4 ms·
This article is like a rehashing/transcription of the recent Odd Lots podcast episode, seems like the author didn’t really understand it either. The argument t
by drexlspivey 4y ago
This article is like a rehashing/transcription of the recent Odd Lots podcast episode, seems like the author didn’t really understand it either.
The argument there was that the trust could start selling the BTC and buying back their own shares to pocket the difference but that would be a one time profit. By keeping the BTC in there they can keep getting their fees year after year.
- Thorrez 4y ago> the trust could start selling the BTC and buying back their own shares to pocket the difference but that would be a one time profit That wouldn't be a profit. That would be a loss. Since it was trading at a premium, buying shares is going to cost more than they get from selling the BTC.
- drexlspivey 4y agoI'm talking about the current situation where it's trading at a discount. The trust could push the price up to NAV if they want to but it will eat into their future profits.
- Thorrez 4y agoYeah, we're talking about different things. My original comment was about how the article doesn't make sense when it says that not supporting redemptions would make the premium more likely to continue. And I still think that part of the article doesn't make sense.