Shareholder value was more at risk prior to the bitcoin strategy. Most other business analytics companies went away or were absorbed into the tech titans. MicroStrategy was hanging on, but it was a melting ice cube, which then makes it hard to attract the best employees or maintain the best economy of scale, which then accelerates the melting of the ice cube.
And within the bitcoin strategy, taking on debt is the bigger risk. If bitcoin is in a bear market when their debt matures and without a lot of gains from the cost basis, that could cause them to dilute equity at a bad time, or have to sell bitcoin, or do other inopportune actions that would damage shareholder value.
Issuing overvalued equity to buy more bitcoin and thus improve the bitcoin-per-share metric, mildly de-risks the company by improving the equity/debt ratio, and is good for shareholder returns, assuming shareholders are bullish on bitcoin (which by this point, most of them are). It makes the overall company size way bigger, gives them a warchest of capital if they need it, helps them hire top talent including for their business analytics business, and reverse the melting ice cube trap.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
Straight up having a hedge against the large players in the space and a devaluation of cashflows is better than trying to dig a trench to fight out of with a toothpick.
Having said that from an outsider looking in…even if they believe (and most Bitcoin investors do) the return on BTC as an asset may provide the safety they need…the thesis is more about using it as an asset as opposed to payment/currency…now while the latter may not be realized right away, don't you guys think (if this was your invested “cash”) to shy away from businesses that won't generate the cashflow from operations needed to preserve that asset should it becomes as widely adopted as opposed to having your shares diluted as @Knightstr and @ghostBTCBLD suggested?
bravo assessment