$MSTR unrealized losses, does this really matter?

[Russlenat]

Maybe we can look more further into this, if it could actually be some losses at the long term, because they are more likely to continue holding, they aren't selling for now, this is their strategy and when the market falls like this, they had better maintain holding and avoid selling till the market pumps, which there has been more indication for the market rise and we don't know if the support for this is going to be more stronger than the resistance to the market rise this month.

Just look at it this way, if they didn’t sell when the market was bullish, then they’re even less likely to sell now that it’s bearish. When you’re playing the long term, short-term moves, whether good or bad, don’t really matter, that’s basically how their strategy works.

So in reality, it’s mostly us on the outside who are worrying. The company itself seems confident even if this bear run lasts a while, because their investors already understand how Bitcoin works and how volatile its market movements can be.

[DeeppRockk]

Well surprising There are people that just love to see something fail And if it looks like its going their way they start screaming it. The worse are people that are saying Strategy is going to be liquidated Heads with idle brains.  What's really affected by all this isn't Bitcoin but common stock holders of Strategy Bitcoin is a factor not the result.

you're right, the protocol doesn't care about MSTR or some guy named Saylor. i've seen this movie a dozen times before.

i remember back in 2014 when Mt.
Gox was collapsing, people were screaming the exact same thing, that it was the end of Bitcoin. everyone said if the biggest exchange goes down, confidence is gone, it's all over.

so what happened? a lot of people got rekt, obviously... it was a disaster for anyone with funds on that exchange.

but Bitcoin itself just kept chugging along, producing blocks every ten minutes. the network didn't even notice. same thing with the blocksize wars, everyone thought the fork would kill it.
it didn't. this is no different.

Saylor is just another big player and if his leveraged bet blows up, it'll be a spectacle and a bunch of stock market tourists will lose their shirts. Bitcoin will have a nasty red candle for a week or two, and then we'll all forget about it and move on. it's just another lesson people have to learn the hard way.

[Alonso_]

Seeing news that Michael Saylor’s Strategy ($MSTR) is sitting on nearly $1B in unrealized losses after Bitcoin dipped below $75k.
But honestly, does this even matter if it’s unrealized and the whole plan was long-term holding anyway?

Feels like the media is framing it to look worse. Saylor has always been vocal about holding long term and, so far, he hasn’t sold his Bitcoin.

Do you think news like this is meant to create pressure or trigger panic, or they see this as non sense news?

If this is actually true, I don’t think it’s something we should really emphasize so much about considering how we all know how bitcoin works, and it’s not something that Microsoft would consider as a do or die situation, Earlier before now I expect Micheal Salor to be prepared for this sort of situation because there is always every tendency that this was going to happen.

There investors should also know that situations like this are common with Bitcoin, and there wouldn’t be a death sentence for anyone, I believe all that could be done is buying more bitcoin and getting their investors to buy more bitcoin and hoping that the price would eventually increase, I know most investors who have been investing in Bitcoin for a long time wouldn’t like this situation now, but is that not what MSTR does hold Bitcoin and continues buying more even when there is a significant drop or risk involved.

[LogitechMouse]

---
Do you think news like this is meant to create pressure or trigger panic, or they see this as non sense news?

They're on an unrealized losses, and they're required to pay the shareholders dividends because of the preferred shares that they issued to raise capital. That would just lead to more losses.

I wonder though if this is just the media destroying his reputation, or the media giving a warning to investors? The good side about this one is that, Saylor started buying Bitcoin in 2020 which means that he experienced the bull cycle of 2021, and the bear year of 2022, and the company survived. I expect the same this time, and if you're a long term holder of their stock, I don't think there's a need to panic... or there is. I mean it's very depressing to see your portfolio being down -50% or -60%, right?

Just for context, I'm not holding the stock, and I don't have the same mindset as him. He's a businessman at the end of the day so he will find ways to survive in what's happening. Unrealized losses don't really matter to those long term holders of the stock. I don't see this as a nonsense news though because this will still have an impact either way.

[Ziskinberg]

---
Do you think news like this is meant to create pressure or trigger panic, or they see this as non sense news?

They're on an unrealized losses, and they're required to pay the shareholders dividends because of the preferred shares that they issued to raise capital. That would just lead to more losses.

That’s not really a loss if it’s unrealized, like I mentioned before. It only becomes a real loss if they’re forced to sell.
The dividends are supposed to come from their core operations, and based on the figures I posted earlier, they can cover that.

I wonder though if this is just the media destroying his reputation, or the media giving a warning to investors? The good side about this one is that, Saylor started buying Bitcoin in 2020 which means that he experienced the bull cycle of 2021, and the bear year of 2022, and the company survived. I expect the same this time, and if you're a long term holder of their stock, I don't think there's a need to panic... or there is. I mean it's very depressing to see your portfolio being down -50% or -60%, right?

More than that based on the chart.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSTR/


You panic, you lose. 

Just for context, I'm not holding the stock, and I don't have the same mindset as him. He's a businessman at the end of the day so he will find ways to survive in what's happening. Unrealized losses don't really matter to those long term holders of the stock. I don't see this as a nonsense news though because this will still have an impact either way.

This is basic risk management. They’ve seen crypto crashes before, so this isn’t new.

As long as dividends are paid, panic selling in the market doesn’t change much for the company.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Okay, let’s look at the numbers.
Total preferred shares are around 25.5 million with a $100 face value, so roughly $2.55B.
Even assuming a high 10% dividend, that’s about $255M per year in preferred payouts.

Their core software business still generates operating cash flow, and these preferreds were structured with that kind of obligation in mind. As long as they’re not forced to sell BTC to meet payments, the unrealized losses don’t really matter.

It only becomes a real issue if cash flow dries up or selling BTC becomes necessary, which isn’t the case right now.

We agree on this. Some people talk about a supposed risk of Strategy going bankrupt, but given how the company is structured, this is extremely unlikely. It's not just the preferred shares; they still have convertible debt, but the payments are due between 2028 and 2032, so they have structured it very well in case a bearish scenario occurs.

You’re mixing two different things.

No, I am not mixing anything.

Capital raises and operating income aren’t the same.

So what? Operating income has become irrelevant as it is a small fraction of the total money the company obtains.

Yes, they raise large amounts by issuing shares and preferred stock, that’s how they scale BTC exposure. But that doesn’t mean the software business is irrelevant to cash obligations.

Pretty much irrelevant. Otherwise, how do you explain that the dollar reserve he has set up to pay dividends was obtained from ATMing common stock?

The software side isn’t there to fund BTC purchases, it’s there to support operations and recurring obligations like preferred dividends.

The software side has been used in the past to fund BTC purchases, so what you are saying is false.

Those purchases you’re talking about are discretionary, dividends aren’t.

This is another point where you show your lack of knowledge. STRD dividends are discretionary and can be suspended at any time.

So again, unrealized losses only matter if they affect cash flow or force BTC selling. Big capital raises don’t change that point.

We partly agree with this, but the lower the price of Bitcoin falls, the more Strategy's business model is called into question, as it has based everything on buying Bitcoin and supposed extra profitability.

[Ziskinberg]

Capital raises and operating income aren’t the same.

So what? Operating income has become irrelevant as it is a small fraction of the total money the company obtains.

Actually, it does matter, because capital raises aren’t guaranteed forever, while operating income is what really makes a business sustainable in the long run.

The software side isn’t there to fund BTC purchases, it’s there to support operations and recurring obligations like preferred dividends.

The software side has been used in the past to fund BTC purchases, so what you are saying is false.

Using some operating cash for BTC before doesn’t mean it’s the main funding source.
If it were, they wouldn’t rely so heavily on capital markets now.

Those purchases you’re talking about are discretionary, dividends aren’t.

This is another point where you show your lack of knowledge. STRD dividends are discretionary and can be suspended at any time.

They can suspend them for sure but if they start doing that, raising capital later becomes much harder. So it’s not something they’ll do lightly.

So again, unrealized losses only matter if they affect cash flow or force BTC selling. Big capital raises don’t change that point.

We partly agree with this, but the lower the price of Bitcoin falls, the more Strategy's business model is called into question, as it has based everything on buying Bitcoin and supposed extra profitability.

I agree with that if Bitcoin stays low for a long time, but that’s different from the current situation where most of it is still just “unrealized losses.” Until those losses actually become real, the problem isn’t that serious yet. So for now, it’s safe to assume their model is still working, especially since they’re still meeting their obligations and paying what they’re supposed to pay.

[Alex077]

Seeing news that Michael Saylor’s Strategy ($MSTR) is sitting on nearly $1B in unrealized losses after Bitcoin dipped below $75k.
But honestly, does this even matter if it’s unrealized and the whole plan was long-term holding anyway?

Strategy’s unrealized BTC loss is around $2 billion, but that doesn’t mean they’re bankrupt - that point is still very far away
For now, today’s BTC drop to around $71,500 is the lowest since November 2024, and judging by the mood, this might not be the bottom yet.
Still, when it comes to whether Strategy could go bankrupt this year because BTC fell below their average entry price, Polymarket is pricing that risk at just 10%. And it’s worth remembering that Polymarket has been fairly accurate with this kind of call.
Despite the wild volatility in Strategy’s stock and its tight correlation with Bitcoin, most analysts and market participants see bankruptcy as unlikely in the near term.

As of early 2026, MicroStrategy isn’t even close to facing forced liquidation. Their first major debt maturities only start in September 2027, and they’ve already set aside $1.44 billion in cash for repayments.
On top of that, Strategy holds massive Bitcoin reserves (over 700,000 BTC as of February 2026), which outweigh their total debt by a wide margin. In other words, for now, even deep BTC drawdowns are more than covered by their assets.

[CryptoYar]

Although MicroStrategy averages 713, 502 BTC purchase price of 76, 052, Michael Saylor showed that these short term price swings are just noise to him, when he actually bought drop and added 855 more BTC to his holdings. This is even though doubters say that company has debt of 14 billion which is not due until 2027, and other buyers such as BlackRock continue to support market at 75k mark. To my thinking, these changes do not matter because company does not sell, and this does not need to be sold until 2030 and later.

[Inwestour]

I think Saylor should have been prepared for this. This is a person who chose Bitcoin as the main asset for his investments, so he should be very familiar with Bitcoin cycles. And despite the fact that Strategy kept buying Bitcoin even at the highs, they still had to assume that it could return to a bear trend again. I do not see a big problem in this and I believe Strategy can wait out this period, I also assume they may continue buying at even lower prices. The most important thing is that the bear market does not last longer than usual. One year of decline and several years of growth, that is how it has always been. I think Strategy could have problems only if this changes and we end up falling for several years.

[coolcoinz]

Feels like the media is framing it to look worse.

Of course.

Remember how JP Morgan used to FUD bitcoin and trade it in the shadows? Remember how they like to manipulate the markets?
JP is behind the MSTR FUD, so that should tell you something. I've never in my life seen Dimon being truthful and saying something with no financial interest in the matter.

Anyway, there are some smart people explaining how MSTR is not going to get liquidated and how Wall Street is trying to scare people while some large players accumulate.
You can just google most of it because the data is public and see how many large institutions increased their MSTR exposure within the last 30 days.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Actually, it does matter, because capital raises aren’t guaranteed forever, while operating income is what really makes a business sustainable in the long run.

If you mean that Saylor can continue going to the office and paying the electricity bill, the cash from the software intelligence side of the business is more than enough, but that's not what Saylor has been building since August 2020. He was aiming to be the largest company in the world.

I agree with that if Bitcoin stays low for a long time, but that’s different from the current situation where most of it is still just “unrealized losses.” Until those losses actually become real, the problem isn’t that serious yet.

Those “unrealized losses” count as actual losses under new accounting rules implemented early last year. The main change in the rules is that it allowed the company to present unrealized gains as gains in its financial statements, and if unrealized gains can be presented as gains, then unrealized losses can also be presented as losses.

So for now, it’s safe to assume their model is still working, especially since they’re still meeting their obligations and paying what they’re supposed to pay.

No it's not working because it has fundamental mathematical flaws, which I have already explained several times.

So, for you it's "working" means being the worst performing asset within the Nasdaq 100 and follow the same path this year with a clear path to exit the index?

[YOSHIE]

Do you think news like this is meant to create pressure or trigger panic, or they see this as non sense news?

As far as I know, Michael Saylor invested and bought a lot of Bitcoin at the high price at that time of $90k-$100k and he once said that Saylor's investment was in the form of a long-term next halving.

So, if you look at the current price of Bitcoin at the level of $68k, yes, of course you can believe that Michael Saylor made a loss, it's normal for him to publish it and clearly take that risk. Human nature is like that, every company will publish if they make a loss, but if they make a profit they don't want to publish it, it's not fair.

[tbct_mt2]

As far as I know, Michael Saylor invested and bought a lot of Bitcoin at the high price at that time of $90k-$100k and he once said that Saylor's investment was in the form of a long-term next halving.

So, if you look at the current price of Bitcoin at the level of $68k, yes, of course you can believe that Michael Saylor made a loss, it's normal for him to publish it and clearly take that risk. Human nature is like that, every company will publish if they make a loss, but if they make a profit they don't want to publish it, it's not fair.

It's clear with Michael and Strategy's ultimate goals with their vision as "Bitcoin is the end game". They are not newbies in Bitcoin market and they have been in this market for two market cycles already. They were probably newbies in the last market cycle that is their first one in this market but I believe they already did enough due diligent research before joining. Michael invested his personal money in Bitcoin before he successfully convinced Micro Strategy company to do the same.

By experiencing the full last market cycle, they have enough exprience and are no longer naive in this current market cycle. So it is not surprising to read their sayings that they have bought bitcoins in recent months for next halvings, not only for this market cycle speculation with profit and take it to exit the market.

[C10H15N]

I certainly do not intend to reduce my position in either BTC or Strategy.

Both are still several orders of magnitude above my cost basis. 

[Alex077]

I think Saylor should have been prepared for this. This is a person who chose Bitcoin as the main asset for his investments...

To get a clearer picture, you really need to look at the numbers and the dates side by side, I’ll try to keep it short 
Long story short- Strategy’s debt structure isn’t like a typical corporate setup where they have big payments due every year, most of their debt is in convertible notes with very low or even zero interest, so the actual cash outflow right now is relatively small.
at the moment, their annual interest expense is only about $58.9 million, and that’s basically the upper estimate.
The real risk isn’t the interest - it’s the maturity dates.

 https://cbonds.com/bonds/935497/
The main deadlines don’t even start until 2027:
2027 - about $1.05B, 0% interest.
So, until then there are basically no major cash payments, aside from normal debt management and the interest costs (~$58.9M).
2028 - 0.625% notes, about $800M, due in September (lump sum if not converted).
2030 - several issues:
$800M at 0.625%
$2B at 0%
Maturity: March 2030.
2032 (longer-dated debt) - roughly $500–800M, around 3% interest, maturity in June 2032.
 https://www.strategy.com/press/microstrategy-announces-pricing-of-offering-of-convertible-senior-notes_09-18-2024
 The real risk scenario only shows up if several things happen at once: Bitcoin stays below their average purchase price for a long time, Strategy’s stock drops, and they can’t refinance heading into the 2027–2030 window. In that case they’d either have to sell BTC or dilute shareholders heavily.

So, that's basically the situation with Strategy when you look at the actual numbers and timelines. In any case, the real risks don’t really start until 2027, and even Polymarket is pricing that at around a 10% chance…!!!