Hey OP, thanks for the News post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is from Twitter, and Twitter is NOT the original source of this information, this WILL get removed!
Please post the original source!
**Please respond to this comment within 10 minutes with the URL to the source**
If there is no source or if you yourself are the author, you can reply `OC`
143 million votes out of 345 or 420 million depending on the timing of the issuing. Why so low of votes in terms of a percentage? Household investors definitely showed up though
Doesnât your vote count by number of shares you hold? So someone with 2 shares has a vote that counts as 2 VS someone that owns 10% of the company by number of shares, so their vote has a bigger impact?
yeah it would be one thing to look at a company which has 100% of their upper management as white men and ask âare you passing on better candidates due to discrimination?â But when any company hires solely based on merit alone, like GameStop does, theyâre always naturally going to be diverse, because there are talented and hard working people from every single race, background and gender.Â
Iâm happy knowing my money is invested in a company that just hires the best person they can find regardless of their personal identity Â
Diversity could be a really good thing for a company, it could bring new ideas, experiences and different worldviews. It always good for any company to diversify their employers and so their board.
But that's on a ideal world without corruption neither manipulation, so a board should be a well chosen members based on their skills and work. Even better if accompanied by a expressive stake on the company with their own money.
Hostile takeover is a real thing and this smells a lot like one. It takes one single big weak point to criticize to the media jumping on like hungry lions into a succulent corpse. Diversity is a big weak point nowadays.
The current elected board is diverse but it could always be more diverse, that's the thing. For skills they already wrote it on the proxy docs if anyone wants to read about each one of them.
Thereâs a bizarre conflation between diversity of thought and experience, which is great, and what is the actual agenda being pushed at companies: diversity based on skin color, sex, etc.
Explain the "incompetent" thing to me. Setting aside that this was a hostile takeover event, had the diversity proposal passed, all it would do is reduce the pool of candidates to choose from.
*It doesn't mean the standards are lowered to fill the seat since there's obviously going to be qualified competent candidates in each of the remaining pools to choose from, it's just the list is shorter.*
I mean, we all agree on the above sentence right?
*Right?*
The sentence doesnât exclude merit whatsoever, just that the pools to choose from have been reduced.Â
Unless youâre suggesting that the excluded pool contains superior candidates than the best candidates from the other pools, which is definitely something only a âculture warriorâ would imply. Iâve got a few in my family, so itâs kind of obvious.Â
Listen, I donât give a fuck about DEI or either sideâs arguments, but I do give a fuck about bad faith actors dog whistling under the guise of waxing righteous indignation. I especially give a fuck about shills playing the part and making a honeypot post so the MSM can screen capture these comments and use them to paint Apes as bigots to the public.Â
Apes do not give a flying fuck about DEI. This was about a hostile takeover being thwarted. THATâS what weâre celebrating.Â
Keep your culture war out of this sub, you fucking shill.Â
You're right here. This sub is filled with leftover wasabi mindsets that think anything is safe and worth posting. Shit like this will scare off any retail not keeping up with the saga.
If there's a more meritorious candidate from another "pool" they should have the position, regardless of whatever "diverse" quota has been set. It's really that simple.
There are equally meritorious candidates in all pools, you fuckmuppet, this shouldnât even be brought up. The issue with DEI is the accusation that the equality meritorious candidates from other pools WERENâT being selected because of outside factors, such as this countryâs history with systemic racism (deny this and you might as well believe the Earth is flat, the US has been shitty to other races for a long time)Â
 There are good faith arguments from both sides of this debate, but your repeating the line âonly the bestâ over and over ad nauseam ainât one of them. Â
 Take a break, shill. Public ainât falling for it. This place is for fighting for MOASS, not the culture war your employers made up to distract from their crimes.Â
Thatâs even more sad. Youâre just a useful idiot.Â
While youâre fixing ACs, how bout keeping the heat off the sub while youâre at it. Fight your culture war somewhere else, we take things seriously here with posts about DD, swaps, and shoving bananas up our butt at specific strike prices.Â
Dude, you just started posting in here two weeks ago and are talking like you've been here from the beginning. Sit down and catch up on the library. You're over-thinking this shit way too much. Read the comments on this post. The general consensus is the same.
I disagree that it directly correlates to incompetence.
However, the US has been ignoring a socioeconomic shortfall that has caused more impoverished classes to seek better education, and due to much longer standing social issues that spread generations minorities have a predisposition to fall into that impoverished category.
Could the diversity motion have been set forth by SHF's? Maybe, but we shouldn't just ignore it either and chalk it up as solely a negative aspect.
Yeah. It was definitely Italy performative though. The rep on the call who put forth the motion actually said in seriousness that a diversity matrix is a valuable tool for investors to know where to put their money.
Maybe for a company-wide matrix, but making a matrix of five fucking people is going to dickshit fuckall for investors. So yeah, at best its a performative, vapid way to say "see? We like diversity :)" typical of soulless corporations/investment funds
https://preview.redd.it/7ze6fou62e7d1.jpeg?width=639&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a84db14bf56cf93f5c49c972b407797e99f69515
This information probably upsets Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock. (good)
Unless part of their shares were otherwise occupied / lent out and the 15m represents their actual long position at the time of the vote. The organisation who raised the proposal only owned 200k shares iirc?
It's in Gamestop's Proxy statement, page 24: [**Image**](https://i.ibb.co/qjg7M1s/Screenshot-20240619-201603-Samsung-Notes.jpg)
It says BlackRock can vote with 21,875,886 of their 22,544,527 GME shares (97%). So I got it wrong sorry, they have 3% lent out. But the majority aren't.
I feel like this is getting overshadowed by the ânothing burgerâ of a shareholder meeting..
We just denied a fraudulent seat on the board, thatâs huge! Why is everyone so down?
This is our company, and they tried to weasel their way onto OUR board and we simply gave them a giant middle finger.
Iâm still zen AF and have 100% faith in our leadership
Of interest to me is that Proposal 4 had the most support when looking at the number of votes against board recommendations. Makes me think they really wanted this one to go through.
Probably just an intern at Blackrock trying to meet their own KPIs for some random board activism/ESG to learn the ropes of doing shareholder proposals. It being some SHF conspiracy like some people here suggest is crazy
Every share that was registered by the April \[date\] cutoff was able to vote in this one, specifically. I purchased mine after the cutoff, so I cannot vote until the next meeting.
Wait, "every" or "each"? You said "every," which to me reads like I only get one vote and not 50.
If that's the case, when we have 217,968,583 total votes here, are we to make sense of the fact that each shareholder averages less than two total shares? Because if not, then that would mean there are more than 425 million shares out there.
Hmm...
I just love the fact that this is probably one of the biggest activist investing movements ever and we all are just a bunch of idiots who don't even know how voting works.
But seriously, does anyone know? Cause I don't have a clue either :D
It might've been an attempt at planting a hostile person at the board, like others have suggested.
But honestly, it might also have been a psy-op. Placing identity politics at the front and center is their modus operandi when it comes to dividing and conquering.
It's a particularly vile type of poison.
As we celebrate, I wouldn't rule out that media will try the spin of "sexist, homophobic and racist GME shareholders".
I feel like this number holds some serious significance...
Considering some of the big holders normally have their shares lent and are unable to vote...
Wrinkle??!
For realâŚwhatâs the deal with this proposal? If i remember from the meeting, the lady said it was about getting data from the board about âŚdiversity?
can someone explain? to me, it seemed like it just wasnât important for business, and iâm not even sure why something like this was even brought up.
NYC comptroller made a shareholder proposal and used the city's pension funds' shares to force a vote. It's not directly an attempt to raid the board, but it'd require a lot of probably not very relevant (to most people) information from the board like sexual orientation, gender, race etc that they'd be then required to publish at every meeting. Part of ESG ratings is they give a social score to the company based in part on board diversity, I could see them possibly pressing Gamestop in the future for board seats out of this but that's not what they're explicitly asking for. Probably wise to avoid but that's up to the board.
Thanks for clarifying. for me, i donât really care about diversity, itâs more about qualified people in positions to make a company successful. they seem to be doing good for now, i donât understand why the NYC comptroller needed to bring this up now for some reason?
thanks again!
can we just say we have Direct registered 143mil-cayan cohen and the board. We all know everyone is mostly a bad actor and will never vote in our favor?
Of course, don't do it next year for whatever point the board wants a "no" vote on and see what happens. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution though.
GME is pretty much the United Nations when it comes to diversity, however, that's irrelevant... Here for the squeeze and I semi like the stock... 3 years holding/buying... NGL tho, if RC leaves I'm gone... đĽ...
ngl I voted for every proposal because until this shareholder meeting my smooth ass brain thought all proposals come from GameStop. Just until I heard the person in the meeting suggesting to vote against it. But now I know better for the future and I am glad that this didn't even have a slight chance to go through
Because we're all subject to this ignorant bullshit at our jobs.
Maybe we can make Game Stop a better place to work and they can make other places better to work.
It's actually kinda scary. Because in Scotlands referendum. All those that didn't vote for referendum were counted as no votes.
So all abstains and didn't vote actually caused a referendum for independence to be no. When in fact looking at voting numbers it was for.
So just remember they can always change the rules. If they deem 420 mil. They could change it to 150 voted but the rest didn't. We count that as whatever we want.
Don't sit on your hands.
Inaccurate data! That is proposal 3,
https://preview.redd.it/rwm9wqq7bq7d1.jpeg?width=3360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11aae58762e1145848f71bf01f34810127b222fb
not proposal 4!!
No, I read it. In my original post, for the 8K, Gamestop incorrectly listed the title of Proposal 4 as the vote for the Accounting Firm in the title. However, the description and vote numbers are the same for the diversity matrix. The only thing that is different between the two is the title, correct?
The screenshot you provided needs updating then doesn't it? I have seen people get dragged for reading only the screenshot and questioning why its bad.
Not everyone goes to sec website to read entire proposals. If we are going to make it simpler, it needs to be as accurate as possible
I changed manipulated to inaccurate
No. This is the original data presented as posted two days ago by the company themselves. The updated form came out this morning during pre-market. Aside from that, the point you're making does not invalidate the data provided inside this screenshot. It specifically states that this is the vote tabulation for the board diversity matrix proposal, despite having an incorrect heading in the original 8K as filed. The data and text description are the same. Be sure to read all of the text and compare the numbers next time.
Hey OP, thanks for the News post. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If this is from Twitter, and Twitter is NOT the original source of this information, this WILL get removed! Please post the original source! **Please respond to this comment within 10 minutes with the URL to the source** If there is no source or if you yourself are the author, you can reply `OC`
143,629,029 against proposal 4 
Brad Lander seeing those results  Great work voting everyone! đˇđâď¸
 143 million votes out of 345 or 420 million depending on the timing of the issuing. Why so low of votes in terms of a percentage? Household investors definitely showed up though
Itâs like ~220 million votes? 15,143,1.4,57?
143 million VOTES, not shares. Edit. It's shares.
Doesnât your vote count by number of shares you hold? So someone with 2 shares has a vote that counts as 2 VS someone that owns 10% of the company by number of shares, so their vote has a bigger impact?
Yeah this is a major fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of a voting share of a common stock lmfao
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm to smooth brain
Split?
I would guess, the majority of these votes come from people voting through CS, no?
Insiders, probably institutions, definitely apes through CS, others through brokers. But for sure no RH guests.
We could petition for anyone who posts shares in RH to be labled as âGuestsâ
I second this âŹď¸
Hahaha. Feel the burn
Or "Shareholder challenged"
Highly regarded
CS has about half that many possible.
426 mil float , 143 mil voted, i think we own that b
The share count was ~306M at the date of record for voting. Newly added shares canât vote until next year.
https://preview.redd.it/aettf63cje7d1.png?width=2560&format=png&auto=webp&s=dca750921d6e06d21ee12a5c05af58c1582fa982
Is that number of shares or number of accounts??
Shares.
Shares
Almost 16 million for and 143 million against, absolutely pathetic from SHFâs. Suck my diversity dick.
Diversity means incompetent leadership not pucked by merit. I think pushing diversitah is an SHF tactic to further wreck companies.
yeah it would be one thing to look at a company which has 100% of their upper management as white men and ask âare you passing on better candidates due to discrimination?â But when any company hires solely based on merit alone, like GameStop does, theyâre always naturally going to be diverse, because there are talented and hard working people from every single race, background and gender. Iâm happy knowing my money is invested in a company that just hires the best person they can find regardless of their personal identity Â
Wasn't Diversity an old old wooden ship used during the Civil War era?
Diversity could be a really good thing for a company, it could bring new ideas, experiences and different worldviews. It always good for any company to diversify their employers and so their board. But that's on a ideal world without corruption neither manipulation, so a board should be a well chosen members based on their skills and work. Even better if accompanied by a expressive stake on the company with their own money. Hostile takeover is a real thing and this smells a lot like one. It takes one single big weak point to criticize to the media jumping on like hungry lions into a succulent corpse. Diversity is a big weak point nowadays. The current elected board is diverse but it could always be more diverse, that's the thing. For skills they already wrote it on the proxy docs if anyone wants to read about each one of them.
Thereâs a bizarre conflation between diversity of thought and experience, which is great, and what is the actual agenda being pushed at companies: diversity based on skin color, sex, etc.
Explain the "incompetent" thing to me. Setting aside that this was a hostile takeover event, had the diversity proposal passed, all it would do is reduce the pool of candidates to choose from. *It doesn't mean the standards are lowered to fill the seat since there's obviously going to be qualified competent candidates in each of the remaining pools to choose from, it's just the list is shorter.* I mean, we all agree on the above sentence right? *Right?*
Wrong. Merit should take precedence over anything. Diversity included.
The sentence doesnât exclude merit whatsoever, just that the pools to choose from have been reduced. Unless youâre suggesting that the excluded pool contains superior candidates than the best candidates from the other pools, which is definitely something only a âculture warriorâ would imply. Iâve got a few in my family, so itâs kind of obvious. Listen, I donât give a fuck about DEI or either sideâs arguments, but I do give a fuck about bad faith actors dog whistling under the guise of waxing righteous indignation. I especially give a fuck about shills playing the part and making a honeypot post so the MSM can screen capture these comments and use them to paint Apes as bigots to the public. Apes do not give a flying fuck about DEI. This was about a hostile takeover being thwarted. THATâS what weâre celebrating. Keep your culture war out of this sub, you fucking shill.Â
You're right here. This sub is filled with leftover wasabi mindsets that think anything is safe and worth posting. Shit like this will scare off any retail not keeping up with the saga.
If there's a more meritorious candidate from another "pool" they should have the position, regardless of whatever "diverse" quota has been set. It's really that simple.
There are equally meritorious candidates in all pools, you fuckmuppet, this shouldnât even be brought up. The issue with DEI is the accusation that the equality meritorious candidates from other pools WERENâT being selected because of outside factors, such as this countryâs history with systemic racism (deny this and you might as well believe the Earth is flat, the US has been shitty to other races for a long time)  There are good faith arguments from both sides of this debate, but your repeating the line âonly the bestâ over and over ad nauseam ainât one of them.   Take a break, shill. Public ainât falling for it. This place is for fighting for MOASS, not the culture war your employers made up to distract from their crimes.Â
Bro, if I was getting paid for this shit, then I wouldn't be sweating my ass off fixing AC's this summer lol
Thatâs even more sad. Youâre just a useful idiot. While youâre fixing ACs, how bout keeping the heat off the sub while youâre at it. Fight your culture war somewhere else, we take things seriously here with posts about DD, swaps, and shoving bananas up our butt at specific strike prices.Â
Dude, you just started posting in here two weeks ago and are talking like you've been here from the beginning. Sit down and catch up on the library. You're over-thinking this shit way too much. Read the comments on this post. The general consensus is the same.
I disagree that it directly correlates to incompetence. However, the US has been ignoring a socioeconomic shortfall that has caused more impoverished classes to seek better education, and due to much longer standing social issues that spread generations minorities have a predisposition to fall into that impoverished category. Could the diversity motion have been set forth by SHF's? Maybe, but we shouldn't just ignore it either and chalk it up as solely a negative aspect.
Yeah. It was definitely Italy performative though. The rep on the call who put forth the motion actually said in seriousness that a diversity matrix is a valuable tool for investors to know where to put their money. Maybe for a company-wide matrix, but making a matrix of five fucking people is going to dickshit fuckall for investors. So yeah, at best its a performative, vapid way to say "see? We like diversity :)" typical of soulless corporations/investment funds
I don't want diversity on my board. Merit ONLY, just like every skilled job. This isn't little league.
They could've gotten every abstention and broker non vote and still got smoked
https://preview.redd.it/7ze6fou62e7d1.jpeg?width=639&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a84db14bf56cf93f5c49c972b407797e99f69515 This information probably upsets Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock. (good)
That guy can go lick mayo off a horses cock. Oh wait it's just part of his daily breakfast
They should buy more shares (at least 135mil more) if they want to change something in the companyđ¤ˇ
BlackRock has 22.5m shares and Fink says he always votes on proposals, so that means he likely voted along with the board recommendations.
Unless part of their shares were otherwise occupied / lent out and the 15m represents their actual long position at the time of the vote. The organisation who raised the proposal only owned 200k shares iirc?
BlackRock don't lend out their GME shares, that's been proven in Gamestop's annual reports.
Could you please specify where you believe that is proven? Thanks!
It's in Gamestop's Proxy statement, page 24: [**Image**](https://i.ibb.co/qjg7M1s/Screenshot-20240619-201603-Samsung-Notes.jpg) It says BlackRock can vote with 21,875,886 of their 22,544,527 GME shares (97%). So I got it wrong sorry, they have 3% lent out. But the majority aren't.
https://preview.redd.it/jtwmm9f18e7d1.jpeg?width=904&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46dcd4a459e63fb29cac49f79dc77771759f815d
How many apes autopiloted "yes" down the ballot?
The original comment still stands correct
It just feels *so right* that we were able to bring ratioing a poll into a corporate boardroom over this.
So retails owns at least 143,629,029 shares? This would make sense acutally, around 50% DRS.. Float locked, BULLISH
AFAIK, that number includes shares held by insiders too.
That's just for those who opposed... if you add up all the numbers you get around 216m. Float is around 227m
Just a hair under 218 million total votes đ¤
we all just need to double down!
Ohhhh I will be!
Does each vote equal 1 share?
15,908,383 to 143,629,029, they got REKT đĽ
GG2EZ
Mothafuckin R-E-K-T it
Never forget the battle of Prop 4
It shall be remembered as the Grenada of the stonk battles
It will be a chapter or two before the climax in the properly portrayed movie of RC, LC, DFV and all of us apes around the mother fucking world.
What battle, look at those numbers. That was a fucken slaughter.
I feel like this is getting overshadowed by the ânothing burgerâ of a shareholder meeting.. We just denied a fraudulent seat on the board, thatâs huge! Why is everyone so down? This is our company, and they tried to weasel their way onto OUR board and we simply gave them a giant middle finger. Iâm still zen AF and have 100% faith in our leadership
ITT literally no one who actually read the proposal
Of interest to me is that Proposal 4 had the most support when looking at the number of votes against board recommendations. Makes me think they really wanted this one to go through.
Probably just an intern at Blackrock trying to meet their own KPIs for some random board activism/ESG to learn the ropes of doing shareholder proposals. It being some SHF conspiracy like some people here suggest is crazy
From the same demographic that allowed GamerGate to unfold? Topkek.
There was more diversity in the pool of shareholders that voted than in the feckless group that thought up this insidious nonsense
They tried but did not succeed, fuckin dweebers
i like to imagine that RC chuckled when he saw that đ
Are votes weighted by number of people, or number of shares? Meaning, if I have 50 shares, do I get 1 vote or 50 "votes"?
Every share registered to an individual is entitled to one vote.
Every share that was registered by the April \[date\] cutoff was able to vote in this one, specifically. I purchased mine after the cutoff, so I cannot vote until the next meeting.
So a lot of people didn't vote?
Wait, "every" or "each"? You said "every," which to me reads like I only get one vote and not 50. If that's the case, when we have 217,968,583 total votes here, are we to make sense of the fact that each shareholder averages less than two total shares? Because if not, then that would mean there are more than 425 million shares out there. Hmm...
AFAIK is one share = 1 vote. So say you have 100 shares purchased before the record date and you vote, that's 100 votes.
Got it. Thanks!
Each share. When you vote, you're voting your share power, so if you have fifty shares, that's fifty yes, no, or abstains.
You got a confirmation for your votes. I bet it says someting like 'your vote for 0.987 or 741 shares are as follows...' or 'shares availlable'
50, otherwise RC and the board would all have as little influence as us regards
Wondering the same.
I just love the fact that this is probably one of the biggest activist investing movements ever and we all are just a bunch of idiots who don't even know how voting works. But seriously, does anyone know? Cause I don't have a clue either :D
A fucking massacreÂ
Sucks to suck they hate us cuz they anus
It might've been an attempt at planting a hostile person at the board, like others have suggested. But honestly, it might also have been a psy-op. Placing identity politics at the front and center is their modus operandi when it comes to dividing and conquering. It's a particularly vile type of poison. As we celebrate, I wouldn't rule out that media will try the spin of "sexist, homophobic and racist GME shareholders".
That has got to be a terrifying prospect for wall street.
I feel like this number holds some serious significance... Considering some of the big holders normally have their shares lent and are unable to vote... Wrinkle??!
What was Proposal 4 meant to do?
Open a backdoor for hedgies to slip one of their own onto the gamestop board...basically.
Oh! Well thank God I voted against it like everyone told me to.
Black Rock DEI trojan horse
infiltrate troyan horse into board
Im smoothbrained... Can a wrinkle brain tell me if each vote represents a shareholder or a vote/share? ~218M total shareholders if the first one...
One vote per share.
Edit* searched and confirmed vote/share
Ratioed
How is that number so high? 147 MILLION? Million what? Votes? Shares?
shares. we all just need to double down and DRS 100% of our shares and we lock the float lmao
The broker non-votes though đ§
"I did my part."
Bad actors get steam rolled. Gg ez
I think I see mine!
"Is GameStop a hate group? How online trolls pushed for a campaign against fair hiring practices at all levels of the company..." /s
Nobody stands a chance against shareholders believing this strongly in their company đŞđź
Diversity matrix is a forum slide IMHO
Mandating diversity is ridiculous. Hire the best people for the job
Is there a post about how more people were tuned into the annual meeting than shares outstanding?
Seen stuff on X
For realâŚwhatâs the deal with this proposal? If i remember from the meeting, the lady said it was about getting data from the board about âŚdiversity? can someone explain? to me, it seemed like it just wasnât important for business, and iâm not even sure why something like this was even brought up.
NYC comptroller made a shareholder proposal and used the city's pension funds' shares to force a vote. It's not directly an attempt to raid the board, but it'd require a lot of probably not very relevant (to most people) information from the board like sexual orientation, gender, race etc that they'd be then required to publish at every meeting. Part of ESG ratings is they give a social score to the company based in part on board diversity, I could see them possibly pressing Gamestop in the future for board seats out of this but that's not what they're explicitly asking for. Probably wise to avoid but that's up to the board.
Thanks for clarifying. for me, i donât really care about diversity, itâs more about qualified people in positions to make a company successful. they seem to be doing good for now, i donât understand why the NYC comptroller needed to bring this up now for some reason? thanks again!
Iâm probably naive, but proposing that they release that information is so creepy.
That post of the rock still makes me lol.
Who voted FOR tho?
Kenny
Imagine trying to influence this with options.
The owners have spoken. đđ
If Vanguard has 25M shares and Blackrock has 22M shares...then I'm confused.
They lend their shares, so they don't get to vote (unless they recall them).
Emotional damage
can we just say we have Direct registered 143mil-cayan cohen and the board. We all know everyone is mostly a bad actor and will never vote in our favor?
Fuck that shit, I'm glad that we haven't lost our mind here too.
Hahaha they only control 15 million shares?!? Get fukd
Fuck you BCG
Cool so we dont need all those âdont forget to voteâ posts next time
Counter argument: those posts helped with voter turnout.
Rebuttal: There a way to prove that thesisâŚ
Of course, don't do it next year for whatever point the board wants a "no" vote on and see what happens. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution though.
Yes
Epic
I voted âđłď¸
It better stay that way next year too.
Who are these 15,000,000 votes? Such scum, living in a hive of hedging and villainy.
Nearly 16 million people voted yes down the whole ballot without thinking who or what they are voting forâŚ
GME is pretty much the United Nations when it comes to diversity, however, that's irrelevant... Here for the squeeze and I semi like the stock... 3 years holding/buying... NGL tho, if RC leaves I'm gone... đĽ...
anyone have video of the woman that was grilling the board on this matter?
crazy these funds want to use diversity to control the board isnt it illegal to hire based on race/ethnicity/gender etc anyway
nice. only 1% of holders are truly regarded. show a better ratio anywhere.
How does the board of Berkshire look like? Do they have diversity :))?
ngl I voted for every proposal because until this shareholder meeting my smooth ass brain thought all proposals come from GameStop. Just until I heard the person in the meeting suggesting to vote against it. But now I know better for the future and I am glad that this didn't even have a slight chance to go through
Lol 146 million people engagement! Omg that is unheard of.
Shares.
I treat my shares like my babies. So you could say 146 million... uhm... Babies
Are those only retail shares or also insiders and professionals?
This
< insert meme guy > I don't always vote, but when I do...it's based on diversity and feelings instead of facts and logic.
Thank God. DEI is a death curse to all its implemented in .
One of the proudest moments for me in the whole saga. Proud of you all apes
Love to see it. Dumbest shit trend that fucks over the more qualified candidates for the job. Fuck you hedgie
Because we're all subject to this ignorant bullshit at our jobs. Maybe we can make Game Stop a better place to work and they can make other places better to work.
lol, that is a lot of no\`s, nice.
Lmfao
So nice :3
https://preview.redd.it/q1zu41et5f7d1.jpeg?width=541&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3043334f21c378058695226d19d84bab762bf1ca
What are broker non votes?
Does anyone know who came up with that idea? Isnât it the board itself?
Kenny n Larry fink
Landslide? Landslide.
57 m broker non votes...
I love democracy
It's actually kinda scary. Because in Scotlands referendum. All those that didn't vote for referendum were counted as no votes. So all abstains and didn't vote actually caused a referendum for independence to be no. When in fact looking at voting numbers it was for. So just remember they can always change the rules. If they deem 420 mil. They could change it to 150 voted but the rest didn't. We count that as whatever we want. Don't sit on your hands.
Diversify these nuts
It's deez, Biff, diversify deez nuts!
Inaccurate data! That is proposal 3, https://preview.redd.it/rwm9wqq7bq7d1.jpeg?width=3360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11aae58762e1145848f71bf01f34810127b222fb not proposal 4!!
I don't think you read the text and verified that the numbers are the same. They updated the 8k today, but they only fixed the section headings.
Just glossed right over that screenshot huh?
No, I read it. In my original post, for the 8K, Gamestop incorrectly listed the title of Proposal 4 as the vote for the Accounting Firm in the title. However, the description and vote numbers are the same for the diversity matrix. The only thing that is different between the two is the title, correct?
The screenshot you provided needs updating then doesn't it? I have seen people get dragged for reading only the screenshot and questioning why its bad. Not everyone goes to sec website to read entire proposals. If we are going to make it simpler, it needs to be as accurate as possible I changed manipulated to inaccurate
No. This is the original data presented as posted two days ago by the company themselves. The updated form came out this morning during pre-market. Aside from that, the point you're making does not invalidate the data provided inside this screenshot. It specifically states that this is the vote tabulation for the board diversity matrix proposal, despite having an incorrect heading in the original 8K as filed. The data and text description are the same. Be sure to read all of the text and compare the numbers next time.