zaphod

joined 2 years ago
[–] zaphod 30 points 10 months ago

Not funny once you realize all doctors are actually lizard people in human skin suits performing experiments on us. QED sucker!

[–] zaphod 11 points 10 months ago

Btw that sexual assault scene is even more fucked up when you learn that Grace Lee Whitney was sexually assaulted by an unnamed executive associated with the series...

[–] zaphod 1 points 10 months ago

Hah, well, I would be more than happy to be completely wrong!

[–] zaphod 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah but to make any real money on a short position taken prior to listing, the stock would have to drop well below that $17 price. Will that happen? Maybe. But I personally wouldn't bank on it. My bet is that pre-listing price will be a bit of a floor since so many retail meme stock types got in on that price pre-merger and won't want to get out.

[–] zaphod 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Shorting before the merger wouldn't have made any sense: the stock price went from around $17.50 to over $50 within the first week of trading and probably won't come back to earth for a while. Meanwhile borrowing costs, after that initial spike when the stock was at its highest, were astronomical, so it wasn't economical to do it right after, either.

The real 4D chess would be to get that lockup waived, short the stock now (borrowing costs have since fallen back to earth), sell your shares, then close out the short after the price drops (sure, you run the risk that the SEC goes after you for stock manipulation, but I doubt Trump cares).

[–] zaphod 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

But you gotta love the next paragraph:

Two episodes before we shot Hugh’s death [scene], they called me in. They were kind of cagey about it. They said, “Listen, this is Star Trek. Nobody really dies.”

🖖

[–] zaphod 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Nope. Unless the lockup is waived or modified by the board, Trump cannot "lend, offer, pledge, hypothecate, encumber, donate, assign, sell, contract to sell … or otherwise transfer or dispose of" his shares (this language is well-tested boilerplate for any lockup agreement). In case it's not clear, that covers using them to get a leveraged loan.

Far more likely is the board simply waives the lockup which frees him to do whatever he wants, in which case my bet is he just sells off some or all of his stake 'cuz who gives a shit if one of his cult members catches the falling knife.

[–] zaphod 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The board can vote to waive it. That's... how boards work. They could vote to waive Junior's and Nunes' lockups, too, if they wanted to. The only recourse shareholders would have is a lawsuit.

Edit: And if you don't want to believe me, maybe you'll believe a professional financial writer:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-19/banks-can-get-emissions-off-the-books

Also, Trump’s shares are subject to a lockup agreement, so he’s not allowed to “lend, offer, pledge, hypothecate, encumber, donate, assign, sell, contract to sell … or otherwise transfer or dispose of” his shares for six months, which presumably covers using them as collateral for a loan (or appeals bond). But the agreement is between Trump and DWAC, and DWAC could just waive it. It is not best practices or anything, as a capital markets matter, to waive the lockup an hour after the merger, but I think it is possible. Ordinarily you don’t do it because shareholders will be mad about additional shares flooding the market, but (1) if he just pledges his shares to a bank, they won’t flood the market, and (2) the shareholders are presumably Trump fans and will be happy to help him fund his legal bills. Probably the stock would go up if they gave him a limited waiver for this.

Edit 2: This, by the way, is why folks are so critical of the Tesla board and why Elon's recent pay package was rescinded by a judge, who determined the board did not act in the best interests of the shareholders by approving that package; rather, they concluded the board was too close to, and too beholden to, Elon to be able to effectively negotiate that package.

Boards are basically the last line of defense when it comes to things like pay packages and so forth, but that doesn't stop shenanigans from happening, hence shareholder lawsuits, which are basically the final recourse for shareholders to hold boards to account.

[–] zaphod 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

People keep saying trump wasn't prevented from selling for 6 months, and I have no idea why.

So, yes, he's currently subject to a lockup agreement. But, the board can always waive that agreement, and given the board is made up of Trump acolytes, there's no reason to take it too seriously (yes, if they did that, it could be subject to a shareholder lawsuit if a sale resulted in a plunge in the share price, based on the claim that the board was failing in its fiduciary duty, but by the time any such trial made its way through the courts, it probably wouldn't matter).

[–] zaphod 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Same here (well, different model--26k and 87W--but same strategy). Even just as a backup in case of unexpected travel hiccups, a large (airline approved) PD-capable battery back is very handy to have. I never worry about finding an outlet in an aircraft or airport, and I've spent my fair share of time stranded in transit.

[–] zaphod 2 points 10 months ago

My Momentum 4s have 60 hours of battery life...

view more: ‹ prev next ›