3 ms·

None of that matters in the slightest. If you think bitcoin is going to $1million each, and you have the choice of buying it from the market at $100k (or throug

by jerf 1y ago

None of that matters in the slightest. If you think bitcoin is going to $1million each, and you have the choice of buying it from the market at $100k (or through several other market vehicles at similar valuation) or buying it through Strategy stock at an implicit valuation of $150k, which should you do? Bitcoin just happens to be the medium the problem is manifesting on but it doesn't matter what it is. The failure is the market valuating acquisitions at grotesquely more than their market value, and especially for a commodity that has such an absolutely clear market value. In a way, you're sort of demonstrating the problem. You're so stuck on Bitcoin and going gaga over it that you didn't even understand the actual problem. They're using the brightness of Bitcoin to cover over their dark schemes where you can't see it. It's people like you powering this market failure. Sorry, that's a bit direct, but it's actually healthy for you to hear this. You should understand how you're being jerked around so you can make better future decisions. (Note that replying with more enthusiastic pitching of the future of Bitcoin would really, really prove my point.)

panarky 1y ago
The market may or may not be "bonkers" to price MSTR at a premium to the market value of the assets it owns. But there are other non-bitcoin examples. Berkshire Hathaway is a corporate wrapper around a bunch of assets that are expected to increase in value over time. Berkshire's market value is much greater than the sum of the market values of the assets it wraps. You might argue that Berkshire is different because the assets it wraps are productive and produce reliable profits for the holding company, while bitcoin just sits there and doesn't do anything. I'd suggest that producing profits is the attribute that gives Berkshire's assets value, while bitcoin has other attributes that make it valuable. The difference in the source of value shouldn't matter when asking why the wrapper is worth more than the assets it wraps. Reasonable minds can differ about the sources of value for the underlying assets, but there are many real-world examples where the wrapper around valuable assets is worth a multiple of the assets themselves, and this premium can persist for decades.

by jerf 1y ago

panarky 1y ago

The market may or may not be "bonkers" to price MSTR at a premium to the market value of the assets it owns. But there are other non-bitcoin examples. Berkshire Hathaway is a corporate wrapper around a bunch of assets that are expected to increase in value over time. Berkshire's market value is much greater than the sum of the market values of the assets it wraps. You might argue that Berkshire is different because the assets it wraps are productive and produce reliable profits for the holding company, while bitcoin just sits there and doesn't do anything. I'd suggest that producing profits is the attribute that gives Berkshire's assets value, while bitcoin has other attributes that make it valuable. The difference in the source of value shouldn't matter when asking why the wrapper is worth more than the assets it wraps. Reasonable minds can differ about the sources of value for the underlying assets, but there are many real-world examples where the wrapper around valuable assets is worth a multiple of the assets themselves, and this premium can persist for decades.