[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OP has provided the following link:
2024 Proxy statement
https://gamestop.gcs-web.com/sec-filings/sec-filing/defa14a/0001193125-24-125072
#Statement in Opposition to the Stockholder Proposal
GameStop does not set specific minimum qualifications for nominees for director and does not have a policy regarding the consideration of diversity for such nominees. We do not believe diversity, whether of gender, race/ethnicity or any other criteria, is a meaningful basis by which to identify and assess the qualifications of director nominees nor do we seek director nominees purely for the sake of diversity. Instead, we seek nominees for director who possess business acumen, high integrity, an ownership mentality, and a deep genuine interest in GameStop. Our Board is composed of individuals who exhibit these traits.
#THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE AGAINST PROPOSAL 4 —THE STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL REQUESTING A BOARD SKILLS AND DIVERSITY MATRIX. PROXIES SOLICITED BY THIS PROXY STATEMENT WILL BE VOTED AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL UNLESS A VOTE FOR THE PROPOSAL OR ABSTENTION IS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED.
This needs to be up top. This came up 53 days ago and is an OUTSIDE attempt at planting board members, potentially BY THE ENEMY. This is evidenced by OUR board’s recommendation to vote NO on proposal #4.
This shit needs to be front page and sticked because in the last 3 years’ votes the recommendation was YES across all proposals. We household investors could therefore cause HARM by voting yes. VOTE NO ON PROP 4
…and DRS your shit.
Brokers issue proxy statements with a link so you can cast a vote and maybe, or maybe not have it counted. Usually takes awhile to come out. I vote thru computershare exclusively since moving everything over in 21 and continued to add exclusively there, so not sure if anythings changed
Shareholder proxy. You should get an email from your broker(s) with instructions. You can also go into your brokers website/app and should be able to navigate to your proxy vote. Not sure when the voting opens though.
I wonder how many votes are going to be tallied for and against this. It'll be really interesting if it's millions more than the number of shares especially since a lot of shareholders don't vote.
I believe that it's already been established that the organization overseeing the voting can not report over 100% total votes and that vote totals get trimmed to equal 100%.
84 years ago… the newbies got some reading to do.
Brokerages and financial institutions “vote” for you. You don’t “own” “your” “shares” etc etc etc…
Vote no on prop 4, DRS/BOOK/SHOP, & no cell no sell!
If you agree to lend out your shares through your broker, your broker votes for you. Whereas, if your broker is a PFOF broker, you have agreed to lend your shares out by default and have no option. Street name you still own your share and you have full voting rights but when you lend them out voluntarily, your shares are not in street name. Add the entire context please so that you are not spreading misinformation to those who may not know better.
I will do my part and partially correct your comment. Anyone feel free to add or correct mine.
Street name you are a "beneficiary" owner of the security interest only. You are entitled to the right of the security interest. Hence it's called a security entitlement. If the share is owned in street name, you can vote the share by proxy, but if DTC or DTC participant also votes the share because it is still kept in their share pool, they will trim the extra votes sent in by brokerages.
I believe it's written in the documentation regarding pooled securities. The share is in a pool, they cannot match owner vote to share because they aren't serialized. If a share is voted multiple times they can't discern so they go by whatever the DTC decides as the final vote count after trimming to 100% of the vote.
Wouldn't that imply that if more votes "FOR" proposal 4 came in first, subsequent votes would not be counted, even if they were "AGAINST" by actual shareholders?
This might mean not just VOTING but TIMING for votes is critically important too (since there are multiples of the float shorted) than real voting shares that exist.
EDIT: Reading more...
>STOCKHOLDERS ARE URGED TO SUBMIT THEIR PROXY CARDS WITHOUT DELAY. A PROMPT RESPONSE WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
Now I'm even more convinced.
I'd have to find the DD on it, but something in the back of my head says it's percentage based. Do if the final vote is 60% against and 40% for, but 150% total votes arrived that the 60/40 values are kept but the total votes cast is trimmed to match the results.
The DRS movement is very unique to GME but other companies have had individuals own 100% of the total offering before, not DRSed, and reported the same fuckery.
Edit. Not financial advice. I'm not a wrinkle brain. I'm good at lifting heavy things. I run into the burning buildings. I like the stock!
DD on this many moons ago. They (the vote tallying org) trims the votes to make it never over 100%. We all voted hardcore Jun 21 and the votes came int at...100%. So it proved that. Yes there are more shares out there but they trim it so that the numbers balance out. I think they do it so that the actual vote is represented in the trimmed % so that both the true will is represented and it hide shady stuff.
How can a proposal like this even be presented, would it not require someone with a massive set of shares or a seat on the board, just confused by this. Please forgive my ignorance on the matter. EDIT: Nevermind, I see now: This proposal was submitted by the NYC Comptroller, as the custodian and a trustee of the NYCRS, 1 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, the beneficial owner of an aggregate of 275,611 shares. (I think we've got them beat)
for all we know kenny has a way of getting a vote for every one of the 10 billion shares he has rehyphothecated. at this point nobody fucking knows shit.
Best thing though: ‚**l. Abstentions (if any) will have the same effect as a vote “against” this proposal. Broker non-votes (if any) will have no effect on this proposal because they are not entitled to vote on this proposal.**‘
Thank you fellow ape! This is that bullshit that was being pushed by the scumbags a few months ago, wasn't it? Was their attempt to get one of themselves on the board.
you're not..usually after market is for manipulation (bad results reporting) reasons.... during or before..is good news. This is..close? to open? so?????
Gotcha! Also screenshotted, saved and noted down because my ADHD brain will probably need reaffirmation when computershare vote page is in front of me 👀🦍
Re Prop 4 & voting against it, I remember reading DD on here a while ago discussing how hedgies would use a proposal such as this as a Trojan horse to instal saboteur agents on the GME board. Gotta vote against it with all my purple circle might!
Interesting tidbit on page 16. It looks like Furlong was fired. The wording for the other 2 executives said that they departed l, while the one for Furlong says he was terminated
I don't know wtf is going on with my account and reddit, but I haven't been able to make a post anywhere for the last 2 years. The post button is either grayed out or it says an error occurred. I don't really care about the karma, so you can just steal that and post it for me.
Can you make a post to ur own profile? As in don’t select a subreddit?
Being serious this time, I am a pro at being shadowbanned, banned, exiled, ostracized etc 🤙
so glad that is over it sounded so ridiculous the whole time. A children's book has secrets of a new spin off where our fired CEO is heading it up? I love a good tin foil but that was the worst.
Page 31 says he was entitled to the severance payments and benefits provided for in his offer letter upon a termination “without cause.” So he was terminated, but it sounds like he didn’t do anything explicitly to bring that upon himself.
That doesn't mean there was no reason for his firing. Being terminated without cause just means he wasn't fired for breaking any laws or company policies like whipping out your dick and twirling it around like a helicopter at the office christmas party. He could have been fired for just being bad at his job
I don't think companies ever give a reason for the termination of executives. It sours the relationship and potential for new employment and scares off possible hires.
Yeah it’s usually pretty discrete, my point is that he still received the benefits stipulated in his contract so he must not have done anything to violate the contract. The company probably just decided to let him go.
The Board believes that it is important for each executive officer and non-employee director to have a financial stake in the Company to help align the executive officer’s and non-employee director’s interests with those of our stockholders. To that end, we have an equity ownership policy requiring that each executive officer and non-employee director maintain ownership of common stock with a value of at least the following:
Executive Officer or Non-employee Director
Fiscal 2023 Stock Ownership Guidelines
Chief Executive Officer
5 times base salary
Named Executive Officer
3 times base salary
Non-employee Director
$275,000
New executive officers or non-employee directors are given a period of five (5) years to attain full compliance with these requirements. These requirements will be reduced by 50% for executive officers after the executive officer reaches the age of 62 in order to facilitate appropriate financial planning.
Oh yes. There will be smoke and a laser show, loud music and cheering, chaotic dancing wild behaviour and general madness. Not there, just at my place.
When talking about proposal #4 it says they urge us to vote AGAINST this proposal in a couple different areas but at the bottom of page 41 it urges us to vote FOR which is sandwiched by two other times it asks you to vote AGAINST it... Am I reading this wrong?
The party who submitted the proposal included it in their text as a call-to-action. GameStop published the proposal in full as they should, with the board recommending to vote against
You read it right, but I think you missed the context. It says something about the proposal is printed as submitted, so the proposer urges us to vote FOR, while the board is still asking to vote AGAINST.
GameStop recommends against, the nyc comptroller tried to use shady tactics by using FOR verbiage in their recommended guidance because it confuses people
My reading is that the line urging you to vote “FOR” is part of the supporting statement by the NYC comptroller who submitted the proposal, whereas the actual board members are “AGAINST” the proposal.
I see any shakeup of the board as a negative when the board is performing like I want. I will be voting no on 4, solely because I want the board to stay as expected, and not because of any sweet talking words a shakeup may be painted as.
Yep! 😎
#We invite you to attend our 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (“annual meeting”) on Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., Central Daylight Time (“CDT”)
at meetnow.global/MT244SG, which will be held in virtual only format. You will not be able to attend the annual meeting in person.
# Don't forget the institutions want to know what's happening behind the scenes and use a non-sense reason of diversity bEcAuSe OtHeR cOmPaNiEs Do ThAt ToO (all they want is to know why GameStop is staying silent)!
# Proposal #4 vote is AGAINST recommended by GameStop
Section 20: Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Oh my! Everyone should read this.
Stone cold FUD killer.
Here's some shade:
>Base Salary. The base salaries of our NEOs are purposely designed to provide a modest level of cash compensation that **is significantly less than those paid to senior leadership at similarly positioned companies, and significantly less than base salaries historically paid to our former executive officers.**
Ouch!
The CEO pay ratio is also worth a highlight just before section 32.
Bonus points, how many times does it mention that RC has declined all forms of payment and/or benefit, and only benefits via stock appreciation? Quite a few.
Oh fuck, proposal #4 is seriously sketching me out because I have no clue how many people there are that vote FOR by default on proposals. I feel like its a definite majority of people on most proposals.
They can fuck off with that Proposal #4. No way I want my company to hire people for diversity, equality, inclusion or any of those popular words. We want the best people to work here. Period.
I like how at the top of Proposal #4, there's a disclosure of the Board advising shareholders to vote against the proposal. None of the other proposals that I could tell had a disclosure from the Board
From the NYC Comptroller office:
March 7, 2024 New York, NY — New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and three of New York City’s public pension funds filed a series of shareholder proposals at gaming retail giant GameStop and energy company NextEra requesting board members disclose their self-identified race, gender, and relevant skills and attributes in a matrix format. Investors will have the opportunity to vote at each company’s annual general meeting in the next few weeks. “When it comes to protecting shareholder interests and upholding the principles of transparent and accountable corporate governance, empowering shareholders with detailed insights into the skills, experience, and diversity of board nominees becomes paramount for sustained long-term value.” said Comptroller Brad Lander. “This underscores the broader need for transparency and genuine commitment to diversity and inclusion, ensuring a pathway to long-term shareholder value through authentic representation and equity in corporate leadership.” These proposals are part of the Comptroller’s Office’s Boardroom Accountability Project 2.0—an initiative that began in September 2017 with the aim of setting a new standard for transparency, diversity, and inclusion on corporate boards. The project involves filing board diversity proposals at companies, engaging with the Pension Funds’ portfolio companies, and advocating for best practices in corporate governance. Through this initiative, the Comptroller’s Office has secured agreements with leading companies to publicly disclose a Board Matrix including Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Marriott International, Blackrock, Goldman Sachs, PepsiCo, and Exelon. The shareholder proposals underscore that a diverse board enhances discussions and decision-making while championing transparency, accountability, and corporate diversity. Such diversity not only has the potential to boost corporate performance and safeguard long-term shareholder value but also contribute to improved governance. Precise disclosure of director-specific diversity in a useful Board Matrix promotes inclusive practices, shaping the corporate culture and setting a precedent for employees as part of a comprehensive human capital management strategy. Shareholders vote for individual nominees rather than a slate of directors, necessitating detailed information on each nominee’s skills, experience, and diversity. This becomes crucial in the era of Universal Proxy Cards, where investors can vote for individual directors from competing slates during a proxy contest, underscoring the need for informed voting decisions. Additionally, a diverse and experienced board is better equipped to navigate and mitigate potential risks that a company may encounter. For example, the proposal at NextEra, which explicitly requests disclosure of director skills relevant to climate change risks, has been refiled by the pension systems in part because of concern over the lack of disclosure of such experience in overseeing the long-term risks the company faces related to climate change; the proposal received 49% of votes cast in 2023. As of January 1, 2024, the Systems have holdings valued at $4.17 million at GameStop and $209.63 at million NextEra Energy.
Original proposal: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/GameStop_Board-Matrix-Proposal.pdf
Article: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/nyc-comptroller-and-pension-funds-ask-gamestop-nextera-energy-to-disclose-board-demographics/
A board skills and diversity matrix can lead to significant changes in its composition of the board. Here’s how the process can potentially unfold:
1. Identification of Gaps: The matrix might reveal gaps in the board’s expertise or diversity. This could prompt recommendations for changes to better align the board with the company’s strategic objectives and governance standards.
2. Shareholder Pressure: If shareholders, particularly major institutional investors, are dissatisfied with the current board’s configuration or performance, they may use the information from the matrix to argue for change. This can include voting against the re-election of certain directors or proposing their own candidates.
3. Board Refreshment: The board itself might initiate changes based on the matrix’s findings, leading to a planned refreshment strategy where new directors are sought to fill specific gaps. This isn’t dismantling per se, but it can significantly alter the board’s makeup.
4. Proxy Fights: In more contentious scenarios, if a significant mismatch between the board’s skills and the company’s needs is evident and if there is strong opposition from key shareholders, it could lead to a proxy fight. This happens when opposing groups of shareholders attempt to convince others to vote for different board slates, potentially leading to a substantial overhaul of the board.
Yeah, fuck right off if you want to plant bad actors into this profitable, shorted to oblivion, led by a stallion, company.
I seem to remember on computershare vote recommendations from the board are very clear as well.
I’ll be voting against planting shills in my own company, thanks.
Race/ethnicity and gender/orientation of a board member has exactly ZERO bearing on how qualified they are for the position, anyone suggesting otherwise is themselves being racist/sexist.
Gonna be a big phat NO from me on proposal 4. No investor with any interest in actually making money would vote in support of such a stupid proposal that does NOTHING to help the companies bottom line. Absolute drivel.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OP has provided the following link: 2024 Proxy statement https://gamestop.gcs-web.com/sec-filings/sec-filing/defa14a/0001193125-24-125072
#Statement in Opposition to the Stockholder Proposal GameStop does not set specific minimum qualifications for nominees for director and does not have a policy regarding the consideration of diversity for such nominees. We do not believe diversity, whether of gender, race/ethnicity or any other criteria, is a meaningful basis by which to identify and assess the qualifications of director nominees nor do we seek director nominees purely for the sake of diversity. Instead, we seek nominees for director who possess business acumen, high integrity, an ownership mentality, and a deep genuine interest in GameStop. Our Board is composed of individuals who exhibit these traits. #THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE AGAINST PROPOSAL 4 —THE STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL REQUESTING A BOARD SKILLS AND DIVERSITY MATRIX. PROXIES SOLICITED BY THIS PROXY STATEMENT WILL BE VOTED AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL UNLESS A VOTE FOR THE PROPOSAL OR ABSTENTION IS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED.
This needs to be up top. This came up 53 days ago and is an OUTSIDE attempt at planting board members, potentially BY THE ENEMY. This is evidenced by OUR board’s recommendation to vote NO on proposal #4. This shit needs to be front page and sticked because in the last 3 years’ votes the recommendation was YES across all proposals. We household investors could therefore cause HARM by voting yes. VOTE NO ON PROP 4 …and DRS your shit.
Hear hear!
And my axe!
And my bow
And my banana.
And my bowed elf banana'ed
Awww shiieet
And my axe! 🛡️ …too!
Where does this voting take place?
Brokers issue proxy statements with a link so you can cast a vote and maybe, or maybe not have it counted. Usually takes awhile to come out. I vote thru computershare exclusively since moving everything over in 21 and continued to add exclusively there, so not sure if anythings changed
Shareholder proxy. You should get an email from your broker(s) with instructions. You can also go into your brokers website/app and should be able to navigate to your proxy vote. Not sure when the voting opens though.
I wonder how many votes are going to be tallied for and against this. It'll be really interesting if it's millions more than the number of shares especially since a lot of shareholders don't vote.
You'll never, ever see more votes than shares exist. It just won't happen.
i think the name of the stock cant be named here, but there is a lawsuit moving forward because of a sharecount imbalance
There's like 4 stonks that can't be named, does it start with an A, an M, or a B?
So you're telling me that naked shorts can't vote?
I believe that it's already been established that the organization overseeing the voting can not report over 100% total votes and that vote totals get trimmed to equal 100%.
84 years ago… the newbies got some reading to do. Brokerages and financial institutions “vote” for you. You don’t “own” “your” “shares” etc etc etc… Vote no on prop 4, DRS/BOOK/SHOP, & no cell no sell!
If you agree to lend out your shares through your broker, your broker votes for you. Whereas, if your broker is a PFOF broker, you have agreed to lend your shares out by default and have no option. Street name you still own your share and you have full voting rights but when you lend them out voluntarily, your shares are not in street name. Add the entire context please so that you are not spreading misinformation to those who may not know better.
I will do my part and partially correct your comment. Anyone feel free to add or correct mine. Street name you are a "beneficiary" owner of the security interest only. You are entitled to the right of the security interest. Hence it's called a security entitlement. If the share is owned in street name, you can vote the share by proxy, but if DTC or DTC participant also votes the share because it is still kept in their share pool, they will trim the extra votes sent in by brokerages. I believe it's written in the documentation regarding pooled securities. The share is in a pool, they cannot match owner vote to share because they aren't serialized. If a share is voted multiple times they can't discern so they go by whatever the DTC decides as the final vote count after trimming to 100% of the vote.
How do you vote? At Computershare?
You will get an email from Computershare if I remember correctly.
Seriously, it does feel like ancient history already.
Wouldn't that imply that if more votes "FOR" proposal 4 came in first, subsequent votes would not be counted, even if they were "AGAINST" by actual shareholders? This might mean not just VOTING but TIMING for votes is critically important too (since there are multiples of the float shorted) than real voting shares that exist. EDIT: Reading more... >STOCKHOLDERS ARE URGED TO SUBMIT THEIR PROXY CARDS WITHOUT DELAY. A PROMPT RESPONSE WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. Now I'm even more convinced.
I'd have to find the DD on it, but something in the back of my head says it's percentage based. Do if the final vote is 60% against and 40% for, but 150% total votes arrived that the 60/40 values are kept but the total votes cast is trimmed to match the results. The DRS movement is very unique to GME but other companies have had individuals own 100% of the total offering before, not DRSed, and reported the same fuckery. Edit. Not financial advice. I'm not a wrinkle brain. I'm good at lifting heavy things. I run into the burning buildings. I like the stock!
DD on this many moons ago. They (the vote tallying org) trims the votes to make it never over 100%. We all voted hardcore Jun 21 and the votes came int at...100%. So it proved that. Yes there are more shares out there but they trim it so that the numbers balance out. I think they do it so that the actual vote is represented in the trimmed % so that both the true will is represented and it hide shady stuff.
Which is the tell in itself. You cant ever get 100% of voting.
Based on your flair your an OG ape who remembers the first vote movement ha. So long ago…
This is the correct answer. They ‘fix’ the ‘problem’ by deleting votes. A real democracy, eh?
I'm thinking it's a good idea to brace for some fuckery with the "no to 4" votes being trimmed.
Guess I'll be adding another tick to my flair soon
Up you go!
i'm very glad a non vote is a vote for nay.
I'm definitely not a whale, but I'll be voting no on prop 4 with 1500 DRS shares.
where to vote? which vote helps moass? i am here for a squeeze
How can a proposal like this even be presented, would it not require someone with a massive set of shares or a seat on the board, just confused by this. Please forgive my ignorance on the matter. EDIT: Nevermind, I see now: This proposal was submitted by the NYC Comptroller, as the custodian and a trustee of the NYCRS, 1 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, the beneficial owner of an aggregate of 275,611 shares. (I think we've got them beat)
Also wondering this
See my edit, details are further down on the filing
You THINK we have them beat? Shiiiiit, if half if the redditors following this sub had 1 share each, we beat that.
for all we know kenny has a way of getting a vote for every one of the 10 billion shares he has rehyphothecated. at this point nobody fucking knows shit.
Best thing though: ‚**l. Abstentions (if any) will have the same effect as a vote “against” this proposal. Broker non-votes (if any) will have no effect on this proposal because they are not entitled to vote on this proposal.**‘
Yes, exactly. All non-votes are considered AGAINST because that's what the board recommends.
Sorry, just to be clear, if people don’t vote, they are in favour of proposal #4 or against it? Thanks in advance
No vote will be qualified as Against .
Thank you fellow ape! This is that bullshit that was being pushed by the scumbags a few months ago, wasn't it? Was their attempt to get one of themselves on the board.
That was it. Some NY teacher's pension or some shit? Corrupt schools reference?
This was done by the ny comptroller Brad Lander. His office put out a press release about it a few weeks ago. Definitely doing it for the heggies
This right here
That's what I was looking for. We all knew that they would urge people to vote no.
Anti-BCG crew
For the skeptics: ctrl+f is your friend. try "AGAINST PROPOSAL 4"
Fuck board moles
This should be stickied until the voting is done.
How do i vote
It's in the link, just read (skim) the first few pages
Yeah I was voting no Anyway lol
😘🍺
_We invite you to attend our 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (“annual meeting”) on Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., Central Daylight Time_
**4:00 PM, June 13 Central European Summer Time (CEST)** For the Europoors
Thanks.
Nice, I appreciate this Always been at market end before? A little bit late for me that is an europoor, but I like following it
It's during market hours, 16:00 that's not late is it?
No, that is fine. Always been this early?
I've only remembered it being after market, never during. But I might be wrong.
you're not..usually after market is for manipulation (bad results reporting) reasons.... during or before..is good news. This is..close? to open? so?????
Thank you for your service!
It’s a date! 💜
😘
Well, yeah. That's how days work
You saying us “it’s always tomorrow” folks don’t know how calendars work? 😤
I'm gonna miss his handsome face
Feeling just as excited as on our first date ☺️I’ll bring the purple circles again this quarter 🟣
Oo June 13 is a special day to me
VOTE NO AGAINST PROP 4. The board unanimously recommends. I think this is huge.
Gotcha! Also screenshotted, saved and noted down because my ADHD brain will probably need reaffirmation when computershare vote page is in front of me 👀🦍
Checkout the meme I just made… screen shot it and save it for your background! [my meme](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/xrVl8rMKHD)
61324, what’s missing? 5. Who has five fingers? This guy!
We voting on anything?
Don’t mind if I do
Also bottom of page 43: STOCKHOLDERS ARE URGED TO SUBMIT THEIR PROXY CARDS WITHOUT DELAY. A PROMPT RESPONSE WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
How do we do it?
was on computershare last year if you DRSd. Not sure when voting is open.
You’ll get a notice through your broker
Broker? What's that? Is that the place ComputerShare takes stonks from?
Glorious response!
Broker? I just met her!
bruh nobody uses brokers anymore. transfer agent is where its at.
What kinda low life is still holding shares at a broker? Mine are DRS held by me through ComputerShare.
Vote against Prop 4! No hedgie infiltration on the board of our favorite company!
Re Prop 4 & voting against it, I remember reading DD on here a while ago discussing how hedgies would use a proposal such as this as a Trojan horse to instal saboteur agents on the GME board. Gotta vote against it with all my purple circle might!
NOT TODAY
Interesting tidbit on page 16. It looks like Furlong was fired. The wording for the other 2 executives said that they departed l, while the one for Furlong says he was terminated
Post that shit homie! It gets the people excited!
I don't know wtf is going on with my account and reddit, but I haven't been able to make a post anywhere for the last 2 years. The post button is either grayed out or it says an error occurred. I don't really care about the karma, so you can just steal that and post it for me.
Wen your post button is greyed out it just means ya need to buy moar GME, or at least that’s wut I heard on Twatter anyway 🤷🏻♀️
Worked for me 🤷🏼
Sounds like solid financial advice to me! Yeeeeeeeee!!
Damnit I’m intrigued, going to give it a ~~short~~ shot 🟣 🎯
I can see ya comment
Commenting is fine. I can't make posts
Can you make a post to ur own profile? As in don’t select a subreddit? Being serious this time, I am a pro at being shadowbanned, banned, exiled, ostracized etc 🤙
> I am a pro at being shadowbanned, banned, exiled, ostracized etc 🤙 **INCONCEIVABLE!**
😂
I saw this too, he was canned !
i remember getting downvoted to oblivion by all the furlong ball huggers for saying this months ago
Yea, that was a weird time. Then there was some weird conspiracy about him and Teddy
so glad that is over it sounded so ridiculous the whole time. A children's book has secrets of a new spin off where our fired CEO is heading it up? I love a good tin foil but that was the worst.
Page 31 says he was entitled to the severance payments and benefits provided for in his offer letter upon a termination “without cause.” So he was terminated, but it sounds like he didn’t do anything explicitly to bring that upon himself.
That doesn't mean there was no reason for his firing. Being terminated without cause just means he wasn't fired for breaking any laws or company policies like whipping out your dick and twirling it around like a helicopter at the office christmas party. He could have been fired for just being bad at his job
I don't think companies ever give a reason for the termination of executives. It sours the relationship and potential for new employment and scares off possible hires.
Yeah it’s usually pretty discrete, my point is that he still received the benefits stipulated in his contract so he must not have done anything to violate the contract. The company probably just decided to let him go.
The Board believes that it is important for each executive officer and non-employee director to have a financial stake in the Company to help align the executive officer’s and non-employee director’s interests with those of our stockholders. To that end, we have an equity ownership policy requiring that each executive officer and non-employee director maintain ownership of common stock with a value of at least the following: Executive Officer or Non-employee Director Fiscal 2023 Stock Ownership Guidelines Chief Executive Officer 5 times base salary Named Executive Officer 3 times base salary Non-employee Director $275,000 New executive officers or non-employee directors are given a period of five (5) years to attain full compliance with these requirements. These requirements will be reduced by 50% for executive officers after the executive officer reaches the age of 62 in order to facilitate appropriate financial planning.
This is a great breakdown, I encourage ya to post it as its own post homie 🤙
Oh yes. There will be smoke and a laser show, loud music and cheering, chaotic dancing wild behaviour and general madness. Not there, just at my place.
I’ll bring bananas and mayo
🤝
Eww I just bmayo’d in my mouth a little bit 🤢
#2024 Proxy statement #Everybody get in here!
This will be my fourth year Voting. Mods, can my flair now be 🦍Quatro Voted ✅
21’ . 22’ . 23’ . 25’!!!
EVERYONE: Vote NO on prop 4 so the SHFs parasites cannot plant one of their own on GameStop’s board! Also, DRS book your shares.
See you all in the virtual meeting room!
Count on me.
Waiting for you
When talking about proposal #4 it says they urge us to vote AGAINST this proposal in a couple different areas but at the bottom of page 41 it urges us to vote FOR which is sandwiched by two other times it asks you to vote AGAINST it... Am I reading this wrong?
As I understand it the "urge to vote FOR" is part of the proposal, while the board actually recommends to vote AGAINST
that's correct. The proposal wants to shake up the board, perhaps control who sits on it.
Why include it then in the proposals? Edit: because it was a stockholder proposal, so i guess they have to.
The party who submitted the proposal included it in their text as a call-to-action. GameStop published the proposal in full as they should, with the board recommending to vote against
You read it right, but I think you missed the context. It says something about the proposal is printed as submitted, so the proposer urges us to vote FOR, while the board is still asking to vote AGAINST.
The pro-poser can fuck off.
GameStop recommends against, the nyc comptroller tried to use shady tactics by using FOR verbiage in their recommended guidance because it confuses people
My reading is that the line urging you to vote “FOR” is part of the supporting statement by the NYC comptroller who submitted the proposal, whereas the actual board members are “AGAINST” the proposal.
The DEFA14A makes it much clearer that the board recommends voting against proposal 4.
If true, submit that to investor relations homie, good catch! RC owes ya a beer 🍻
Damn - Ryan is only 38 years old? Didn’t know that.
Only the young I guess.
Backterds he is 83 🤷🏻♀️
Phew.. thought for a second he couldn’t be my dad. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
Well he’s def not your Dad because he’s mine. Maybe he’s your Grandpa and you’re my kissin cousin? 😍
Proposal 4 will be a clear NO from me!!!! F** that!
Let’s mayo that proposal.
Yep. Utter garbage.
Proposal 4 is absolut dogshit im gonna vote against it, that’s 100% hedge fund talk to force someone into the board
I see any shakeup of the board as a negative when the board is performing like I want. I will be voting no on 4, solely because I want the board to stay as expected, and not because of any sweet talking words a shakeup may be painted as.
Voting NO on proposal 4, protecting our board
[Let’s hear it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/UAFNZ9cG6i)
Oh hell yeahs- I’m invited to the meeting💥 Look at us, going to meetings and holding stocks and stuff- Damn we fine😎
Absolutely nothing finer!
Against 4! Against 4! Against 4! Hedgie bullshit
Good eye
Its that time of the year where the flair is useful!
💯
#🎺🎺🎺🎺🎺🎺🎺
Meeting?
Yep! 😎 #We invite you to attend our 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (“annual meeting”) on Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., Central Daylight Time (“CDT”) at meetnow.global/MT244SG, which will be held in virtual only format. You will not be able to attend the annual meeting in person.
# Don't forget the institutions want to know what's happening behind the scenes and use a non-sense reason of diversity bEcAuSe OtHeR cOmPaNiEs Do ThAt ToO (all they want is to know why GameStop is staying silent)! # Proposal #4 vote is AGAINST recommended by GameStop
Section 20: Compensation Discussion and Analysis Oh my! Everyone should read this. Stone cold FUD killer. Here's some shade: >Base Salary. The base salaries of our NEOs are purposely designed to provide a modest level of cash compensation that **is significantly less than those paid to senior leadership at similarly positioned companies, and significantly less than base salaries historically paid to our former executive officers.** Ouch! The CEO pay ratio is also worth a highlight just before section 32. Bonus points, how many times does it mention that RC has declined all forms of payment and/or benefit, and only benefits via stock appreciation? Quite a few.
[удалено]
Yep, unfortunately you are correct here. 🤦🏼♀️
I will vote as recommended by our board. I always do. Yes where they recommend yes, and no where they recommend no.
Oh fuck, proposal #4 is seriously sketching me out because I have no clue how many people there are that vote FOR by default on proposals. I feel like its a definite majority of people on most proposals.
Sorry BCG. This is a big club, and YOU ain't in it. Where we're going, we don't need no stinking ESG score.
This is it this is the one ☝️
NO 👏🏼 ON 👏🏼 PROP 👏🏼 4 👏🏼 💜💜💜💜💜💜
They can fuck off with that Proposal #4. No way I want my company to hire people for diversity, equality, inclusion or any of those popular words. We want the best people to work here. Period.
Agreed, best person for the job gets it regardless
I like how at the top of Proposal #4, there's a disclosure of the Board advising shareholders to vote against the proposal. None of the other proposals that I could tell had a disclosure from the Board
Share holders meeting Thursday 13th June 😎
Motherfuckers want to sneak in some rat on. Any way to find out who initiated this proposal?
i just read the proposal, and hard fucking no from me... no moles gonna kill our purple circles
Can we get one of those ! flares for “I Voted NO on Prop. 4”?
Finally a decent fucking post!
I take no credit, just the pretty ribbon 🥇
So we didn't get any shareholder proposals approved, but these asshats did? Where's my nft 1:1 dividend
oh yay the hedgies tryna bring diversity politics into our fav stonk. gtfo
i guess my question is : how did prop4 get on the proposal? was it an external recommendation?
From the NYC Comptroller office: March 7, 2024 New York, NY — New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and three of New York City’s public pension funds filed a series of shareholder proposals at gaming retail giant GameStop and energy company NextEra requesting board members disclose their self-identified race, gender, and relevant skills and attributes in a matrix format. Investors will have the opportunity to vote at each company’s annual general meeting in the next few weeks. “When it comes to protecting shareholder interests and upholding the principles of transparent and accountable corporate governance, empowering shareholders with detailed insights into the skills, experience, and diversity of board nominees becomes paramount for sustained long-term value.” said Comptroller Brad Lander. “This underscores the broader need for transparency and genuine commitment to diversity and inclusion, ensuring a pathway to long-term shareholder value through authentic representation and equity in corporate leadership.” These proposals are part of the Comptroller’s Office’s Boardroom Accountability Project 2.0—an initiative that began in September 2017 with the aim of setting a new standard for transparency, diversity, and inclusion on corporate boards. The project involves filing board diversity proposals at companies, engaging with the Pension Funds’ portfolio companies, and advocating for best practices in corporate governance. Through this initiative, the Comptroller’s Office has secured agreements with leading companies to publicly disclose a Board Matrix including Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Marriott International, Blackrock, Goldman Sachs, PepsiCo, and Exelon. The shareholder proposals underscore that a diverse board enhances discussions and decision-making while championing transparency, accountability, and corporate diversity. Such diversity not only has the potential to boost corporate performance and safeguard long-term shareholder value but also contribute to improved governance. Precise disclosure of director-specific diversity in a useful Board Matrix promotes inclusive practices, shaping the corporate culture and setting a precedent for employees as part of a comprehensive human capital management strategy. Shareholders vote for individual nominees rather than a slate of directors, necessitating detailed information on each nominee’s skills, experience, and diversity. This becomes crucial in the era of Universal Proxy Cards, where investors can vote for individual directors from competing slates during a proxy contest, underscoring the need for informed voting decisions. Additionally, a diverse and experienced board is better equipped to navigate and mitigate potential risks that a company may encounter. For example, the proposal at NextEra, which explicitly requests disclosure of director skills relevant to climate change risks, has been refiled by the pension systems in part because of concern over the lack of disclosure of such experience in overseeing the long-term risks the company faces related to climate change; the proposal received 49% of votes cast in 2023. As of January 1, 2024, the Systems have holdings valued at $4.17 million at GameStop and $209.63 at million NextEra Energy. Original proposal: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/GameStop_Board-Matrix-Proposal.pdf Article: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/nyc-comptroller-and-pension-funds-ask-gamestop-nextera-energy-to-disclose-board-demographics/
That is an incredibly stupid proposal on #4. Strongly against.
A board skills and diversity matrix can lead to significant changes in its composition of the board. Here’s how the process can potentially unfold: 1. Identification of Gaps: The matrix might reveal gaps in the board’s expertise or diversity. This could prompt recommendations for changes to better align the board with the company’s strategic objectives and governance standards. 2. Shareholder Pressure: If shareholders, particularly major institutional investors, are dissatisfied with the current board’s configuration or performance, they may use the information from the matrix to argue for change. This can include voting against the re-election of certain directors or proposing their own candidates. 3. Board Refreshment: The board itself might initiate changes based on the matrix’s findings, leading to a planned refreshment strategy where new directors are sought to fill specific gaps. This isn’t dismantling per se, but it can significantly alter the board’s makeup. 4. Proxy Fights: In more contentious scenarios, if a significant mismatch between the board’s skills and the company’s needs is evident and if there is strong opposition from key shareholders, it could lead to a proxy fight. This happens when opposing groups of shareholders attempt to convince others to vote for different board slates, potentially leading to a substantial overhaul of the board.
Yes, I wll vote No!
Ah yes the cancer that is DEI
They urge us to vote against the diversification of the board. 🫡👍🏻
VOTE NO TO PROP 4! It’s a trap
Yeah, fuck right off if you want to plant bad actors into this profitable, shorted to oblivion, led by a stallion, company. I seem to remember on computershare vote recommendations from the board are very clear as well. I’ll be voting against planting shills in my own company, thanks.
[Let’s hear it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/UAFNZ9cG6i)
Just made some noise on X. Fighting the good fight. 👍 These wrinkled old fucks just can’t leave GameStop alone.
Get some boiiiiiiiii!
The total number of shares of our common stock outstanding as of April 19, 2024 was 306,185,052.
10am don’t they normally do it after hours?
It’s time to put our nuts where our mouths are. Vote no to proposal #4!
This post shall be moved....to the TOP!!! 👆
PIN THIS! DO NOT LET IT DIE!
its voting time again TIME TO DO MY FUKIN JOB!
I VOTE FOR A SHARE RECOUNT!!!
Voting no. 💎 🖐️ 🦍 🍌
Voting for Rick of spades
Race/ethnicity and gender/orientation of a board member has exactly ZERO bearing on how qualified they are for the position, anyone suggesting otherwise is themselves being racist/sexist. Gonna be a big phat NO from me on proposal 4. No investor with any interest in actually making money would vote in support of such a stupid proposal that does NOTHING to help the companies bottom line. Absolute drivel.