GME is ~12B, EBAY is ~46B (58 total) with net income of 0.4B and 2B (2.4 total). If he boosts profit by 1.2B then it's nearly a 50% increase and probably going to result in a more valuable combined company despite the debt.
The most beneficial thing is how even proposing this shifts peoples' perception of Gamestop from a beloved but struggling brick and mortar chain to a successful business
Becoming Radio Shack / Microcenter, as far as 3D Printing and DIY electronics, seems like it intersects with their target audience more, but they're also probably pretty short on space for that.
Employee enthusiasm isn’t really much of a factor. For better or worse, in the event of significant change of the brick & mortar day to day operations then employee continuity & institutional knowledge is even less of an actual strategic asset than the minimal treatment it already gets in consideration.
At the same time, most of the employees at my local UPS store have openly expressed a lack of enthusiasm about becoming Amazon returns employees.
I dont see it as a good value, but it's the only thing I see as a synergy. Otherwise it's just more garbage capitalism.
How is this defined?
- SPAC IPOs that dodge standard disclosure requirements and worsen information asymmetry. See WeWork.
- Board positions filled with CEO loyalists instead of independent directors. See OpenAI firing Altman before Microsoft reinstated him.
- Management taking seemingly arbitrary decisions that turn out to be directly linked to their own compensation. SpaceX ordering a bunch of Teslas, or merging with a distressed asset (xAI). See above point on loyalist boards.
- The very concept of leveraged buyouts where financiers borrow money to buy a company, then put the burden on repayment on the company AND pay themselves hefty management fees. This inevitably leads to layoffs and a rapid decline in product/service quality while the company is scrapped for parts.
It's only when it becomes the primary concern that capitalism eats itself.
Maybe from a brick-and-mortor store to yet another private equity fund whose continued existance comes solely from debt and merger trickery.
GameStop had revenues of $3bn last year and eBay was $10-12bn, so combined it's $13-15bn. A net income increase of 1.2bn on that gross is a tall order for M&A efficiencies. Especially difficult when the two companies have essentially zero operational crossover, besides business admin. It doesn't seem likely to me that merging eBay's accounting/legal departments into GME's (and similar efficiency gains) is going to save anything close to a billion across the two entities.
IIRC, Gamestop recently had a "trade-in anything" day, where they accepted a variety of products for store credit. Seems an awful lot like this was some sort of test for accepting products in-store for eBay listings, or something along those lines. They already accept trading cards to send off to PSA for grading and to place into their lootbox system.
As far as efficiencies go, you can see things like shifting shipping by individual sellers to mass shipping to/from a warehouse, a much heavier footprint in collectibles, and perhaps quality control that reduces buyer disputes (this one's a bit iffy).
That said IMO the biggest difference in the two situations you're describing is that EBay is not in the business of buying the items to then sell later, they just facilitate transactions between two parties and some of the logistics (depending on the seller). They're similar as far as dealing with "used goods" but the actual design of the business and risk being taken on is very different.
EBay also not really lacking what you're describing - there are fufillment centers that can be used for EBay listings, there's the EBay "Authenticity Guarantee" program for cards, they already own TCGplayer which does all of this for trading cards way better than GameStop does, etc.
Perhaps somehow these things could be improved by GameStop but I can't imagine it being significantly better than it currently is.
Plenty of stuff on EBay offers me 2 day shipping clearly via fulfillment centers, as far as I'm concerned that's all that matters. Do you think the addition of GameStop stores would mean EBay can offer faster shipping than that on a significant number of items?
What do you think people need to visit fulfillment centers to do?
Sellers...?
If you're saying sellers could come into a GameStop to have their individual items packed and shipped out, I suppose, but:
1. They don't really have the space for much shipping volume at any of their stores.
2. You can walk into any USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc. store and do that already, you don't need an 'EBay' store. GameStop would presumably get the packages picked up by one of those carriers so it's not saving any shipping time or expense.
For buyers, in many cases there's already alternative drop-off locations similar to GameStop Ex. For UPS deliveries I can get them shipped to a bunch of different convenience stores near me. GameStop stores might be a nice addition to that list but it's not enabling something you couldn't do before, and I would think for most people they already have a closer location than a GameStop.
Or, you can bring your cards into Gamestop, and they'll send them off to get them graded and/or buy them from you, at which point they become inventory for their lootbox. With eBay, you'd be able to do all of that, too, except you'd be selling directly to someone else through a consignment service - more pricing freedom.
And then you could start doing it with things other than cards.
Gatestop is a retail operation that buys and sells goods. It takes on all the liability for fake products, it puts capital on the line to purchase used goods, it is a totally different (and worse) business
Last year, eBay shut down tcgplayer’s only fulfillment facility in Rochester, NY and switched to using eBay’s facility in Kentucky.
I would have projected the same outcome though.
Quality of TCGDirect operations, from an enduser perspective, took a nosedive with the move and never recovered.
As a seller and as a buyer.
Sigh. The synergy argument, once again.
While historically most mergers don't work out particularly well, I'm absolutely sure this time will be different.
Just sample from these with replacement sufficiently many times and you're all set. At the very least, you'll owe people so much money that they'll have a massive interest in helping you.
Synergy (i.e.: cost reduction) looks great in Q3 balance sheet, but in the mean time intrinsic company value has decreased. The long term prospect isn't so great.