At this rate, microstrategy are tilting more towards a Bitcoin oriented company than any of the other services they offer.
Seriously. It's really making me wonder what their end goal is with bitcoin, if they have one.
You, The Pharmacist, have been following this thread from the start, and you have been actively participating in the thread.
You have been asking variations of the same question over and over, and surely your questions and concerns have gotten stronger and stronger with the higher doubling down that MSTR/Saylor have performed.
Seems to me that either something is not sinking in for you or you just like repeating the same question because you are disingenuous on the topic.
I am way more inclined to conclude that you engaging in the former rather than the latter, but I am still having some troubles appreciating why something is not sinking in for you.
MSTR/Saylor have been fairly clear about why they are engaged in their buying and leveraging behavior - and really, even from the start, Saylor/MSTR was not really a BTC dabbler.. He and his company went in pretty deep right from the start, and so when he has been going deeper and deeper that might seem nearly impossible to accomplish, but MSTR/Saylor has found a way that causes it to seem like compulsive gambling rather than prudent business practices.
Of course, MSTR/Saylor is going to appear to be much worse off if BTC prices go below their average buy price, which has been most recently to have been reported as slightly above $26k per BTC - yet even with that I really doubt that panic time should even come yet, even if there are some people, like you The Pharmacist that would like to start to panic for them before they are even prepared to start to panic.
For sure, this is showing quite differing ways of thinking about the kinds of plays that MSTR is making in this case... I mean in comparing how Saylor is thinking about the matter and the way that you, The Pharmacist, are worrying about the matter.
You likely realize that I remain bullish, and I continue to consider that not only is MSTR playing this matter well, but that they have employed a lot of decently creative financial instruments to carry out their investment plans.
I have already said that my own recommendations are for individuals and companies to start with 1-10% of their investible assets in bitcoin, and after the very first one or two investments into bitcoin, as shown in fillippone's chart, MSTR/Saylor far exceeded my own BTC recommendation. But who the fuck am I? Small potatoes compared to MSTR/Saylor and since they are adults, they have every right to come to their own judgements regarding what is reasonable/prudent or alternatively what is aggressive and assertive (and seems to me that MSTR/Saylor believes that being aggressive/assertive is a better approach to BTC investment--- so who am I to say otherwise - even though I been in BTC nearly around 6.5 years longer - but I surely do not have sophisticated lawyers, accountants and business guys working for my ass, either.. which can surely provide a lot of leveraging power to have a smart guy like Saylor who is leveraging his seeming smartness with other smart people).
Here's the full Portfolio
Coloured bands mean these purchases are tied to corresponding debt issuance.
Even though my business judgement is likely quite a bit more conservative than MSTR/Saylor, I am not going to second guess their business judgement when they decide to go with very highly assertive amounts, and then subsequently decide to go over 100% in terms of using debt and using credit to bolster their BTC investment which is quite likely calculable to be beyond 100% in a variety of ways that it could be measured in terms of their cashflows, investible assets, and just other assets that they have, such as good will (which can be also considered a kind of credit).
So, in some sense, I doubt that any of us are on grounds to be either second-guessing them or trying to substitute our judgement for their judgement - because each person/business has the freedom to employ their own business judgement - even if any of us might be coming to differing conclusions.
Another matter would be asserting that their decisions could negatively affect bitcoin or the bitcoin community in various ways, and I have difficulties appreciating how their behavior hurts the bitcoin community - and surely there could be scenarios in which they are forced to sell some or all of their bitcoins, but I consider those scenarios to be in a time frame that is further out, such as 3 years or more rather than being anything that should be of anything close to an immediate concern while they continue with their buying spree or their ongoing leveraging down on bitcoin behaviors.
They can't buy so much bitcoin that they basically paint themselves into a corner they can't get out of, so there has to be a point where they're done buying--but I don't believe Saylor has made mention of his intentions.
Yes, in theory such a place likely exists, but they do not seem to be there, yet.
And as I've said before, for MSTR's sake I hope bitcoin stays above their average purchase price,
We have already covered this. BTC going below their average purchase price is not going to "do them in."
You are creating a strawman argument.
because it's a hell of a lot of money they've spent acquiring it,
Just because it is "a lot of money" that does not make the situation worse. Let's say, for example, the BTC price goes down to $13k.. that would meant that their average buy price is double the BTC price.
On a personal level I can relate. I got into BTC in late 2013, I kept buying BTC through 2014 and most of 2014, my BTC buy price was higher than actual BTC price. In early 2015 BTC prices were around $200 and then the averaged around $250 for most of 2015, and in the beginning of 2015, my average price per BTC was around $570, but by the end of 2015, my average price per BTC was $500, so I had times that my BTC portfolio was only worth less than 1/3 that I had spent to buy the BTC, but I did not panic.. I continued to buy. I also had some cashflow problems in early 2015 that lasted pretty much through 2015 and those cashflow problems were not really directly connected with BTC, but it still caused me some inabilities to buy and caused some people to suggest that I should sell some if not all of my BTC, but I told those people that they did not know what they were talking about (because they did not even understand what BTC is/was)..
I am thinking that there could be scenarios that Saylor/MSTR could be in similar scenarios, and even if there are going to be naysayers, like you The Pharmacist, who are going to tell them that they "better figure out their end game" they are already going to have an investment thesis and timeline that goes beyond your concerns about what the immediate price of BTC happens to be - that is if the MSTR/Saylor portfolio goes into negative territories and stays there for a decently long time of maybe even a year or longer or even several years, perhaps?
even now taking on debt in order to finance the buy. Part of this whole thing just doesn't make sense to me,
It does not need to make sense to you.
because MSTR isn't actually a bitcoin company
So what? they can transition what kind of company they are. It is not like they have been hiding their transition or their possible transition.
and although companies should have cash reserves,
I did not know that there was any kind of standard formula that companies have to follow, especially if they believe that they are trying to be innovative in various ways.. and still disclosing their purported "innovation."
they don't take on debt to secure them like MSTR has done.
Sure companies might not use debt exactly in the way that MSTR/Saylor has decided to employ such debt, but it is not like he is being secretive about what he is doing.. so I am having trouble seeing your issue, exactly, even though I do understand that you are concerned about volatility risk - and especially downside volatility risk.
I get that Saylor thinks bitcoin is a better alternative to fiat, but still. Seems really crazy to me.
Seems crazy to a lot of people (even other bitcoin maximalists), but Saylor has explained his approach, too.. which makes it seem less crazy, no?
Seriously. It's really making me wonder what their end goal is with bitcoin, if they have one. They can't buy so much bitcoin that they basically paint themselves into a corner they can't get out of, so there has to be a point where they're done buying--but I don't believe Saylor has made mention of his intentions.
I personally will not be surprised if they create a Bitcoin fund to manage the assets of other holders, Michael Saykor has already built quite a presence in the crypto space and can sufficiently make such a plunge.
Yep... Seems like a very plausible direction for MSTR/Saylor or that new entity that they are using called Macrostrategies (don't know the ticker).
And as I've said before, for MSTR's sake I hope bitcoin stays above their average purchase price, because it's a hell of a lot of money they've spent acquiring it, even now taking on debt in order to finance the buy.
It would also be a good test of their resilience to hold for many years, it's easy when the price is rising, but the pressure starts to mount during big dips, would be interesting to see what his reaction would be.
Even though I would prefer to NOT go below $26k, and I would also prefer NOT to stay below $26k for any kind of extended time such as 1-2 years, but sure, it would remains an interesting subject matter to see how MSTR/Saylor would react and play their game in such a scenario.. would they go into silent mode, like a lot of people tend to do while they are underwater? I am thinking that they would not, but hey hard to know until it happens, if it were to happen.