pull down to refresh

Strive buys Semler... yup yup yup, the world's most predictable outcome:
Buy a below-1 mNAV company with a (large) above-1 mNAV: PROOOOOFIIIIIIT.
What a beautiful quote
That is not what you sign up for when you start a Bitcoin treasury company! The whole point is to trade at a huge premium to net asset value, so that you can sell more shares to buy more Bitcoin and grow your empire. If you are trading at a discount you might as well unwind the trade: Sell all the Bitcoins for $567 million, pay off the debt, and give the remaining $467 million back to shareholders. But that seems like a disappointing outcome.
So instead you get some other schmuck with WAY TOO MUCH AIR on their valuation (mNAV in the 3-8 range) to acquire you at a premium, which works out great for both of yalls:
The better alternative is to sell the whole Bitcoin treasury company to another Bitcoin treasury company, for stock, at a nominal premium to net asset value. Here Semler is getting a nominal price of “approximately $90.52 per share,” based on an exchange rate of 21.05 Strive shares per Semler share and Friday’s Strive closing price of $4.30 per share, though the actual valuation depends on how much the Strive shares are worth.
UNCLEAR who got shafted, really.
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @crenshaw 8h
Bitcoin.... fixes this?
reply
OK, but bitcoin INSIDE a corporate wrapper or free-range bitcoin?!
reply
if mstr trades at 1.25 nav it means shares could have 25% more btc than start of your purchase price. this year saylor has done just that. it is hopium to assume it grows faster than that seeing he has a 10% drag on the stock with selling shares to pay preferred dividends.
i think a 1.5 nav would be wild since at size it it really hard to grow year over year at 50%
reply
no, at 1.25 mNAV Strategy is roughly a proxy for bitcoin exposure (the prefs and converts act as low-level leverage).
reply
am i wrong in my math? paying a 25% premium means an expectation that you think you will get back 25% at some future date?
reply
yes, that's wrong. And also not what I was saying.
reply