| >> if BTC price goes down further, Microstrategy will be forced to sell their BTC by their shareholders. Your assumptions about capital structure are likely wrong here. Consider: Microstrategy has its Bitcoin holdings in a subsidiary, Macrostrategy LLC. https://www.microstrategy.com/en/investor-relations/press/mi... --- > 2) Bond Covenants > - No covenants -- no one can force a sale of $BTC > - $MSTR is allowed to raise more debt at the unrestricted BTC co which would be structurally senior to the $3.4B (so original convertible bond holders are potentially getting primed). >This $MSTR secured bond is just a standard secured bond that has very little to do with $BTC. > Bondholders basically sold a call option (for 6.125% yield) and a put option... MSTR walks away with a ton of upside optionality, and it has a marginal impact on #Bitcoin (https://twitter.com/jdorman81/status/1403068157867274253) --- > [5/N] Their main business makes about ~50M in net profit - basically, Saylor makes enough money to cover the annual interest by 10X. > - This means that from now till 2025 at least, Saylor CANNOT be liquidated as long as he pays the interest on the 0.75% 2025 bond. > [6/N] But oh no! what if the board forces saylor to sell? > Saylor himself owns 25% of microstrategy but he also owns the majority of Class B shares which have 10x voting power giving him 72% of the voting power. I.E
Saylor CANNOT be forced by anybody to sell. > [8/N] In conclusion > 1. The latest round of purchase will not have the ability to liquidate his previous holdings > 2. The interest payment on his bonds CANNOT liquidate him > 3. Nobody has the power to force him to sell. At All. (https://twitter.com/hodlKRYPTONITE/status/140216585565644800...) --- In what scenario could Microstrategy's liabilities exceed its assets in 2025? https://twitter.com/UrbanKaoboy/status/1385644214092898308?s... |