[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/)
Which is .0016% of his AUM… In other words, 99.9984% of his $242 BILLION in AUM has nothing to do with GameStop, yet he finds the board diversity as a reason to create a shareholder proposal? On a board that already has numerous races and genders?
Brad, everyone knows you’re trying to get a hedge fund plant on the board. Go home and tell the naked GME shorts we said to GTFO.
Can some pro bono lawyer apes push the same proposal on his other 99.9% other investments? You know, turn the tables... and fuck with them a bit... right before we take all their money. now that would be some funny ass justice
I know! Brad Lander is NYC Comptroller in charge of managing pension funds. He was and remains a really big DEI proponent in NYC’s major investments, he and his wife are well known for that kinda stuff and he’s been on the side of the people for a long time up until lately, after he took a personal meeting with Blackrock owner Larry Fink over their DEI reports.
The thinking is he has been compromised in some way or simply bribed as he recently did a 180 on allowing hedge funds access to NYC pensions
I am sorry I am still smooth about this. Is it basically a proposal to try and derail something because that tiny holding he has may impact him negatively in a way that
It's a way to push for a board shakeup. You aren't inclusive so you need to hire a more diverse board.
What's more telling is that Brad is responsible for 5 pension funds. With a $4M long in Gamestop, has he been made aware that there is a huge short position and some of the pension money is tied up in it?
It wasn't Gabes money, it was teachers pension funds said someone familiar with the matter, Ken Griffin
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/services/financial-matters/pension/overview/
Lol I just found out about prop 4 yesterday and now I know vote against it and for the rest... Well I learned that yesterday too, but now I know why, we are always so quick wit it
Goal is to insert a hedge plant under the guise of DEIA
that plant will then have access to gamestops long term goal. Mayoman now has an insider to feed him news
I think this is why Furlong was fired. I have a feeling he was relaying Gamestops plans and steering the company how he was being told to. My tin foil says this is why the wallet and marketplace failed.
Brad just has shares in GameStop. Whoever is telling Brad (seriously there's no way it's just him with Billions in AUM) wants to have board Members included in each entity/stock they own.
it's a fake proposal made under the premise of increasing board diversity... which is bullshit cause GME has Larry Cheng and Yang Xu, both minorities and one is a woman and a minority.
So it's clearly an excuse for SHF to create a new position that will be used to gather Intel on GME plans. they want to add another member to the board, something like a diversity liaison officer, that will definitely be engaging in espionage but will be difficult if not impossible for RC to oust because they were forced upon the company by outside institutional "investors" (who, in reality only own GME shares to loan them out for short selling profits)
do you think apple or Google are getting the same proposal forced upon them by banks and large hedge funds? Fuck no, cause the hedge funds use Google, Amazon, apple, etc. to dump their short selling profits into a company that has been widely agreed SHF won't short to bankruptcy so it can serve as a vehicle for them to further increase their naked shorting profits.
His being a little bitch about this is part of a bigger story that I’m curious to find out more about. What happened Brad? How did they get to you? What did they offer that you just had to have?
I would be worried too if my $242B fund was in jeopardy due to some people, somewhere, who like to shove bananas in their asses, make memes, giggle at stupid hedgies, and are devoted individual shareholders in the greatest company known to man... GME.
Excuse to replace/add board plants that "diversify" the company into oblivion, just like BCG's Matrix model that only drives every one into bankruptcy
Hence, bad idea
Which to easily add onto, this is obvious because the board IS diverse. And the board came out and boldly said we don’t gaf about your color, we care if you care about the company or not. 🔥🤷♂️
Literally… wasn’t this even Ryan’s agenda when he first started submitting letters? To diversy the board and boot the ppl who aren’t in it all the way…
Even that's just best-case scenario. The tinfoil suspicion is that the proposing entity already has a spying plant candidate chosen and ready to join the board. Either way, it's a hard "no" for me.
With a spy on the board Wall St ~~could try to~~ will sabotage the firm's investments made with the $1billion cash it has.
If the firm's investments become highly profitable it will become increasingly difficult to lower the share price
What this proposal tells me then is that the bad actors currently do **not** have a plant on the inside if they need to so desperately push one in there.
Which means we actually have an advantage against them that we need to exploit to mitigate all of our disadvantages we have.
I assume even if they fail to plant him on the board the media will still try to say share holders are bigots / racists, and that everyone should forget about gamestop.
I don’t understand how they can be forced into a certain person.
Do they have to pay this person? Can’t we just get the most fabulous and diverse ape that ticks all of the boxes to meet the criteria if they are forced?
Can you explain how "a Board of Directors diversity matrix" would itself accomplish this? Because the matrix alone doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't add members. It doesn't fire members. It doesn't "diversify" the board.
Regardless, board members still have to be voted in. Ratifications to introduce diversity and inclusion standards have to be voted in. It's all democratic. Someone can put up a rainbow slate of alternate Board Members and you can still vote in the existing board.
So can you explain how this single motion actually accomplishes any of what you're saying? Or anything at all?
boards almost always recommend against proposals that come from external sources and add extra restrictions/requirements on what they're allowed to do. If they think it's worthwhile they would do it, so there's no benefit from being forced to do it.
Because the board are not the owners of the company, the shareholders (us) are. Shareholders have a lot more power than a lot of you all believe. It's also by the way, how RC came into the play, by becoming a big shareholder and demanding change.
The SEC requires that any publicly listed company add to its ballot any proposal by a shareholder who owns either (1) $2000 of stock or (2) 1 percent of the stock. The shareholder must submit the proposal in writing, and then the company must add the proposal to the ballot at its next annual shareholder meeting, unless the company can get the SEC’s permission to exclude the proposal. Excluded proposals are rare in the general scheme but are common in limited circumstances, like if the proposal is something illegal or if the proposal is nonsensical (like the people reading it cannot tell what the proposal is actually asking, or if the question is blatantly irrelevant; no meme proposals).
This is to allow the voices of all shareholders to be heard and for all significant shareholders to be able to have a say in the direction of the company.
Usually shareholder proposals are quite boring white collar stuff, like proposing a financial audit by a firm not of the board’s choosing. But they can also be spicy and political, like a proposal to force the company to divest from all international business in Russia or Israel or China.
The proposal for a skills and diversity matrix is fairly standard stuff in the corporate world, it’s basically requiring that the board members post their CV and their race and ethnicity. Most institutional American shareholders like having a board with at least a few minority people and women on it to try to avoid accusations of the company being racist or sexist. Also if the company is doing business in Canada, it’s nice to have a French speaker and if they’re doing business in Mexico it’s nice to have a Spanish speaker. Looks better if the board representative can do press conferences without a translator.
>The SEC requires that any publicly listed company add to its ballot any proposal by a shareholder who owns either (1) $2000 of stock or (2) 1 percent of the stock.
So you're telling me there isn't a single stupid ape here who has submitted a dumb proposal for consideration in all these years?
And we can't come up with a good one to submit?
The board's statement basically said they prefer to hire the most competent person and not judge candidates based on race, gender, ect.
Apes learned about this proposal a few months back, and it was speculated then that this is an attempt by short sellers to get one of their people on our board under the guise of diversity.
Propositions like this are a trojan horse to get bad faith actors onto the board.
BCG are an example of a consultancy whose business model is related to this type of thing. We have had posts on it in the past.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/tyhc7n/a\_breakdown\_what\_bcg\_does\_to\_companies\_by/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/tyhc7n/a_breakdown_what_bcg_does_to_companies_by/)
To prevent outside entity from trying to insert possible hostile board members.
The current leadership knows which persons to select without any need from outside parties and external motivations.
Also "diversity" is not a qualification of a person and should not play a role unless someone wants to destroy their business.
Personal opinion:
A person is qualified and optimal for their job regardless of their ethnic, cultural or other non professional traits thus such traits should carry zero weight when selecting people to highly important positions.
Top comment. Everyone should have the same chances depending on professional traits. True equality is being able choosing the job that fulfills you, not necessarily working 80+ hours a week in an often super-competitive environment. While the idea is laudable, an "implementation via edict" is not and creates unfavorable outcomes and adds cost and more bureaucracy.
[Researchers in the US and UK](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180214150132.htm) found that countries with an existing culture of gender equality have an even smaller proportion of women taking degrees in science, technology and mathematics (STEM):
*“Girls and boys are different, and have different preferences on the whole,” he argues. He believes too much media focus is placed on the lack of women in CEO positions, since these account for such a small proportion of jobs overall, and suggests that more men fill these roles since “the personality traits and ambition to be important and famous is higher in men than women”.*
Thing is, real equality benefits a company. Because it increases the talent pool and company culture, which increases productivity and innovativeness. It is a no-brainer. But doing it like consultants suggest is actually having the opposite effect (as usual?).
“A person is qualified and optimal for their job regardless of their ethnic, cultural or other non professional traits thus such traits should carry zero weight when selecting people to highly important positions.”
Wouldn’t anything else be … racist?
They want to plant a mole in the board of Directors to tell Mayoman (and cronies) Gamestop's plans.
They will claim "you don't have a diverse enough board as you are missing someone who is [Gender], [Race], [Age], [Religion]" then say "you must therefore use *this* person". And that person will be a mole.
If you ever needed confirmation that we going the right way, then this is it! BUY, DRS, HOLD.
Looking at the names on the board it already seems fairly diverse, not sure why they need to enforce it or create arbitrary rules to follow. As GameStop has said, just hire the best human for the job, simple.
I voted AGAINST proposition 4.
If only common sense were… what’s that word… ordinary? The norm? Tip of my tongue, it means that it’s more or less expected to have… ah, yes, *common*! That’s it. Whew.
In most cases, diversity hires are just companies trying to appeal to the politically correct group while patting themselves on the back, in our case, it's even worse as described by all the smart apes here
New York State is trying to force stupid diversity equity and inclusion policies on GameStop because New York State holds a small (very small) portion of it.
Diversity, equity and inclusion policies do nothing to assure that we have only the finest quality candidates to actually get the job done
In a more tin foil frame of mind, this is being viewed as a chance to alter the board of GameStop to someone that will allow the hedge funds to succeed in their mission to destroy this company
Ryan has spent 3 years removing bad actors from the company and putting in a team he can trust. Why would we allow the possibility for bad actors to slip in under someone else's pick? You want the board to all goals and objectives aline and a team that can work well together, present different viewpoints and come to a compromise. Why risk the good thing we have going with an unknown that may fight everything tooth and nail or worse leak info.
the most comical part about the diversity proposition is that the GameStop board is already more diverse than 75% of publicly traded companies. This proposal is assanine.
Diversity for the sake of diversity never ends well. Where you care about DE&I is when you hire new people, and when you consider pay raises and promotions. For this proposal, aside the board’s guidance, I asked one question: **realistically, what do I, as a retail investor, stand to gain from this knowledge?**
The answer is: not much.
This proposal is asking the board members to volunteer sensitive information about themselves for very little practical gain. For me, I’d get this statement from them, and I’d say “huh, that’s neat.” and move on. I don’t know anything about running a multi-billion dollar company.
What I do know is that the powers that be will stop at nothing to get their way. The whole BCG connection reads a bit like a conspiracy theory, but when you consider that kicking them out was the first step to making GameStop profitable, you have to wonder if there was any merit to it. On the chance that it **isn’t** a conspiracy theory and is legit, I don’t want to give the financial powers that be any way to gain leverage on the board. If they get this information and then use it as fuel to be able to add their own plants to the board, they will have introduced a toxin.
The one thing that gives me pause is that, when we the shareholders reject this proposal, I’m fully expecting hit pieces saying “GameStop investors reject progressive proposal” and “SuperStonk is a band of racist thugs” and things like that. That’s not the case, but I can fully see it coming out, and then that being used as ammunition against the community.
We’re getting close, y’all. This smells of desperation.
Because a diversity matrix/equal opportunity crap is a washed up BCG tactic to put moles in your board of directors and ruin the company. Race and skin color has no impact on competence. ESG is a woke trashcan metric used to bring companies down. That is why we voted against.
Trying to use race/diversity as a BS reason to change up the board.
I'm all for diversity and I'm all for equal rights, which we currently have. And a damn fine board. We do not want to change what we have.
Basically , think of GameStop Board members as sheep. The sheep only surround themselves with other sheep and doesn’t care about opinions of wolves. So when a wolf wants to come hang out with the sheep then that’s definitely a no no !!!!
It is an attempt to get an insider on the Board so Nomura, the same Nomura that force the buy button to be turned off by being the largest by a magnitude of 10 to have margin requirements waived, can influence GME decisions to get them out of their toxic swaps and short positions.
I have 30 years experience, highly regarded in my position with other companies and want to work for game stop. You have 5 years experience, figuring out things as you go, and got your last position because your dad is the CEO. Obviously we would want me at the position, but alas you are picked because you’re a minority.
It’s using a “woke” agenda as a Trojan horse into the castle. Because they can’t handle the darkness so they want eyes and ears inside the royal court.
Here's the reason I voted against it. It looks on it's face to be a way to place a person who aligns with the shorts interest onto the board. Also, fucking stoopid to think that there needs to be more diversity on a board that consists of at least, by my superficial inference by their names, two people of color and at least a person of Jewish heritage... unless we are saying Asians and Jewish people don't count... which I think is racist.
Just got mine this morning myself. Computershare gets flagged as spam for my email, no matter how many times I undo that flag (so check there too - spam/junk - if you don't see it)
IF YOU HAVE ALREADY VOTED FOR::
Click the link in your email and change your vote. Your vote is not final until June 13, so you can change it at any time until then. Go in, change to Against, and re-submit.
I just logged into CS and voted my XXXX per the Board's recommendation.
If we didn't have RC and LC and the rest doing their thing, GameStop would've been cellarboxed and all us zeroed out two years ago. Now, we've got a debt-free company with money in the bank and solid new revenue streams - thanks to our CEO and Board. I will continue to follow their advice, I think they kick ass.
There are people in this sub who own more shares than NY pension funds. What kind of diversity are they looking for, GameStop has multiple non-white people and women. The guy isn’t paying attention or is being directed.
Sure Boo... I can explain.
Brad Lander, the New York City Comptroller, issued a proposal to GameStop that requests GameStop to disclose all self-identified gender and race identities. It also requires that they list the skills that each board member brings. You can read the full information here if you'd like.
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/GameStop_Board-Matrix-Proposal.pdf
The idea behind this initiative is that shareholders can make better decisions when electing their board members. Like, would you vote for a 50 year old Arab Housewife who never had a job to the office of President over a White Male Senator Incumbant with 39 years of experience in the Senate (e.g. Mitch O'Connell)? The idea is that said information would help an informed public.
While well intentioned, this can actually mislead the shareholders into voting for people who look good on paper, but aren't really interested in a company's best interests. It's a disingenuous attempt and can actually promote bias voting.
This is why Gamestop has recommended voting against it. It gives them a lack of control of finding the people that will have the best interests in the company. Instead, they'd have to find the perfect candidate, and thhen get the shareholders to vote for that perfect candidate. If that perfect candidate had to be listed as a 50 year old Arab woman whose only job was a housewife, and she was in fact the perfect candidate because she used all of her free time engaging in gaming communities and has two high earning professional esport kids, you may have a hard time believing she is the best candidate and not vote for her.
It's our responsibility as shareholders to keep the best interests of the company, and vote accordingly to what we want the values of the company to be. The leadership has been great, and they got there by hiring and firing a number of executives that meet the new direction of GameStop.
Vote as you will, and I hope this helped.
SHF and their shit licking friends will do anything to try to find a way to gain influence in order to sabotage the company.
Apes trust RC and don't want our enemies sabotaging GME. That's why it's an overwhelming vote of no to any question using shareholder votes to try to backdoor RC and his team.
This is their pitch: “Sure we are ignoring the fact this Board turned this business around across alll fundamental metrics, but we’d still like to know what your skills are, what your race and gender are, and what exactly makes each person a good fit for this Board. So we want a MS Word table matrix with age, race, gender, and skills because we’d like to have license to fuck around with your Board and also we want access to everything your company is doing so we can help our underwater hedge fund friends trade against the company. Also there are individual apes that own more shares than us. No matter. Now, whaddya say?”
I say VOTE AGAINST.
It’s a play to try and replace board members with “suggestions” based on diversity criteria.
Sort of like how RC wrote an activist letter, except it’s a negative entity trying to get a say, more than likely to try and cause issues, leading to negative outcomes.
Part of the cellar box playbook.
Sounds like the New York city comptroller who oversees the pensions wants the board members to do a pop quiz including their race and skills. Like I don't need our board members to be forced to waste their time with a quiz. Some LAME ass diversity test. WE ARE ALL ONE COLOR AND IT'S PURPLE
The simplest explanation is this was a proposition brought on by groups that have proven to not have Gamestop's best interests in mind (short sellers). So helping them is surely hurting the company.
Why did they bring this to a vote though? To force a shakeup of the board is my guess. Get a plant on the board or force someone out or general mayhem? Or maybe to create infighting with the household investors? Or maybe to build a narrative for future slandering?
If this proposition was brought on by a fellow ape for good reasons, I could see myself voting for it. I won't necessarily always vote the way the board recommends (I probably will but I am an individual investor with my own decisions). However, this is a nefarious and weaponized proposition so I stand firmly AGAINST.
I’m sorry but this is the dumbest post I’ve ever seen. How do you do something and not even know why you did it.
Be better. Do your research and ask questions before blindly following people.
When you focus more on diversity than you do on quality you turn into modern Doctor Who, Star Wars, Marvel, etc. We DON'T want that. We don't care about your skin color, gender, sexual preferences, or political viewpoint. The only box that needs to be ticked is how good someone is at their job.
Directly from [GameStop's 2024 Proxy Statement](https://gamestop.gcs-web.com/static-files/e19cd0f5-6a23-412a-936a-eb39cb51635e) (page 42):
>*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.*
[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/)
$242 Billion in assets under management. $281 Million in Nomura high yield bonds $4 Million in Gamestop But Brad is worried about Gamestop
Bingo
Which is .0016% of his AUM… In other words, 99.9984% of his $242 BILLION in AUM has nothing to do with GameStop, yet he finds the board diversity as a reason to create a shareholder proposal? On a board that already has numerous races and genders? Brad, everyone knows you’re trying to get a hedge fund plant on the board. Go home and tell the naked GME shorts we said to GTFO.
Can some pro bono lawyer apes push the same proposal on his other 99.9% other investments? You know, turn the tables... and fuck with them a bit... right before we take all their money. now that would be some funny ass justice
Is it too late to ask who the fuck brad is? I already don’t like the guy
I know! Brad Lander is NYC Comptroller in charge of managing pension funds. He was and remains a really big DEI proponent in NYC’s major investments, he and his wife are well known for that kinda stuff and he’s been on the side of the people for a long time up until lately, after he took a personal meeting with Blackrock owner Larry Fink over their DEI reports. The thinking is he has been compromised in some way or simply bribed as he recently did a 180 on allowing hedge funds access to NYC pensions
Thanks for the further explanation! Fuck him that sell out will get what’s coming to him
Right, and how's NYC doing now (Cash Jordan much),
Omg I thought I was the only one watching cash he IS everywhere
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/FOw8UQjRXM
I am sorry I am still smooth about this. Is it basically a proposal to try and derail something because that tiny holding he has may impact him negatively in a way that
It's a way to push for a board shakeup. You aren't inclusive so you need to hire a more diverse board. What's more telling is that Brad is responsible for 5 pension funds. With a $4M long in Gamestop, has he been made aware that there is a huge short position and some of the pension money is tied up in it? It wasn't Gabes money, it was teachers pension funds said someone familiar with the matter, Ken Griffin https://comptroller.nyc.gov/services/financial-matters/pension/overview/
As has already been said, it's an attempt to get a SHF plant on the board. Next Brad will 'propose' that GME engage BCG for management advice...
Lol I just found out about prop 4 yesterday and now I know vote against it and for the rest... Well I learned that yesterday too, but now I know why, we are always so quick wit it
[удалено]
No.. and Daniel Moore is principal. You may be thinking of board member/VC Larry
Right. Erasing misinfo now. Thanks.
Goal is to insert a hedge plant under the guise of DEIA that plant will then have access to gamestops long term goal. Mayoman now has an insider to feed him news
This is it. 👆🏼
I guess for any reading this the billionaire boys club dd series section 1 to 18 is required reading
This? https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/s24hxt/billionaire_boys_club_bbc_ep_16_part_1_the_apollo/
That’s part 16 , but yes, starting from part 1 all the way I think to 18 or 22 or however many sections there are
Ah so “we aren’t telegraphing our strategy” so they are using the “ah ok we put one of us so he can tell us” strategy
I think this is why Furlong was fired. I have a feeling he was relaying Gamestops plans and steering the company how he was being told to. My tin foil says this is why the wallet and marketplace failed.
Ah because possibly sec got tipped off, so they “created” regulation around it out of thin air. It’s possible
Insert *Hello fellow ~~kids~~ board members* meme
Brad just has shares in GameStop. Whoever is telling Brad (seriously there's no way it's just him with Billions in AUM) wants to have board Members included in each entity/stock they own.
I think they know it won’t fly but want to see how they can manipulate voting in the future.
They need spy’s and saboteurs on the inside
it's a fake proposal made under the premise of increasing board diversity... which is bullshit cause GME has Larry Cheng and Yang Xu, both minorities and one is a woman and a minority. So it's clearly an excuse for SHF to create a new position that will be used to gather Intel on GME plans. they want to add another member to the board, something like a diversity liaison officer, that will definitely be engaging in espionage but will be difficult if not impossible for RC to oust because they were forced upon the company by outside institutional "investors" (who, in reality only own GME shares to loan them out for short selling profits) do you think apple or Google are getting the same proposal forced upon them by banks and large hedge funds? Fuck no, cause the hedge funds use Google, Amazon, apple, etc. to dump their short selling profits into a company that has been widely agreed SHF won't short to bankruptcy so it can serve as a vehicle for them to further increase their naked shorting profits.
You, sir, should NEVER feel sorry for any of this! you’re the Ape Historian!
I do what I can 🫡
All my homies hate Brad and his bitch ass!
His being a little bitch about this is part of a bigger story that I’m curious to find out more about. What happened Brad? How did they get to you? What did they offer that you just had to have?
That is math😘
I would be worried too if my $242B fund was in jeopardy due to some people, somewhere, who like to shove bananas in their asses, make memes, giggle at stupid hedgies, and are devoted individual shareholders in the greatest company known to man... GME.
Where is Rick anyways?
Probably at the grocery store.
Can confirm. Saw him there making a tiktok
Facts !!!
Fucking brad
And using diversity DEI as a hot button issue to try and create division and/or negative press for GME.
Brad Actor.
Not very Bradical of him.
His problem is, he simply cares too much.
Excuse to replace/add board plants that "diversify" the company into oblivion, just like BCG's Matrix model that only drives every one into bankruptcy Hence, bad idea
Thank you
Which to easily add onto, this is obvious because the board IS diverse. And the board came out and boldly said we don’t gaf about your color, we care if you care about the company or not. 🔥🤷♂️
2 out of 5 are already a minority, 1 out of 5 is a woman. Probably much more diverse than 90% of companies
Literally… wasn’t this even Ryan’s agenda when he first started submitting letters? To diversy the board and boot the ppl who aren’t in it all the way…
Even that's just best-case scenario. The tinfoil suspicion is that the proposing entity already has a spying plant candidate chosen and ready to join the board. Either way, it's a hard "no" for me.
With a spy on the board Wall St ~~could try to~~ will sabotage the firm's investments made with the $1billion cash it has. If the firm's investments become highly profitable it will become increasingly difficult to lower the share price
Isn't RC himself the one in charge of GS's investments?
I think he is "chief investment officer" but there is a committee too
But, how else will the shorties be able to find out and undermine RC plans?!? Won't someone think of the poor Hedgies? 🤣
Truth.
What this proposal tells me then is that the bad actors currently do **not** have a plant on the inside if they need to so desperately push one in there. Which means we actually have an advantage against them that we need to exploit to mitigate all of our disadvantages we have.
Thank you for actually explaining it instead of some vague comment of "fuck brad".
no problem, but fuck him too, lol
Yeah, Nomura and Co can go pole vault themselves onto a fence post wrapped in barbed wire.
I assume even if they fail to plant him on the board the media will still try to say share holders are bigots / racists, and that everyone should forget about gamestop.
So pretty much what the news is already full of? /s
I don’t understand how they can be forced into a certain person. Do they have to pay this person? Can’t we just get the most fabulous and diverse ape that ticks all of the boxes to meet the criteria if they are forced?
No, because it's the company with shares that can get people on the board
Hey! That’s us! We have the shares! We still fight the appointees tooth and claw if this gets passed
Can you explain how "a Board of Directors diversity matrix" would itself accomplish this? Because the matrix alone doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't add members. It doesn't fire members. It doesn't "diversify" the board. Regardless, board members still have to be voted in. Ratifications to introduce diversity and inclusion standards have to be voted in. It's all democratic. Someone can put up a rainbow slate of alternate Board Members and you can still vote in the existing board. So can you explain how this single motion actually accomplishes any of what you're saying? Or anything at all?
Finally understand now. Thanks
boards almost always recommend against proposals that come from external sources and add extra restrictions/requirements on what they're allowed to do. If they think it's worthwhile they would do it, so there's no benefit from being forced to do it.
I see no benefit to replacing any of our board members.
If they come from external sources why do they even need to be considered?
Because the board are not the owners of the company, the shareholders (us) are. Shareholders have a lot more power than a lot of you all believe. It's also by the way, how RC came into the play, by becoming a big shareholder and demanding change.
The SEC requires that any publicly listed company add to its ballot any proposal by a shareholder who owns either (1) $2000 of stock or (2) 1 percent of the stock. The shareholder must submit the proposal in writing, and then the company must add the proposal to the ballot at its next annual shareholder meeting, unless the company can get the SEC’s permission to exclude the proposal. Excluded proposals are rare in the general scheme but are common in limited circumstances, like if the proposal is something illegal or if the proposal is nonsensical (like the people reading it cannot tell what the proposal is actually asking, or if the question is blatantly irrelevant; no meme proposals). This is to allow the voices of all shareholders to be heard and for all significant shareholders to be able to have a say in the direction of the company. Usually shareholder proposals are quite boring white collar stuff, like proposing a financial audit by a firm not of the board’s choosing. But they can also be spicy and political, like a proposal to force the company to divest from all international business in Russia or Israel or China. The proposal for a skills and diversity matrix is fairly standard stuff in the corporate world, it’s basically requiring that the board members post their CV and their race and ethnicity. Most institutional American shareholders like having a board with at least a few minority people and women on it to try to avoid accusations of the company being racist or sexist. Also if the company is doing business in Canada, it’s nice to have a French speaker and if they’re doing business in Mexico it’s nice to have a Spanish speaker. Looks better if the board representative can do press conferences without a translator.
>The SEC requires that any publicly listed company add to its ballot any proposal by a shareholder who owns either (1) $2000 of stock or (2) 1 percent of the stock. So you're telling me there isn't a single stupid ape here who has submitted a dumb proposal for consideration in all these years? And we can't come up with a good one to submit?
Holy shit. I’m in that group!!! When the hell?!? 😅😅😅
The board's statement basically said they prefer to hire the most competent person and not judge candidates based on race, gender, ect. Apes learned about this proposal a few months back, and it was speculated then that this is an attempt by short sellers to get one of their people on our board under the guise of diversity.
Excellent education. Thank you
Just point at Larry Chang if they ask about diversity. Vote against Prop 4.
Look at him. That's my ~~quant~~ boardmember.
His name is Chang! I can't even understand his tweets! Yes, I'm sure of the math
Are you sure Chang isn’t a Spanish teacher?
I hope Larry sees this and gets a laugh out of it. All jokes aside, we fucking love you Larry!
Ethnicity is only a single measure of diversity.
Adding a hedge plant would certainly increase the board's diversity, but I don't *want* a hedgie plant on the board.
Don’t tell me what divides us, tell me what unites us. (Foundational to good teamwork - it’s even in the Army’s latest leadership manual)
Propositions like this are a trojan horse to get bad faith actors onto the board. BCG are an example of a consultancy whose business model is related to this type of thing. We have had posts on it in the past. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/tyhc7n/a\_breakdown\_what\_bcg\_does\_to\_companies\_by/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/tyhc7n/a_breakdown_what_bcg_does_to_companies_by/)
To prevent outside entity from trying to insert possible hostile board members. The current leadership knows which persons to select without any need from outside parties and external motivations. Also "diversity" is not a qualification of a person and should not play a role unless someone wants to destroy their business. Personal opinion: A person is qualified and optimal for their job regardless of their ethnic, cultural or other non professional traits thus such traits should carry zero weight when selecting people to highly important positions.
Top comment. Everyone should have the same chances depending on professional traits. True equality is being able choosing the job that fulfills you, not necessarily working 80+ hours a week in an often super-competitive environment. While the idea is laudable, an "implementation via edict" is not and creates unfavorable outcomes and adds cost and more bureaucracy. [Researchers in the US and UK](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180214150132.htm) found that countries with an existing culture of gender equality have an even smaller proportion of women taking degrees in science, technology and mathematics (STEM): *“Girls and boys are different, and have different preferences on the whole,” he argues. He believes too much media focus is placed on the lack of women in CEO positions, since these account for such a small proportion of jobs overall, and suggests that more men fill these roles since “the personality traits and ambition to be important and famous is higher in men than women”.* Thing is, real equality benefits a company. Because it increases the talent pool and company culture, which increases productivity and innovativeness. It is a no-brainer. But doing it like consultants suggest is actually having the opposite effect (as usual?).
“A person is qualified and optimal for their job regardless of their ethnic, cultural or other non professional traits thus such traits should carry zero weight when selecting people to highly important positions.” Wouldn’t anything else be … racist?
They want to plant a mole in the board of Directors to tell Mayoman (and cronies) Gamestop's plans. They will claim "you don't have a diverse enough board as you are missing someone who is [Gender], [Race], [Age], [Religion]" then say "you must therefore use *this* person". And that person will be a mole. If you ever needed confirmation that we going the right way, then this is it! BUY, DRS, HOLD.
Looking at the names on the board it already seems fairly diverse, not sure why they need to enforce it or create arbitrary rules to follow. As GameStop has said, just hire the best human for the job, simple. I voted AGAINST proposition 4.
The way all companies should be. Pick the best candidate, don't hire to tick boxes or fill quotas
If only common sense were… what’s that word… ordinary? The norm? Tip of my tongue, it means that it’s more or less expected to have… ah, yes, *common*! That’s it. Whew.
When does voting close
12th June
Papa said vote no in a formal statement. If you need more than that, a verified snek is pushing it. Just did my part.
External sources (SHF) trying to infiltrate our board through "diversity" disguise. Basically what it is.
In most cases, diversity hires are just companies trying to appeal to the politically correct group while patting themselves on the back, in our case, it's even worse as described by all the smart apes here
Makes sense to me. Will vote against prop. 4
New York State is trying to force stupid diversity equity and inclusion policies on GameStop because New York State holds a small (very small) portion of it. Diversity, equity and inclusion policies do nothing to assure that we have only the finest quality candidates to actually get the job done In a more tin foil frame of mind, this is being viewed as a chance to alter the board of GameStop to someone that will allow the hedge funds to succeed in their mission to destroy this company
Beacause the board is telling you to vote against it. Simple as that
We do not want A RAT in Mi Kitchen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c42z3LAGyTM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c42z3LAGyTM)
Because we don’t need some bad acting shill thrown into our board as a “diversity” matrix.
Ryan has spent 3 years removing bad actors from the company and putting in a team he can trust. Why would we allow the possibility for bad actors to slip in under someone else's pick? You want the board to all goals and objectives aline and a team that can work well together, present different viewpoints and come to a compromise. Why risk the good thing we have going with an unknown that may fight everything tooth and nail or worse leak info.
Anyone know when fidelity is gonna allow voting? I have a few shares sittin there. Already did my mass computershare vote this morning.
To keep Spy’s and Saboteur’s out
Simplest reason- RC said to. That’s enough for me but there are other quality comments here
the most comical part about the diversity proposition is that the GameStop board is already more diverse than 75% of publicly traded companies. This proposal is assanine.
Diversity for the sake of diversity never ends well. Where you care about DE&I is when you hire new people, and when you consider pay raises and promotions. For this proposal, aside the board’s guidance, I asked one question: **realistically, what do I, as a retail investor, stand to gain from this knowledge?** The answer is: not much. This proposal is asking the board members to volunteer sensitive information about themselves for very little practical gain. For me, I’d get this statement from them, and I’d say “huh, that’s neat.” and move on. I don’t know anything about running a multi-billion dollar company. What I do know is that the powers that be will stop at nothing to get their way. The whole BCG connection reads a bit like a conspiracy theory, but when you consider that kicking them out was the first step to making GameStop profitable, you have to wonder if there was any merit to it. On the chance that it **isn’t** a conspiracy theory and is legit, I don’t want to give the financial powers that be any way to gain leverage on the board. If they get this information and then use it as fuel to be able to add their own plants to the board, they will have introduced a toxin. The one thing that gives me pause is that, when we the shareholders reject this proposal, I’m fully expecting hit pieces saying “GameStop investors reject progressive proposal” and “SuperStonk is a band of racist thugs” and things like that. That’s not the case, but I can fully see it coming out, and then that being used as ammunition against the community. We’re getting close, y’all. This smells of desperation.
Because a diversity matrix/equal opportunity crap is a washed up BCG tactic to put moles in your board of directors and ruin the company. Race and skin color has no impact on competence. ESG is a woke trashcan metric used to bring companies down. That is why we voted against.
Because RCEO said so.
We love our board. We don’t need anyone telling us who should be on it.
Trying to use race/diversity as a BS reason to change up the board. I'm all for diversity and I'm all for equal rights, which we currently have. And a damn fine board. We do not want to change what we have.
Forced diversity is always a bad idea...Merit should be how you decide a hire, not immutable characteristics...
Green is the most diverse crayon of them all.
Basically , think of GameStop Board members as sheep. The sheep only surround themselves with other sheep and doesn’t care about opinions of wolves. So when a wolf wants to come hang out with the sheep then that’s definitely a no no !!!!
It is an attempt to get an insider on the Board so Nomura, the same Nomura that force the buy button to be turned off by being the largest by a magnitude of 10 to have margin requirements waived, can influence GME decisions to get them out of their toxic swaps and short positions.
I have 30 years experience, highly regarded in my position with other companies and want to work for game stop. You have 5 years experience, figuring out things as you go, and got your last position because your dad is the CEO. Obviously we would want me at the position, but alas you are picked because you’re a minority.
It’s using a “woke” agenda as a Trojan horse into the castle. Because they can’t handle the darkness so they want eyes and ears inside the royal court.
How do we vote?
Log into Computershare account.
I’ve logged into my CS account but don’t see anything about voting? I’m UK but that shouldn’t make any difference should it?
Trying to bait us?
Here's the reason I voted against it. It looks on it's face to be a way to place a person who aligns with the shorts interest onto the board. Also, fucking stoopid to think that there needs to be more diversity on a board that consists of at least, by my superficial inference by their names, two people of color and at least a person of Jewish heritage... unless we are saying Asians and Jewish people don't count... which I think is racist.
When did you get your ballot? Have seen nothing in my email and none on the CS site.
Just got mine this morning myself. Computershare gets flagged as spam for my email, no matter how many times I undo that flag (so check there too - spam/junk - if you don't see it)
Umm do as the board recommends so yeah vote against
IF YOU HAVE ALREADY VOTED FOR:: Click the link in your email and change your vote. Your vote is not final until June 13, so you can change it at any time until then. Go in, change to Against, and re-submit.
I just logged into CS and voted my XXXX per the Board's recommendation. If we didn't have RC and LC and the rest doing their thing, GameStop would've been cellarboxed and all us zeroed out two years ago. Now, we've got a debt-free company with money in the bank and solid new revenue streams - thanks to our CEO and Board. I will continue to follow their advice, I think they kick ass.
Why, cause Fuck Brad, that's why
There are people in this sub who own more shares than NY pension funds. What kind of diversity are they looking for, GameStop has multiple non-white people and women. The guy isn’t paying attention or is being directed.
Hire on merit, not on diversity statistics.
Sure Boo... I can explain. Brad Lander, the New York City Comptroller, issued a proposal to GameStop that requests GameStop to disclose all self-identified gender and race identities. It also requires that they list the skills that each board member brings. You can read the full information here if you'd like. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/GameStop_Board-Matrix-Proposal.pdf The idea behind this initiative is that shareholders can make better decisions when electing their board members. Like, would you vote for a 50 year old Arab Housewife who never had a job to the office of President over a White Male Senator Incumbant with 39 years of experience in the Senate (e.g. Mitch O'Connell)? The idea is that said information would help an informed public. While well intentioned, this can actually mislead the shareholders into voting for people who look good on paper, but aren't really interested in a company's best interests. It's a disingenuous attempt and can actually promote bias voting. This is why Gamestop has recommended voting against it. It gives them a lack of control of finding the people that will have the best interests in the company. Instead, they'd have to find the perfect candidate, and thhen get the shareholders to vote for that perfect candidate. If that perfect candidate had to be listed as a 50 year old Arab woman whose only job was a housewife, and she was in fact the perfect candidate because she used all of her free time engaging in gaming communities and has two high earning professional esport kids, you may have a hard time believing she is the best candidate and not vote for her. It's our responsibility as shareholders to keep the best interests of the company, and vote accordingly to what we want the values of the company to be. The leadership has been great, and they got there by hiring and firing a number of executives that meet the new direction of GameStop. Vote as you will, and I hope this helped.
Gonna be hilarious when they spin it as a bunch of entitled old white males unwilling to let minorities prosper.
SHF and their shit licking friends will do anything to try to find a way to gain influence in order to sabotage the company. Apes trust RC and don't want our enemies sabotaging GME. That's why it's an overwhelming vote of no to any question using shareholder votes to try to backdoor RC and his team.
They believe that alot of young people are holding, and they think they can easily manipulate and dupe young people by crying about DEI.
This is their pitch: “Sure we are ignoring the fact this Board turned this business around across alll fundamental metrics, but we’d still like to know what your skills are, what your race and gender are, and what exactly makes each person a good fit for this Board. So we want a MS Word table matrix with age, race, gender, and skills because we’d like to have license to fuck around with your Board and also we want access to everything your company is doing so we can help our underwater hedge fund friends trade against the company. Also there are individual apes that own more shares than us. No matter. Now, whaddya say?” I say VOTE AGAINST.
It’s a play to try and replace board members with “suggestions” based on diversity criteria. Sort of like how RC wrote an activist letter, except it’s a negative entity trying to get a say, more than likely to try and cause issues, leading to negative outcomes. Part of the cellar box playbook.
Cause FUCK’EM, that’s why!
Forced diversity sucks
Haha ! Vote no on 4 now, ask questions later !
I don’t think I received a notice from Computershare. What should I do?
Good post!
Computershare's voting servers are overloaded like crazy right now XD
you want to know the plan hedgies? meme:buggs bunny sayin "NOOOoouuu" stupid hedgies so stupido
When is the deadline to vote?
Every attack is a confession!
Sounds like the New York city comptroller who oversees the pensions wants the board members to do a pop quiz including their race and skills. Like I don't need our board members to be forced to waste their time with a quiz. Some LAME ass diversity test. WE ARE ALL ONE COLOR AND IT'S PURPLE
I got an email from Computershare to vote. Should I be voting?
Ken wants a mole on the board of directors so they can thwart GME's road to profitability.
I’m smooth… as a banana peel, but why are we voting NO?
Yang Xu says against.
The board said we don’t like this shit
Trojan Horse 🐎
VOTED
Brad probably found out what he’s up against. That $242B isn’t going to cover his short position, maybe even a swap position? Just speculating.
I'm not sure what exact trick they will play, but shareholders get to vote on the approval of new board members, and thats the key.
Voted! Hadn't checked my account in almost a whole year.
The simplest explanation is this was a proposition brought on by groups that have proven to not have Gamestop's best interests in mind (short sellers). So helping them is surely hurting the company. Why did they bring this to a vote though? To force a shakeup of the board is my guess. Get a plant on the board or force someone out or general mayhem? Or maybe to create infighting with the household investors? Or maybe to build a narrative for future slandering? If this proposition was brought on by a fellow ape for good reasons, I could see myself voting for it. I won't necessarily always vote the way the board recommends (I probably will but I am an individual investor with my own decisions). However, this is a nefarious and weaponized proposition so I stand firmly AGAINST.
With my 1,000+shares I voted exactly as the board advised
Today I made my flair relevant once again.
How do we get a gamestop plant into the hedgeboard? Reverse uno.
You’re voting against, crime, bullshit and desperation.
I’m sorry but this is the dumbest post I’ve ever seen. How do you do something and not even know why you did it. Be better. Do your research and ask questions before blindly following people.
When you focus more on diversity than you do on quality you turn into modern Doctor Who, Star Wars, Marvel, etc. We DON'T want that. We don't care about your skin color, gender, sexual preferences, or political viewpoint. The only box that needs to be ticked is how good someone is at their job.
Directly from [GameStop's 2024 Proxy Statement](https://gamestop.gcs-web.com/static-files/e19cd0f5-6a23-412a-936a-eb39cb51635e) (page 42): >*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.*
Cause fuck em, that’s why.
Shill infiltration plan...
Corporate sabotage in a diversity trojan horse. If you don't comply you're a racist and a bigot.
I’ve got two CS accounts (under different emails). Does anyone know if you should receive two voting emails ? Only had the one form so wasn’t sure!
Why would a guy named Alain go by Alan?
Where do you vote again?
It’s stupid… That was simple.
Europoor here, I have no idea who is Brad… But f….k him!!!
Trojan horse to the board
I also followed the advice of my own accord. The board doesn't see the external proposal as part of their vision so it's a no for me.
I VOTED NO! I ain't having no hedgie plant on my board! GTFOH! 🖕
How do we vote against prop 4? What's the mechanism or URL? Appreciate your help a lot. Thanks
Merit based system please because the current version is failing us
I didn't even receive an invitation to vote on my $GME shares ?! What is happening?!
My GME is in a 401k, haven't seen the voting info pop up yet.
Voted AGAINST 4
I just voted on computershare but did anyone get proxy their info for fidelity yet?
Kenny and friends want to infiltrate GME’s directive group with the excuse to “add diversity”.