Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Torque]

MicroStrategy.

124,391 BTC

~

$5.9 billion

Stock market-cap of the company:
$6.251 billion

The stock price seems undervalued considering before they started to buy BTC MicroStrategy's market-cap was already $1.5billion.

For anyone not wanting to own BTC directly for whatever reason (storing keys or whatever) buying MS shares seems a safe bet at the moment.

Not sure their underlying business is in very good shape - looking at their latest quarterly results: recurring revenue (very important for a software business) is down year on year; operating losses are up year on year, losses per share has more than doubled.  Most critically they are now highly exposed to bitcoin volatility, and that will almost certainly far outweigh the contribution of their core business.  I suspect the business focus is now prioritising bitcoin acquisition above anything else.

What you say is true, however most companies are in bad shape and moving in a more negative direction every year. The big difference is that these zombie companies just keep taking on more debt to pay operating costs and buyback shares, while their profits continue to flatline or fall. They'll keep doing this until the decide they can't keep the ruse going any longer (usually debt level climbing to around 25-30% of equity value) and sell out to a much larger company.

If I was going to do a M&A, I'd much rather buy a company with bitcoin asset on its balance sheet, than one with a whopping pile of debt. I'd also rather own the stock of a company that had bitcoin assets, than one that had a huge pile of debt.

[1714183947]

1714183947

[1714183947]

1714183947

[tertius993]

MicroStrategy.

124,391 BTC

~

$5.9 billion

Stock market-cap of the company:
$6.251 billion

The stock price seems undervalued considering before they started to buy BTC MicroStrategy's market-cap was already $1.5billion.

For anyone not wanting to own BTC directly for whatever reason (storing keys or whatever) buying MS shares seems a safe bet at the moment.

Not sure their underlying business is in very good shape - looking at their latest quarterly results: recurring revenue (very important for a software business) is down year on year; operating losses are up year on year, losses per share has more than doubled.  Most critically they are now highly exposed to bitcoin volatility, and that will almost certainly far outweigh the contribution of their core business.  I suspect the business focus is now prioritising bitcoin acquisition above anything else.

What you say is true, however most companies are in bad shape and moving in a more negative direction every year. The big difference is that these zombie companies just keep taking on more debt to pay operating costs and buyback shares, while their profits continue to flatline or fall. They'll keep doing this until the decide they can't keep the ruse going any longer (usually debt level climbing to around 25-30% of equity value) and sell out to a much larger company.

If I was going to do a M&A, I'd much rather buy a company with bitcoin asset on its balance sheet, than one with a whopping pile of debt. I'd also rather own the stock of a company that had bitcoin assets, than one that had a huge pile of debt.

That would depend entirely on what they were doing with that debt, the terms it was on and the fundamentals of the underlying business.  I personally would rather buy a strong company with good prospects for future growth and profits irrespective of any particular assets it might hold. 

Regarding debt: Microstrategy has $2.5Bn of debt against $0.5Bn in shareholder equity ... see here: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MSTR/microstrategy/debt-equity-ratio

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

...i suggest to post where EVERYBODY agreed to post about this topic.

EVERYBODY? Really?

When it comes to Biodom, what else is new?  a wee bit of hyperbole seems to just roll off his tongue.

[Biodom]

@jjg-well, you can have ALL wishful thinking if you want it..peak in october..no, peak in november...no..peak in december...no, it is now Feb or March or September of 2022.
Scientific method suggests that you don't move the goalposts, but analyze the available data.
The data suggests that S2F is off the rails. Nothing personal.

Regarding the "other" thing-if you (or anybody else), personally, want this board to be overran with endless virus or political musing, so be it, but you WONT LIKE it.
I, personally, don't care about seeing the opposing opinions as i have a rather thick skin, but it seems that some people here are easily triggered when they see something political that they don't like. Namecalling ensues.

But, shit, let's go ahead and ruin this place for everybody with endless politicos and virus.
Let's make it another twitter or facebook /s

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[cygan]

which of you did this yesterday?


https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1476559109541576705

[Biodom]

which of you did this yesterday?


https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1476559109541576705

likely moved by mostly dormant BTCtalk account.

[serveria.com]

which of you did this yesterday?


https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1476559109541576705

Oh sorry guys, my bad, moving some bitcoin dust...  

[shahzadafzal]

which of you did this yesterday?


https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1476559109541576705

Oh sorry guys, my bad, moving some bitcoin dust...   

[JayJuanGee]

Likewise if the year closes below $48K support, price might be in trouble.

Should probably have extended this to end of week, but without price bouncing back by tomorrow, sounds about right now.

To the extent that any of this matters, it's a nail biter.. coming down to the final wires... very scary.....















NOT






 

Ultimately I think Covid itself is going to take care of it disappearing / possibly already has done that: mutating into a less deadly strain and that's that.
I can believe the vaccination helped many people from dying, certainly those with a compromised immune system.

I totally agree.

Were all the lockdowns / mask wearing / vaccinating healthy people necessary? I have my doubts.
I can take part in all that as that is what is required in many places by law but still have those doubts.

We will never find out what it would be like without the restrictions. But I know that if it helped to save even a single person from death or severe illness it can be justified.

I would not proclaim myself as any kind of virus denier, so maybe in the beginning there would have been some kind of justification for travel restrictions just to attempt to figure out some of the impact aspects of the virus, but the shifting narratives and the various ways to attempt to describe the vaccines as the solution, but then to later assert that the virus is getting worse even though a lot of people complied with the vaccines, then it seems to have become a way to pit vaccinated against unvaccinated and to turn the whole thing into a bunch of contradictions that largely seem to be aimed at merely getting citizen compliance rather than really having scientific justifications.

Accordingly seems to be a kind of preparation for the cyber virus pandemic, that will cause us to have to disconnect from the internet for various periods of time and even to suffer from internet outages.. blah blah blah.  This was mentioned around minute 35 on today's BitcoinMagazine interview with Alex McShane.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Paashaas]

For people wondering when we see first Webb images.

It takes ~6 months when Webb telescoop moved into position, deployment and calibrating his instruments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Skc-JqWLE

[vapourminer]

For people wondering when we see first Webb images.

[Biodom]

For people wondering when we see first Webb images.

that's funny.

[JayJuanGee]

I have another buddy who only wants to invest in "value stocks". But enjoys vicariously living through me as a "Bitcoin investor".  I have tried to explain to him that trying to store value in stocks, is like keeping all your bills and records still on paper and in the mail.  But he never quite gets it.

For those kinds of people, you would think that they should be able to get the idea of a 1% to 10% hedge?  So the amount does not even need to be a lot.. even up to my now recommendation of 1% to 25%.

So perhaps some of them believe that us coiners need them to invest, even though we might suggest that if they are whimpy as fuck or even bearish as fuck or even scared as fuck about bitcoin, then they could at least get the fuck off of zero and thereby ONLY invest at a kind of minimum level, such as 1%.

Maybe there is a kind of gambling mentality, and people have difficulties thinking to ONLY invest 1% because what good is that going to do?  Well from experience and just looking at the charts, many of us longer time coiners can provide evidence to show that even a 1% investment can end up playing out as a pretty big investment and even outperforming a lot of other aspects of the total investment portfolio to end up becoming a very large percentage of the overall investment portfolio.  In other words, it can be quite difficult to find any kind of other investment that provides such ongoingly asymmetric potential, and likely the bitcoin investment thesis is stronger than it was 8 years ago (two cycles).

Maybe an example would help to show aspects of this?

Let's use a 8 year cycle, and let's attempt to figure out what a hypothetical person who had already established a fairly decent set of investments. Perhaps such person was not set for life, but such person figured out that he wanted to allocate 1% into bitcoin over the coming 6 months, so that his total investment in his various investments was $500k, and so his traditional investments were $495k and his bitcoin portion was $5k, and let's even say that the guy kind of screwed up and ended up investing towards the top of the market, so he ONLY got 5 BTC.  I understand that most more experienced investors are not going to be so damned locked into buying at the top and failing to invest more, so I am going to describe two kinds of BTC investors who started out with a $500k budget Hypothetical investor 1 only got 5 BTC and Hypothetical investor 2 ended up getting 25 BTC with $10k invested.  Both bought their first 5 BTC for $5k (average of $1k per BTC), and hypothetical investor 2 bought an additional 20 BTC in 2015 when the BTC price dropped to $250 and stayed around that price point for most of 2015, so hypothetical investor 2 ended up investing $10k into BTC and hypothetical investor 1 only invested $5k into BTC.

I believe that it is generous to presume that the traditional investment portion of the portfolio doubled and went to $1 million.

If we use $50k as our current price, hypothetical investor 1 had an additional $250k of price performance for his 5 BTC, and Hypothetical investor 2 gained an additional $1,250,000 for his BTC investment.  Do I need to explain more?  Even the most modest of the two modest scenarios of only around 1% or maybe 2% invested into BTC had ended up causing way greater overall investment portfolio returns.  Investor 1 ended up with a total portfolio that was 25% greater $1 million + $250k = $1.25 million.  Hypothetical investor 2 ended up with an investment portfolio that was double based on his 2% investment.  $1,250,000 + $1,250,000.  The BTC portion of the investment was only a small portion, but it way outperformed the total portfolio causing the total portfolio to become way more valuable.

Even if the exact same levels of returns are not likely to be achievable, but there evidence remains quite strong that bitcoin is going to continue to be a good asymmetric investment that can compliment any investment portfolio even with relatively small allocations of something like 1%, even though I currently suggesting that newbies could enter into bitcoin with a target accumulation range of anywhere between 1% and 25% and still likely be good, and of course, each person/institution remains responsible for his/her/its own determinations regarding what level of allocation into BTC would be most suitable to their particular psychology and finances.

[shahzadafzal]

“It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on” Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009

[eXPHorizon]

When a Green Traffic light says Matrix OK then you know ur getting close =).


Long live progress !

[shahzadafzal]

Elon Musk says Nick Szabo is most likely Satoshi Nakamoto.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto-creator-cryptocurrency-history-2021-12

[JayJuanGee]

MicroStrategy.

124,391 BTC

~

$5.9 billion

Stock market-cap of the company:
$6.251 billion

The stock price seems undervalued considering before they started to buy BTC MicroStrategy's market-cap was already $1.5billion.

For anyone not wanting to own BTC directly for whatever reason (storing keys or whatever) buying MS shares seems a safe bet at the moment.

Not sure their underlying business is in very good shape - looking at their latest quarterly results: recurring revenue (very important for a software business) is down year on year; operating losses are up year on year, losses per share has more than doubled.  Most critically they are now highly exposed to bitcoin volatility, and that will almost certainly far outweigh the contribution of their core business.  I suspect the business focus is now prioritising bitcoin acquisition above anything else.

What you say is true, however most companies are in bad shape and moving in a more negative direction every year. The big difference is that these zombie companies just keep taking on more debt to pay operating costs and buyback shares, while their profits continue to flatline or fall. They'll keep doing this until the decide they can't keep the ruse going any longer (usually debt level climbing to around 25-30% of equity value) and sell out to a much larger company.

If I was going to do a M&A, I'd much rather buy a company with bitcoin asset on its balance sheet, than one with a whopping pile of debt. I'd also rather own the stock of a company that had bitcoin assets, than one that had a huge pile of debt.

That would depend entirely on what they were doing with that debt, the terms it was on and the fundamentals of the underlying business.  I personally would rather buy a strong company with good prospects for future growth and profits irrespective of any particular assets it might hold. 

Regarding debt: Microstrategy has $2.5Bn of debt against $0.5Bn in shareholder equity ... see here: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MSTR/microstrategy/debt-equity-ratio

I would hardly consider that as any kind of meaningful level of debt, especially if their bitcoin holdings are currently worth more than $6 billion, and yeah if the BTC price cuts in half then their bitcoin is only going to be worth a bit more than their debt.  Bitcoin is not their only assets.  They seem to be in a pretty good place, but hey opinions may well vary and that's why not everyone values companies the same.. some invest and some do not, and 5-10 years may well help to sort some of this out in terms of whether MSTR's approach to its business, including it's choice to heavily (and even outrageously) invest into bitcoin ends up playing out as a profitable investment. 

Surely a large number of bitcoiners believe MSTR's aggressive (and even seemingly somewhat outrageous) BTC investment approach will prove to be quite powerful as the years play out and MSTR's status and position is likely going to outperform a lot of other businesses, especially the ones who have so far failed/refused to recognize the value of bitcoin.

Similar things can likely be said about a lot of us bitcoiners.  Some of us have taken more aggressive approaches in our BTC accumulation and BTC portfolio management, and some of us have been less aggressive.  Some of us have gained some advantages with the passage of time, even if we might not have been as aggressive as others, and surely even some folks who were somewhat aggressive, but have a way shorter timeframe of being in the BTC space have still ended up performing quite well due to some of their aggressiveness in their accumulation of bitcoin.

Sure even though I am using aggressiveness as a descriptor, I surely am not proclaiming that anyone would be engaging in gambling and especially not heavy gambling.. maybe some light gambling is o.k... but gotta be careful if taking too many chances and even engaging in margin-like plays when more simple and straight-forward accumulation techniques can also end up serving quite well.

Almost no matter what we do, unless we merely get lucky, seems like the vast majority of us bitcoiners have difficulties showing any kinds of stupendous BTC performance levels in our own portfolio based on short periods of time, such as less than 1 cycle, but with the greater passage of time, it seems that time is our friend, and one or two cycles ends up helping even some of the more mediocre of BTC performing portfolios (in terms of how it ended up being managed).  I suspect that similar dyanmics are going to end up playing out for Saylor and MSTR. 

In other words, it is not about some of the lucky timing that Saylor and MSTR seemed to have had by getting started in a kind of aggressive way in the $10k price arena (which was ONLY less than a year and a half ago), but instead, there is likely going to be some compounding effects that really are going to be likely to start to show themselves after 1 or 2 cycles of their having been in the game... it's not timing the market, it is time in the market, and truly it will be interesting to see 4-8 years down the road.  The next 4-8 years are critical.^tm

Elon Musk says Nick Szabo is most likely Satoshi Nakamoto.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto-creator-cryptocurrency-history-2021-12

Fuck Elon.