Amateur analyst with a strong conviction play. Occasional deep-dives on what catches my eye. Do your own research. $GME
Joined September 2021
- Tweets665
- Following95
- Followers2.2K
- Likes2.6K
NaiveAnalyst retweeted
Our message to Nvidia's board:
Do not fire Jensen Huang.
There is no clear replacement for Jensen Huang. We are confident that his departure would ultimately be a net negative for Nvidia, its shareholders, and the AI Revolution.
First, take a look at the data. History also suggests that removing a successful CEO will come with a significant cost.
A study of 187 forced CEO departures from S&P 1500 companies found that removing outperforming CEOs resulted in negative long-term stock returns. This case would be no different, in our view.
Jensen Huang is the definition of an outperforming CEO. Nvidia's board must not make a decision in the heat of the moment.
The board should take the time to conduct a thorough investigation and consult with shareholders, with a strong emphasis on the latter.
Quite literally, Nvidia's board should convene a special shareholder meeting and hold an advisory vote on this decision. This is the most consequential CEO controversy in world history. Shareholders deserve a say.
In addition, Nvidia's stock, $NVDA, is now down -35% in 26 trading days, nearly half of which is a result of the recent scandal.
We believe Jensen Huang's potential removal as CEO is now ~80% priced in.
Why take an action with massive downside potential when the market has already priced in much of that risk?
The downside of retaining Huang may be limited, while the potential upside is tremendous.
Lastly, history shows that retaining Jensen Huang could still lead to a favorable outcome. In 2019, Amazon retained Jeff Bezos as CEO after his extramarital affair became public, and the company's stock subsequently surged +108% by 2021.
Personal misconduct should not be ignored, but it must also be distinguished from corporate wrongdoing and weighed against the consequences of removing an executive who is instrumental to the company's success.
We believe Jensen Huang is an irreplaceable part of Nvidia and the AI Revolution more broadly.
Once the dust settles, firing Jensen Huang would prove to be a costly mistake.
It is time to pause and consult your shareholders.
Not a tinfoil guy at all, but after all this insider buying (and I don't think we're done yet), some things are starting to make sense.
I think the "Fine, I'll do it myself" frame in the quoted post is pointing straight at Ryan Cohen, who's backing the stock's momentum with his own money. Was that the signal Keith was waiting for? It would fit, since the very next frame in that video shows the cat waking up.
And it fits even better with Keith's last post on January 23, 2025: "I'll wait for you." Maybe he's been waiting for Cohen to make his move. And that move is happening now.
NFA. This tinfoil is as smooth-brained as I am. I know nothing, and all of this will probably turn out to be a nothingburger.
$GME
Unpopular opinion: Cohen committing $500M of his own money, plus a $2B buyback authorization, beats Roaring Kitty coming back.
$GME
On one side: a stock market running on air. Mega-caps at record multiples, a $1.77T IPO that crashed within weeks, and now a company heading to IPO at $2T after a $42B net loss. All while geopolitics burns.
On the other… just $GME.
A CEO who bought 2.6M shares with his own money this month alone. $57M out of pocket, at market price and 3 directors buying right alongside him.
If that's not alignment with shareholders, I don't know what is.
They're telling us in every way they can.
The $GME trailing 7-day average volume is 38% above the 30-day average and 63% above the 1-year average. Volume is here.
(Average shares traded per day over last 7 sessions: 11.61M, last 30 sessions: 8.39M and last year: 7.11M)
2
79
3,132
GME is my highest-conviction play, but I wouldn't use P/E to argue it's cheaper than Chewy.
That 16x sits on earnings that are largely not retail. In H1 2026 GME reported ~$690M of net income, while booking over $500M of pre-tax mark-to-market gains on its eBay derivatives and stake, plus ~$160M of interest income on its cash pile. Paper gains can reverse as fast as they appear: Q2 also carried a $75M bitcoin loss.
The operating business is genuinely improving: record Q2 operating income, and collectibles are now ~45% of sales.
And P/E says nothing about what GME is turning into: a Berkshire-style capital allocator with a $4.9B eBay stake and $5.4B in cash, securities and digital assets.
$GME
Ryan Cohen just bought another 1,150,680 $GME shares with his own money, about $26.4m . Alain Attal added 17,500 shares, for about $400k .
That's the second round in eleven days after Sept 10, whn Cohen bought 1m shares at $20.38 and Attal 5,000 at $20. So RC is at roughly $47m of open-market buying this month, and it’s worth noting that the second batch went in at a higher price than the first.
As I said before, quoting Peter Lynch: insidrs sell for a hundred reasons, but they buy for only one.
Stack that on top of $1.4b of converts retired, full-year adjusted EBITDA guidance raised to over $650m, a first half that already beats any full year of net income in company history, and a live bid for eBay, and the next sneeze might not need the cat at all. Rather, it'll come from the people running the company.
Here’s my theory. Since GameStop moves inversely to the market, the Inverse Cramer effect should be bullish.
$GME
@jimcramer says @gamestop is a buy 😳 $GME
Hell has frozen over lmao
(at 1:40 in the clip)
cnbc.com/video/2026/09/17/li…
3
17
2,013
1. “Insiders might sell their shares for any number of reasons, but they buy them for only one: they think the price will rise.”
- Peter Lynch
2. “What I find is that any insider buying is better than no insider buying. But there’s a couple things I love to see in particular: buying by prominent execs — CEO, chairman of the board, CFO — buying by a large number of insiders. Three to four is good. Five-plus is better.
…..
And then finally, just seeing if the insiders are buying after the stock has sold off — when it’s potentially cheap and potentially at an inflection point. If the company is seemingly on an inflection point and they’re buying, that could be an indication of something that’s unfolding.”
- Keith Gill.
$GME
While I'm genuinely excited about what GME reported for Q2, a couple of things are worth flagging in full transparency.
•Revenue came in at $790.2m against a $756.85m consensus, a clean 4.4% beat ✅
•GAAP diluted EPS was $0.51 against $0.27 expected ✅
•But adjusted diluted EPS landed at exactly $0.27, dead on the estimate. So the EPS beat is the eBay marks.
Tax expense went from $6.0m to $121.5m year over year, and $9.5m to $238.3m for the half. The shield from the loss years isn't doing the work it used to, though $123.5m of that charge is deferred per the cash flow statement, so cash actually paid is closer to $115m . I'll know more when the 10-Q lands and the tax note is readable.
Either way, look at what happened: first half net income was $213.4m last year on $9.5m of tax. This year it's $688.3m after $238.3m .Triple the bottom line while absorbing a huge jump in tax. 3.22x after tax, 4.16x pre-tax.
Second thing, and I'd rather say it than have it said to me: a large chunk of that $688m is the gain on the eBay derivative, not the stores. Strip the marks and adjusted net income for the half is $345.5m against $219.2m . Still up 58%.
Now the core business part we all care about: gross margin at 43.7% from 29.1%, operating income of $160.2m at a 20% margin, collectibles at 45% of sales and growing 57%.
The business holds up without a single mark-to-market gain in it.
Now, with these stunning financials, let's watch our beloved stock tank ♥️
Can’t stop. Won’t stop. GameStop
$GME
6
63
3,210
The math checks out: 593m matches the reported diluted count: 592.3m in Q1, about 144m of which come from the converts; the $10b is gross cash plus the eBay stake,which is the correct treatment once you assume full conversion.
But the exchange in the parentheses closed today, so noteholders get 55.5m shares plus $358.4m in cash for $1.4b of notes. That $1.4b was already sitting inside the 593m as roughly 48m shares, ata contractual conversion price near $29. Settling at market instead means more shares for the same debt, and cash going out the door on top of it.
So: ~600m shares at $19 is $11.4b, cash plus eBay drops to $9.65b, and EV is $1.75b rather than $1.3b .
That puts EV/EBIT at 3.6x.
There are also 59.2m warrants from the October 2025 distribution sitting outsid the dilutd count entirely.
The bigger question is the subtraction itself. The eBay stake isn’t cash, so netting it at market assumes you can just walk away with it. It’s an equity position tied up in a pending hostile bid, and it’s taxed: Q1 booked $116.8m of income tax against those gains.
Still cheap and extremely undervalued though.
Am I missing something?
$GME
Am I thinking about $GME right?
(ignoring recent convertible exchanges)
593m share count assumes all debt converts to equity x $19/sh = $11.3b market cap
Less $10b net cash & ebay stock = $1.3b EV
Trailing GAAP EBIT for underlying retail stores = $480m
EV/EBIT at 2.7x
1
13
2,574
Think again.
Q2 operating income over the same period:
2018: +$21.6 million
2019: -$446.7 million
2020: -$85.6 million
2021: -$58.0 million
2022: -$107.8 million
2023: -$16.6 million
2024: -$22.0 million
2025: +$66.4 million
2026: +$150 - 170 million (preliminary)
Two of those need context: 2019 is almost entirely goodwill impairment, and 2018 still included Spring Mobile, sold that January, while everything else is the business.
Revenue is down because GameStop closed stores, sold France, and lapped the Switch 2 launch, menwhile gross margin went up as the mix shifted toward collectibles and pre-owned, and SG&A came down from $387.5 million in Q2 2022 to $218.8 million in Q2 2025.
If you want to look at it from another angle,netincome tells the same story (Q2):
-$24.9M in 2018
-$2.8M in 2023
+$14.8M in 2024
+$168.6M in 2025,
+$290-310M preliminary this quarter.
Lowest Q2 revenue in a decade and the best Q2 operating income in a decade, in the same quarter.
$GME
