Interesting choice not to italicized the part where they say it's in the form of a dividend. There are mechanical implications of it being a dividend as opposed to a split.
Interesting stipulation to be putting on my response where you yourself use an SEC link. In any case, there are tax implications when it's a non taxable dividend versus a split and on top of that anyone who is short is obligated to buy those extra shares for every share they're short.
Here's a source from the IRS highlighted for your convenience. Of course, I don't actually expect this to mean anything to someone who's arguing in bad faith.
Right. An SEC link which is a filing directly by GME itself, stating they declared a split and will distribute as a dividend.
Different tax implication, right.
But taxes are secondary to making or losing money in the first place.
anyone who is short is obligated to buy those extra shares for every share they're short
That is where you have not shown me why that is a problem, assuming the shorts must do that.
When they shorted, they SOLD (stock they did not own). Those sales proceeds went into their account as CASH. That cash is STILL sitting in their accounts. IF they must "buy back" shares (at the split-adjusted lower price), they will use that CASH SITTING IN THEIR ACCOUNT to do it.
Interesting choice not to italicized the part where they say it's in the form of a dividend. There are mechanical implications of it being a dividend as opposed to a split.
OK. Explain in your own words (no links).
I double dog dare ya. I KNOW you can't explain it because you don't understand it.
Is that you, Kenny mayoboi?
<crickets>
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Interesting stipulation to be putting on my response where you yourself use an SEC link. In any case, there are tax implications when it's a non taxable dividend versus a split and on top of that anyone who is short is obligated to buy those extra shares for every share they're short.
Here's a source from the IRS highlighted for your convenience. Of course, I don't actually expect this to mean anything to someone who's arguing in bad faith.
Right. An SEC link which is a filing directly by GME itself, stating they declared a split and will distribute as a dividend.
Different tax implication, right.
But taxes are secondary to making or losing money in the first place.
That is where you have not shown me why that is a problem, assuming the shorts must do that.
When they shorted, they SOLD (stock they did not own). Those sales proceeds went into their account as CASH. That cash is STILL sitting in their accounts. IF they must "buy back" shares (at the split-adjusted lower price), they will use that CASH SITTING IN THEIR ACCOUNT to do it.
So what?
Because now they're on the hook for 4 times the amount of what they're short if they don't close their positions by the 18th.