MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’

[Free Market Capitalist]

But if you look at the comments of that post made by Saylor https://x.com/saylor/status/2107079051525362126 it seems that people still not impressed with situation happening.

The thing is, Saylor has repeatedly shown that you can't trust what he says. Now he says he has 3.6 years' worth of USD reserves, but on a previous occasion he suddenly reduced those reserves to less than half by repurchasing convertible debt. You have no way of knowing whether he's going to set it aside to pay dividends, to repurchase more convertible debt, or to spend it on buying Bitcoin.

When the message was clear and simple, and Saylor hadn't contradicted himself a thousand times, he hardly faced any criticism. Now it's normal for him to face criticism.

[fillippone]

But if you look at the comments of that post made by Saylor https://x.com/saylor/status/2107079051525362126 it seems that people still not impressed with situation happening.

The thing is, Saylor has repeatedly shown that you can't trust what he says. Now he says he has 3.6 years' worth of USD reserves, but on a previous occasion he suddenly reduced those reserves to less than half by repurchasing convertible debt. You have no way of knowing whether he's going to set it aside to pay dividends, to repurchase more convertible debt, or to spend it on buying Bitcoin.

When the message was clear and simple, and Saylor hadn't contradicted himself a thousand times, he hardly faced any criticism. Now it's normal for him to face criticism.

Also, in case they decide to issue more debt, or raise dividends on the current one, the reserves would be shrunk immediately.
But I have a suspicion that Saylor, as vocal as he's been over the years, was deemed useful in a past phase for MSTR. They are now worried about the efficiency of their capital flywheel, rather than keeping it spinning!

[avp2306]

But if you look at the comments of that post made by Saylor https://x.com/saylor/status/2107079051525362126 it seems that people still not impressed with situation happening.

The thing is, Saylor has repeatedly shown that you can't trust what he says. Now he says he has 3.6 years' worth of USD reserves, but on a previous occasion he suddenly reduced those reserves to less than half by repurchasing convertible debt. You have no way of knowing whether he's going to set it aside to pay dividends, to repurchase more convertible debt, or to spend it on buying Bitcoin.

When the message was clear and simple, and Saylor hadn't contradicted himself a thousand times, he hardly faced any criticism. Now it's normal for him to face criticism.

Also, in case they decide to issue more debt, or raise dividends on the current one, the reserves would be shrunk immediately.
But I have a suspicion that Saylor, as vocal as he's been over the years, was deemed useful in a past phase for MSTR. They are now worried about the efficiency of their capital flywheel, rather than keeping it spinning!

Actual challenge here is on how Strategy could prove that they are still efficient. Doing such thing would give them lots of problem in future, because I think we might see them doing more sells in future and this is how their reserve will start to shrink.

Saylor is so influential before, especially on early phase. But market changes a lot now, show resistance each time they made a post on X. Usually people want to see them executing and not just do story telling.

People want to see them do good actions and maybe they are tired with playful acts which usually made by Saylor.

[fillippone]

New Monday, new purchase.



This helping STRC hitting new highs every day, now almost back to par.

[Ambatman]

New Monday, new purchase.

And you beat me to it again.
I noticed something
Don't know if it's a new update but they didn't include the average price they bought the Bitcoin last week(todays).
Well buying back strc rather than increasing interest would help cut off future obligations
So organically cheaper in the long run.

[Free Market Capitalist]

This helping STRC hitting new highs every day, now almost back to par.

You said it was back at par a couple of weeks ago, lol.

They completely replenished their BTC stacks, replenished their Debt servicing reserve, and STRC is back to trading at par.
Mission complete?

Looking at the chart, it wasn't exactly at par at that moment—it was at 99-something, which, coming off the drop to $75, isn't bad at all. Now it's so close that it looks like it's going to hit $100 this week.

We’ll have to wait and see, because buying STRC at $99.50 (or cheaper) and selling them at $100 seems like a good arbitrage opportunity at first glance, but in the meantime, you have to pay the dividends every month. In the end, it all boils down to how the price of Bitcoin behaves, which is what the model is based on.

[fillippone]

This helping STRC hitting new highs every day, now almost back to par.

You said it was back at par a couple of weeks ago, lol.

It’s the almost part you missed!

Something offering a 12% yield shouldn’t trade below par, actually.
I bet they would like it to trade higher to reduce the cost of this instrument (and buying some BTC in the meantime).

[Ambatman]

Something offering a 12% yield shouldn’t trade below par, actually.
I bet they would like it to trade higher to reduce the cost of this instrument (and buying some BTC in the meantime).

Yeah it shouldn't but the fact it went below $90 introduced a risk
Many wouldnt have considered before.
Buying Now when it's already close to par seems weird in my opinion
Except they just want to eliminate some future dividend cost
Which in turn means they won't sell at $100 because that would beat the essence.
I believe it would have been better geared towards buying bitcoin or for cash.
They bought bitcoin around $21M and STRC almost $200.

In the end, it all boils down to how the price of Bitcoin behaves, which is what the model is based on.

Bitcoin performing well has more impact on MSTR
Tbs it's the only thing so far that have helped MSTR holders.

[Free Market Capitalist]

This helping STRC hitting new highs every day, now almost back to par.

You said it was back at par a couple of weeks ago, lol.

It’s the almost part you missed!

No, I didn't miss it. You said almost yesterday, not a couple of weeks ago. Read again and you will see.

... and STRC is back to trading at par.

Apart from that.

Something offering a 12% yield shouldn’t trade below par, actually.

I don't know if it should of shouldn't but what I can tell you is that those high yield products tend to trade well below par in the long term. Whether this will be the first exception remains to be seen, and it will depend largely on how the price of bitcoin develops.

They bought bitcoin around $21M and STRC almost $200.

 

I don't understand this.

[Ambatman]

I don't understand this.

Well what I meant was they bought 250BTC around $21 million
Since they didn't share the average price I just did a rough estimate above $80K and it fell
Within the range
While STRC was bought with a bigger sum which was 192M to be precise
My thoughts rather than on STRC that's already close to par
They could have added more Bitcoin at least that will help their Bitcoin per share.

[fillippone]

Nobody reported the news about Strategy MSCI exclusion:

STANDARD ANNOUNCEMENTS - October 15, 2026 at 08:48 PM GMT
Announcement for October 15, 2026 at 08:48 PM GMT

THIS IS AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE MSCI GLOBAL STANDARD INDEXES

MSCI ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE ELIGIBILITY OF NON-OPERATING COMPANIES IN THE MSCI GLOBAL INVESTABLE MARKET INDEXES

MSCI will implement the proposal to define and classify non-operating companies as ineligible for inclusion in the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes, as set out in the consultation announced on August 3, 2026, with minor modifications. The changes will be implemented as part of the November 2026 Index Review, which will take effect as of the close of November 30, 2026.

In addition to investment funds, business development companies (BDCs) and other passive investment vehicles, which are all currently ineligible for MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes inclusion, non-operating companies will also include other corporate issuers with similar characteristics identified through new quantitative screens.

Ineligible non-operating companies will be identified through:

* an initial core screen to determine whether an issuer is a company with substantial operating assets; and
* for issuers that fail that screen, an exclusion screen based on five non-industry-specific financial ratios. A security will be ineligible for index inclusion if it is flagged on four or more of the five ratios.

To reduce index turnover, buffers will apply to both the eligibility thresholds of the financial ratios and the timing of index inclusion and removal. Non-constituents will be ineligible for addition if they fail the ineligibility screen in either of their two most recent annual filing periods. Current constituents will be removed only if they fail the ineligibility screen in each of the two most recent annual filing periods. MSCI may also use the most recent interim filing if available. Further details of the new methodology and specific thresholds are available in Appendix I of the MSCI Global Investible Market Indexes methodology.

The list of current constituents that will potentially be impacted by the implementation of the new methodology is available at https://www.msci.com/index-consultations. The final list will be made available on November 11, 2026, as part of the November 2026 Index Review announcement.

In connection with this determination, MSCI will discontinue, effective with the November 2026 Index Review, the interim measures announced on October 10, 2025 in respect of the preliminary list of companies whose digital asset holdings represented 50% or more of total assets, including the freeze on Number of Shares, Foreign Inclusion Factor and Domestic Inclusion Factor increases and the deferral of additions and size-segment migrations for those securities. Going forward, eligibility for all such companies will be assessed under the methodology described above.

THIS IS AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE MSCI GLOBAL STANDARD INDEXES

                                     End of announcement.
                                     Further announcements may occur as needed.

Source


MSCI proposed a new eligibility test that would exclude "non-operating" companies from its Indexes.


Strategy faces MSCI ouster under new rules, billions in passive holdings at risk

MSCI said on Thursday non-operating companies ⁠will be ineligible for its Global Investable Market Indexes from the close of ​November 30, as part of its November index review. It will publish the ​final list of affected companies on November 11.

This means Strategy, being dropped from the index, would lose a big of passive investors, which are buying the index (buysin each stock in teh index to replicate it).


The answer from Strategy is in this page:

Strategy’s Response to MSCI’s Consultation on Eligibility of Non-Operating Companies

To me, the key aspect is this one:

• MSCI's "operating" and "non-operating" terminology is undefined, has no basis in U.S. GAAP, IFRS, or any recognized legal framework, and appears designed to reach a predetermined outcome.
  

The point is that, according to an old JPM research, this could mean 2.8 billions outflows from Steategy market capitalisation.  If I made the computation right this number could now be areound 1.8 billions (3.1% of 58b).

[Ambatman]

Strategy faces MSCI ouster under new rules, billions in passive holdings at risk (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/strategy-faces-msci-ouster-under-new-rules-billions-passive-holdings-risk-2026-10-16/)

Despite Saylor downplaying the impact its not really good since they would loss passive capital
Not to mention the impact when other index like FTSE Russell and Nasdaq.
The issue is most of these index are for operating companies
While strategy is more like an investment fund
Yes they are a software business company but how much does that even generate or priority it is to them.


Other company that faces the risk