprising.

From the perspective of a money-seeking billionaire like this, everything in the world is only as valuable as its measurement in dollars. Really, this type of behavior is completely normal and maybe even "smart", from the perspective of a capitalist system that rewards greed above all else.

If I am not mistaken, I also read that both Meta and Google, during the big hiring spree of 2021 / 2022, deliberately over-hired thousands of employees with no real work for them, just so that the competitors couldn't get those employees.

Imagine having so much excessive money that you can pay thousands of employees just to do nothing, simply so that your competitors might not get them.

Corporate behavior in modern capitalism is pretty fucked up. It's great if you are one of the few ultra wealthy individuals and all you care about is making more money than you even know what to do with. But beyond them, it's a ruthless and unfair system that will spit you out without a second thought, if it means some rich bastard can make even more money.

[–] jersan@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 5 points 2 years ago

I agree!

I did start such a list but it is by no means comprehensive. Someone can take that info and expand on it :)

[–] jersan@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 3 points 2 years ago

oh man. thanks OP for reminding me of this.

I was going to leave a comment here but I am going to make a post about it in stead.

TLDR:

CNBC is financial propaganda designed to further the interests of its owners.

The owners of CNBC is Wall Street, and what Wall Street wants is more money and power for themselves and less for everybody else.

Therefore, CNBC's purpose for existence is to help Wall Street get more money and power for themselves and less for everybody else.

[–] jersan@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Don't forget to make sure your dividend reinvestment plan is set up again!"

Why? Why say this?

view more: ‹ prev next ›