Still think TITNC3: Return of the Iceberg was peak

Can someone explain this "share dividend" thing to me? I know what a split is, and I know what a dividend is, but combining the two makes little sense to me.

 

Without knowing what the split is from 300M shares to 1B shares smells like dilution to me.

 

Regular split just chops the shares into pieces. Dividend split (traditionally) issues new shares to existing shareholders.

Dividend split could also mean a token type of split, but that's still just speculation at this point.

 

It's still a split. It's not a share issuance lol

 

Do they maintain the same value, or does the value drop to 1/3 like a normal 3-1 split.

So say I have 30 shares worth $200 each, after the split I will have 60 shares, but they will be worth $66 each.

 

It's both. The math doesn't work unless some shares stay with corporate.

Let's say 3:1 as best case. That's 3M x 3 = 900M. There are asking for an increase to 1B. Where do those missing 100M shares go? lol

 

Everything should drop to the split value (shares, FTDs, naked short shares)

The token dividend side of a split hasn't been tested in any company with any substantial valuation.

I have a great deal of faith in the GME leadership team, so I'm willing to wait and watch.

 

Basically in escrow if they need them to do another split because the share price climbs faster than expected...

The 1b isn't issued shares. GME as of today can increase their float to 300m shares. They're voting on access to another 1b.

Those shares don't exist in the market. They're there on paper if the company needs to issue them

 

So the short values drop to 1/3, but the amount of them increases by 3.... Interesting... 20,000,000 naked shorts just became 60,000,000 shorts.

 

Essentially, yes

 

I feel like the hedge funds just went from fist fighting 2 teenagers to 30 5th graders.... yea each one is weaker, but now there are so many to fight off at once.

 

Correct. Which is called, wait for it,




Dilution. lol

 

Dilution would be issuing new shares from nothing, not subdividing existing shares.

For example a 4:1 split goes as follows:

4:1 split is equivalent to 4/.25 is equivalent to 1

That's in comparison to issuing 225m new shares which would be dilution.

 

Ancillary dilution at best. So yah, if the company issues dividend shares to the existing stock holders, and a couple of them sell, then yes, you can say the float was diluted by about 30 shares.


That's what I've been trying to express for over a year now. You've got a rabid band of retards who are not selling anything. Those dividend issued shares are not going onto the market aside from minuscule numbers.


"How many times do we have to teach you this, old man"

 

...No. It's not.

I'm hardly a GME tinfoil hat wearer at Kairo's level, but what GME has announced here is seeking shareholder approval to raise the share issuance limit to 1Bil shares. That current limit is 300mil, of which they have issued the current float of 76.whatever million.

The rationale for this is that they intend to split the stock (one assumes they want flexibility in the split ratio that may exceed the current 300m limit).

Whether you do a straight 2:1 split and stock value drops by half or you do a 2:1 split with the extra share as a dividend and stock value drops by half, the market capitalization of the company is unchanged and ownership is unchanged.

Dilution would require issuance of new shares without a split.

 

Plus that isn't an out for hedgies like actual (AMC) dilution issuing new shares.

A 4:1 split means the previous 75m shares you owed are now 300m shares owed.

 

We're starting into some misapplication of terms here.

A stock float can't be "diluted". Only value can be - the term is applied to shares because shares are nothing more than a representation of value.

 

Pipe down professor

 

Ruining your show?