There is a difference between taking credit and predicting. I'm not saying that this prediction will be correct, but there has been an overabundance of optimism on this board and giving a guy flack for a dose of realism doesn't make sense.
There are many things playing against GME :
- the game cycle for this generation may have already peaked
- competition and online downloads threaten the long term prospects of GME
- in the short term, the company is doing nothing to return earnings to its shareholders (ie: dividends/buybacks)
- GME instead seems intent on growth in a time when that seems ill-advised
- the overall economy seems likely to tank and it seems unlikely that GME will be unaffected.
I know that you will be tempted to try to give counterpoints to each of these, but the fact remains that these arguments are what keep potential investors like myself away and they are the reason why the stock has been performing poorly.
The part that makes it "taking credit" is the "reiteration" line. That means he "predicted" it before. Now if he predicted it based on a run on the banks due to rampant fear throughout Joe avg America and a catastrophic week for incompetent politicians (many that are more worried about getting re-elected than making the right decisions) then he was 100% correct, deserves full credit, and should start charging for predictions while helping to solve "cold cases" for the police/FBI... I sort of doubt it though.
Another point irt politicians with no backbones: As a Marine, people more interested in getting re-elected than in doing the right thing really makes me sick. It's called having "the fortitude and moral courage" to do the right thing... Yes this "assumes" voting YEA is the right decision. It is.
I completely disagree with the assertion that politicians are in any way justified in "not" voting for something because they're worried about what the voters are saying. This is especially true in this instance because of the complexity of the topic. Meaning that at least 90% of the people complaining about not wanting their politicians to vote yes actually have "no idea" what the plan is actually for or how it will help "them" on main street. There are times in a politicians career when he/she needs to have a backbone and "earn" their paycheck. I reject the claim that they always should vote with their constituents. They are elected to be smart and make wise decisions "regardless" of what "Joe avg uninformed American" is saying.
"these arguments are what keep potential investors like myself away and they are the reason why the stock has been performing poorly. "
--> No, that is only a small "part" of the reason. The "main" reason is what I already stated...excessive redemptions causing a self fulfilling downward cycle due to irrational fear... I won't bother countering the points because it has been done quite well on this board already. I do agree that the expansion idea is not a good one in this environment though.