199
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 39 points 6 months ago

The filing also includes all the shares held by the former president. Trump, however, remains under a "lockup" deal that largely restricts him from selling his shares for another roughly five months. His son, Donald Trump Jr., who is a director on the board, and CEO Devin Nunes, are also bound by the lockup.

The stock plunge has erased billions from Trump's stake — at least on paper. The shares soared when they began trading on March 26, giving Trump's 57% ownership position a value of $6.25 billion. But after DJT's recent slump, that stake is worth $2.1 billion, representing a paper loss of $4.15 billion.

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

But this is why I was happy it started trading so high. trump was/is pushing supporters to buy shares as a way of donating. But those people are throwing their money away and it'll still crash before trump can sell. He's not just losing profit, he losing donations too.

Plus this way trump has to spend 6 months watching something literally trading under his name (djt) constantly hemorage money and there's not a damn thing he can do about it.

When he saw that 6 billion number, he immediately considered it "his money" so even if he makes a couple hundred million selling his whole stake in this; it's going to feel like he's lost billions to him.

And hopefully the DJT stock lumps on without him for years as a shitty penny stock

[-] zaphod@lemmy.ca 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

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

[-] sharkaccident@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

4d chess would be trump placing shorts before they even went public.

[-] zaphod@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

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

[-] tylerkdurdan@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

won't come back to earth? it's trading at 22.93 at this moment and was around 60 at the beginning of April...seems like it deorbited fairly fast to me

[-] zaphod@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

[-] tylerkdurdan@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

oh man, I respectfully disagree. I think they will add more stock further diluting the price and it will crater. that's why puts are so expensive right now

[-] zaphod@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

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

this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
199 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4538 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS