Gamestop in Canada isn't owned by Gamestop in the US. They were also historically unprofitable so people might be in the stores but they aren't buying enough.
>A fraction of that profit does come from interest income.
More than half of it came from interest income.
Gamestop has been unable to grow revenue since Cohen took over, failed initiative after failed initiative. The only thing saving them is their meme stock nature and a legion of people willing to throw good money after bad allowing them to dilute shareholders to build a warchest.
They have increased profit by closing something like 50% of their stores but you can't grow a retail company by constantly closing stores at some point you have to find a way to make the stores more profitable and in 5 years with tons of different attempts they've not found that. Revenue is down almost 50% in the past 3 years.
Having a pile of cash doesn't matter if you have a leader who has no good ideas for how to invest it to improve returns for shareholders, all it does is allow you to die for longer.
Not growing revenue would be one thing, they're shedding revenue at pace - 50% decline since 2020.
> Shareholders seem to agree
First, it's a meme stock. The market can remain irrational for long periods. Another way to analyze it - almost all of the market cap of ~$10b is the $9b in cash. The shareholder pricing tells you they value the business at it's cash assets.
Gamestop's business of physically selling video games, consoles, etc is a dying/dead industry. Nothing can change the trajectory of the market that is almost completely disappeared.
It's a Blockbuster or Tower Records, a dead business running on fumes and memestock valuation.
A strong cash position business like that is effectively a finance sort of business, in other words, exactly the kind well positioned to go conduct an LBO.
> A strong cash position business like that is effectively a finance sort of business
You are conflating companies that make a lot of cash (and therefore can afford debt service) to a company that has limited cash flow, but has a large pile of cash.
The shareholders would be best served by a special dividend of the cash. Management has shown zero ability to grow a business.
In this case, the shareholders don't want a special dividend and prefer to own a company that has a strong cash position. There is nothing at all wrong with shareholders choosing that.
There are plenty of other stocks to invest in if one wants a highly-leveraged company that is trying to grow really fast.
Tightening your belt is a good thing. No disagreement there but it has a hard limit. You can't just keep tightening the belt and growing profit, at some point you have to start revenue expansion again and from what I've seen Gamestop has no way to do that.
At $2.50 they had massive amounts of debt they couldn't service and a very real chance of going out of business. Then through pure luck they became a meme and were able to extract $10b from investors so of course they are worth more today. There is no growth story though so as meme investors get bored and move on it will move back down to it's asset value unless they find a way to grow again.
The meme investors can stay irrational long before gamestop gets a growth story. If they haven't given up on their get rich quick scheme that's lasted over five years now, I really don't think they're going to jump ship now.
The sad part is that gamestop is offering 55 billion, yet only has 9 billion in cash. The only way they come up with that much capital to buy ebay is to dilute the existing shareholders to a point that "to the moon" will just be moondust.
Well hey, what do you think about them buying eBay? eBay seems to think a lot of the value is in verification - grading cards, authenticating watches, shoes, handbags. GameStop has a similar business in collectibles and could provide eBay with a physical footprint that would let a lot of that verification happen easier, in-store.
I honestly don't know anything about ebay these days to comment on them but many many people have tried to make a business of providing a storefront for ebay in the past and they've basically all failed so I don't think that bodes well for the main offering Gamestop has.
Also Gamestops verification business is not done in stores AFAIK. I'm pretty sure they've just partnered with PSA to allow you to drop off cards at stores but they are sent away to be authenticated. The stores don't really add any value for most people in this transaction and add a potential downside in that there are multiple reports of Gamestop store employees stealing cards handed over for grading.
Training retail employees to be proper verifiers seems like a huge risk and a huge cost since you need to train them up on how to handle everything where with centralised grading locations you can have specialists(think antiques roadshow).
The verification stuff is minimal. That's not where eBay makes it's bulk of money but it's a reasonable growth area. There's a huge opportunity though for eBay or someone to tie several loose ends and concepts together and have a serious competitor to Amazon.
I have a list in reminders called names so when someone tells me their name as soon as I can use my phone without it being impolite I open it up and add a quick note with the names.
- neighbour watering lawn Jack, wife Gemma, daughter Jane
Then I try to remember it later in the day and confirm with the note. I do that the next couple days and it's locked in and I can delete the note.
I've found that the same works for me when I put forth the tiny bit of time and effort to actually do it.
Just a quick note somewhere (phone is easy-enough, or for a long time I carried a waterproof Field Notes notebook with a Fisher Space Pen and that worked a bit better), to be reviewed later.
Maybe that review happens an hour from now. Maybe it happens in a week, or a month. Or maybe all of these. Refreshers are good.
I don't even have to write much, if anything, about the person; the mere act of taking down the names usually helps a ton with my ability to recall the context later.
If I can remember when and where I took that note (which I can often do very easily), then the rest of the details fill themselves in quite nicely.
(I don't erase the notes, so as to let them remain useful to me later. I don't care if that creeps anyone out; my intentions are pure and the problem I'm trying to solve is very real. Its creep-value is really no worse than the contact lists that I've transferred between cell phones, pocket computers, and now pocket supercomputers for nearly a quarter of a century.)
The creep-value of keeping your lists is zero. It's no different to a journal or the options you gave.
I just delete the ones from mine after a while since they aren't needed and makes it more likely to lose focus on the new ones I'm still actively remembering.
In that case though Paramount offloaded 25% to foreign wealth funds and had Larry Ellison willing to provide guarantee on(according to google) almost $50b of debt.
For a long time ask.com had one of the only Google ad feeds allowing them to programatically request ads from Google to show on their search pages and for some reason instead of implementing it themselves they used a company I worked for to do it so for some time a lot of the ads on ask.com were actually google or yahoo ads running through a random ad server I wrote. I remember having to move our systems to make sure we were in a data centre as close as possible to them and Google/Yahoo since we had (I think?)50ms to receive a request from them, contact google and yahoo for ad inventory, merge them and return it to ask to show on the page.
"I remember having to move our systems to make sure we were in a data centre as close as possible to them and Google/Yahoo…"
Hurricane Electric comes to mind. A friend rents rack space there and I tagged along a few times when he was installing a new server, etc. Wild place. A bit of security to even get in. In one of the huge rooms where his rented rack is, 5 meters or so of racks with the same noisy hardware—"Might be Pinterest", my friend suggested.
Other racks literally enclosed within a welded wire cage…
My company's cage was the unfortunate neighbor of Google's cage at Exodus SC3 in Santa Clara. Even then, Google's compute density was much higher than industry standards. They didn't rack-mount their servers; they basically extracted every part that wound be in a case (motherboard, PSU, disks, heat sinks, etc.) and laid it on a cork board shelf. They then placed the boards two units deep, so if you needed to service the unit in back, you'd have to remove the unit in front first. These were all wired like spaghetti to an HP switch sitting on top of the cabinet. It looked like a meth head's house. Here's a photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_data_centers#/media/Fil...
Anyway, the heat emanating from their space was absolutely insane. Our servers would have random thermal shutdowns because their excess heat was penetrating our space, and this impacted our overall ability both to serve and to get some sleep as we were paged 24x7.
This was before modern cold/hot aisle DC designs, so the only thing that could be done was for the colo facility to add more air conditioning. They set up some spot coolers that helped, but we moved to a different facility about as fast we could.
I ended up with a host called GoGrid since they were able to offer a mix of dedicated servers and cloud for when we needed to burst and they had space in 365 Main Street SF. I went to visit their team while in town and they took me for a tour of the data centre and it was very much like that with them pointing to random racks as being owned by X, Y, and Z. It feels embarrassing to say but I was a bit star struck by the servers.
They were arbing keywords through this: they'd place ads directly on Google for low-cost keywords, which would link to an ask.com search results page that itself would display Google ads through that partnership, but with a UI designed (more than Google itself) to trick people into clicking them. Seemingly they were able to find combinations that made this profitable.
The "Search Partner network" in general is one of the ways that Google Ads milks (scams?) unsophisticated buyers: unless you turn it off, you're paying for ads that are shown to confused users on sketchy results pages that you have no real insight into, not just the Google results page itself. The traffic from them is garbage.
>one of the ways that Google Ads milks (scams?) unsophisticated buyers
The average advertiser has no clue about this. Google's role in the advertising ecosystem has been as a scammer and monopolist for many years now. Unfortunately, every major ad network learned from them, and they all have a similar trick default setting.
The latest scam from Google is PMAX, where you YOLO your placements/ad creative/landing page combos to Google and they optimize it automatically. This serves as an optimal mechanism to funnel your ads to the most fraudulent publishers, who's army of employees fills out your forms and bypasses bot protections most effectively. Google's team will then helpfully recommend to "ummm... maybe block their IPs?". Absolute racket.
There really isn't too much more to it but happy to try and answer any specific questions. I wasn't involved in the business dealings at all so I have no clue why it happened. System was originally written in PHP and I later rewrote it in Erlang as we got more sources so I could contact all the networks for ads at the same time. It was a very lightweight system the click handler was the heavier one.
51% attack on bitcoin doesn't let you remove coins from someones wallet it allows you to change which transaction history is considered the real one. So you could send someone bitcoin then do a 51% attack to make the chain without that transaction longest so you get to keep your bitcoin but you can't use it to just take money out of someone elses wallet.
> doesn't let you remove coins from someones wallet it allows you to change which transaction history is considered the real one
Potato potahto.
“You’ve got it all wrong officer, I wasn’t talking money from his wallet, I was changing history such that the money was transferred to my wallet instead.”
It's not about if one is wrong or not it's about what you can do with it. With a 51% attack you need to have a recent transaction to the wallet you want to attack and have received economic benefit from the transaction already.
It allows you do to a refund it doesn't allow you to take random bitcoins from a wallet.
ads definitely aren't dead. Though ads on random networks like adsense probably are because the quality of traffic is horrendous. Basically every beginner adwords guide will have you disable network traffic(turn off adsense).
Advertising direct on sites is still very valuable.
It's been like 10 years since I worked in the space but I'm pretty sure showing adsense on search results like that has been against the tos for a very long time unless you get a specific search feed(which is basically impossible these days and even 15 years ago was limited to companies like ask.com)
You have to agree to have read the policies when signing up and they've always been pretty clear about placement rules. Not placing ads on non-content pages is a pretty basic rule and would clearly apply to this since a search result is non-content.
Interesting. It seems like a ToS violation would have been worthy of a warning and revoking the offending earnings, but nope, it was no mercy or review.
or at least an explanation. That would of course require a customer service apparatus designed to service customers rather than one designed to force them to become tangled in the abyssal morass.
OP in this case isn't the customer, they are a supplier who has agreed to terms then decided to go against that agreement in a way that allowed scammers and himself attempt to defraud Googles actual customers.
OP isn't the good guy in this story. Them breaking a very basic, clearly worded rule assisted in fraud. Of course they deserve to be banned from the network if they can't even follow that rule.
Also all the other people in this story complaining about their rates falling off a cliff can blame people like OP who place ads in places they shouldn't leading to low quality traffic. No one wants to buy network ads if they have quality anymore.
I don't get the impression that the OP was deliberately breaking the ToS. That doesn't mean they weren't violation but you usually inform someone when they are breaking the rules, even if you are taking punitive measures. It would be like arresting someone and never telling them what they are being arrested for. Not only is it scummy behavior to not tell them but it also doesn't effectively communicate to others that the thing won't be tolerated.
If I hire someone to do a job for me and find out they are breaking rules to try and get additional money from me and my clients I don't owe them anything.
The scummy behaviour is agreeing to only put the ads on content pages then immediately putting them on search result pages to attempt to extract more money from advertisers.
I feel like you're not quite understanding the level of fraud in advertising. There is a reason all the networks are quick to fire publishers/affiliates because the ones that aren't go broke paying out for fraud.
If you don't think that people are entitled to know why their service is being terminated then I don't think we having anything else to discuss. enjoy your day
Even though Google provides the software to manage the interaction the publisher is the supplier in this agreement, they tried to defraud the client.
No one owes anything to someone that tried to scam them out of money. I also don't send replies to every phishing attempt explaining why I'm blocking their email.
Go click on new with readdead enabled. Do you believe HN owes every banned spammer an explanation on why their account was banned?
The person would have agreed to the placement rules when they signed up then went and broke them leading to Google and advertisers being defrauded by a bot. Why would you expect mercy there?
So I've been online for over 30 years now and literally every community I've been a part of with over 1000 members eventually has someone build basically this exact same thing. It's about as original and unique as starting a t-shirt business or a discount card for students.
As for your claims that people like it because lots of people were using it, you are being ignorant. People in the community refresh on sites like this/flock to them because of fear. They are afraid of what people are saying about themselves and their friends.
I guarantee if you actually polled users you'd find the vast vast majority of them would wish the site didn't exist. Usage != Support.
No you’re completely wrong on this. Almost all of the discussion was just fun stuff, “oh i like this guy” “this girl is cute” “im crushing on him” etc etc. there were a few bad comments, which btw i dont think comments on the internet should bother you that much, cos itll make your life harder only, but still any bad comments i was deleting when told
reply