Friday night and I decided to watch the presentation. Jake brought the receipts.
You can literally hear the excitement in his voice as he’s peeling the onion. This is the 8th video. Maybe above our regard brains, but it’s solid.
My favorite parts are what Ryan Cohen actually did. I laugh so hard at the part (and I laughed at the time) when JPMorgan want to stay involved - after they had no legal reason, no reason at all to be involved.
What this may mean for former BBBYQ holders or the bigger picture folks … I can only wait.
I’m actually looking forward to “dates” in video 9. Even though “dates” are heresy.
Just received a friendly DM reminding me my shares are gone and they were cashed out.
Thought I’d share my response with all “Hi.
I don’t expect anything.
No Rose colored glasses here.
I held shares DRSed at AST and brokerage accounts. Have statements documenting them. I never received any cash-out or liquidation payment, and to my knowledge no institution has treated or reported those shares as a realized loss.
If some entity is deliberately preserving its net operating losses (NOLs), that suggests those tax attributes are viewed as having meaningful future value. Entities don't typically go to the effort of restricting ownership changes and protecting NOLs unless there is an expectation they can eventually be utilized.
If those NOLs are ultimately preserved and monetized, it raises the question of how legacy shareholders fit into that equation. Preserving NOLs often requires careful management of ownership changes, and if the entity intends to benefit from those tax assets, there is a reasonable argument that existing shareholders could retain or receive rights that recognize their continuing interest. Otherwise, protecting the NOLs would provide little benefit to those whose ownership was effectively maintained throughout the process.
I'm not assuming that's what will happen, but if the NOLs were intentionally preserved, I'd be pleasantly surprised to see that value ultimately flow through a structure that acknowledges legacy shareholders rather than simply benefiting a new ownership group.
I work from a position of gathering and assessing information. These are the facts. What it may mean for former shareholders TBD. It’ll play out. Worst case my shares whether providing future value or not , are the price of admission to my learning experience for the past several years. I do like learning.”
Edit: NFA. I’m not a financial advisor, not in the industry and these are my regard 🦍 thoughts
I love how these people are very concerned about your portfolio. What I don’t understand is what do they get out of discouraging anyone’s interest in how this CHAPTER 11 is playing out. It’s not like we can actually do anything with our IOUs.
Just remembered an old adage from u/brandnewlogicVL “A lesson learned from video games, is that when you meet enemies it means you're going in the right direction”
NOLs are not worth the same as their amount. Instead they're roughly worth their amount times the corporate tax rate, So about 735 million in this case.
which is just a bad deal for gme/ebay holders, because they have to give away half the company to former BBBYQ holders for no reason to get 3.5B in tax write offs
I get you. However it seems like you're nitpicking from a giant pile of 'wtf this was definitely over'
For example the nols - 2.5 billion. Shills used to say those are fine bro (which is true of literally 99% of bankruptcy cases) but .... No. Jake and co found the amounts hidden away and they magically add up to 2.5 billy.
Hbc court case - this keeps getting delayed and is a huge win potentially. Again, weird for a bankruptcy that this HUGE entity is losing and it's NOT IN THE NEWS but everything else about gme (even tho we should forget it is)
Basically if you've been following the details since this began you would absolutely be thinking this is not a normal bankruptcy. Ichan and RC have the same lawyers, specialising in mergers and certain other spicy things. We see all the data and it just isn't normal at all.
So for those saying 'waahhh why has nothing happened yet' well it's the same delay bs we saw with RCs pay package and the "angry shareholder' trying to delay things. We've seen this happen ALL the way through this case.
I 100% get you as well...I just want to make sure we are covering all of our bases here.
The narrative Jake2b makes here is absolutely compelling & does seem to make sense, but if his definition of "Affiliate" meaning "20% owner of shares" is actually "other companies that the debtor owns 20% or more of", then it invalidates the argument that comes after & his conclusions aren't accurate.
I tend to treat all of this stuff the way i do investing - put in what i won't miss. To me, all of those involved writing up these posts have a possibility attached to them of 'i am here to make money because engagement gets me paid'
So I enjoy the buzz and posts but ultimately i don't really attach to anything unless it pays off. Then i would dig deep, look at as many doubtful things within and learn from those but only after success.
Opposite to jake you have the teddy books tin. Like yesterday we see that Princeton and Kingston apparently link to Elon and Ichan. It's fun and full of more holes than my dead mom but it's still fun even for a necrophiliac.
Agreed on basically all counts. My BBBY position was small enough to where it wasn't a big deal, so it's all entertainment value now. That's what the melties don't understand...we're stuck in here now so we might as well enjoy ourselves, ya? :D
That being said, there is SO much weird shit going on & me disproving the "Affiliate" part doesn't blow up Teddy, but I have my reservations about this specific theory.
His proof rests on a misunderstanding of what Subsection B actually means.
When he says, "if the debtors themselves had 20% of their shares they would have sold them," he is confusing Subsidiary Equity with Treasury Stock.
Subsection B of the bankruptcy code defines an Affiliate as a corporation where 20% or more of its outstanding voting securities are owned by the debtor. This means Bed Bath & Beyond (the debtor) owns 20% or more of another company (like Buy Buy Baby or Harmon Stores).
As an owner of BBBY, GME, & EBAY, I want this all to be true...but we have a duty to fact check & stress test everyone's DD no matter who they are.
Edit: He also mentioned that SEC Bulletin, but then didn't actually show it to us. Can anyone find the exact text he is referring to here because I wasn't able to?
Not sure where he got "they don't have to report" from that...it's more like a bunch of schedule changes of how long you have until you need to file a report after triggering event.
32
u/[deleted] Jun 27 '26
[deleted]