Khing Oei

Khing Oei@khingoei · 1 天前观点输出

Great initiative @CorySwan and thanks for having me on to chat about my article re valuing $STRC.

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Khing Oei@khingoei · 2 天前市场影响

The ECB monetary policy decision is at 14:15 CET today. Holding rates steady is priced at 95%. The interesting part is the press conference: markets currently expect another hike in September, and Lagarde has to decide whether to protect that expectation or let it fade. Let's zoom out from the meeting. Markets are debating one more hike. The harder question is how long Europe can afford any of them. Every 25bp flows straight into the interest bills of European governments. Eurozone GDP is stagnating at 0.8% growth, carrying debt loads that were built for a zero-rate world. A central bank can defend its credibility for a few quarters. It cannot out-hike the funding needs of its own governments. Whatever September brings, the structural trajectory for European rates is down, because the alternative is a debt spiral no politician can accept. Rates forced lower while inflation runs at 2.8% against a 2% target is debasement, managed politely. That is the environment Bitcoin was designed for.

AI：偏平台经营与生态扩张，强调交易平台和应用入口的长期位置。

Khing Oei@khingoei · 3 天前赛道影响

If Bitcoin never went up again, @Strategy could pay $STRC's $12 dividend for 29 years just by selling BTC. Those 29 years would value STRC at $96 in today's money. STRC at $85 (last Friday’s close) only pays for 17 years of dividends. The market is throwing away 12 years of dividends.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Khing Oei@khingoei · 4 天前赛道影响

The stack prices exactly as designed. STRD pays the same 10% as STRF but sits junior and non-cumulative — a missed dividend is gone, not owed — and the market charges for that: its discount to par is the risk premium, and the "uncapped gains" are spread compression you may never collect. STRC gave up price upside for a monthly reset that holds par.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Khing Oei@khingoei · 4 天前政策影响

Two different hurdles. Whether to issue at 12% is a marginal call — you do it when expected BTC return beats the coupon, and that spread accrues to the common. Whether the dividend gets paid is a balance-sheet call: 12% on STRC face is ~3.4% on the BTC stack servicing it, at ~3.5x coverage. STRC holders bear the second risk, not the first — and at zero BTC growth the stack still pays for 29 years. Not funny accounting, just division. Btw, if anything double negatives are funny accounting.

AI：偏政策推进，强调合规落地与规则明晰，对监管主线更敏感。

Khing Oei@khingoei · 4 天前赛道影响

I hear you but you're describing STRC as an equity with capped upside. It has more features of a credit, although granted its classification as a pref equity doesn't help. STRC holders aren't buying $100 hoping for $110 — they're being paid 12% to hold paper whose dividend coverage needs 3.4% BTC growth. That's the mispricing. Agree low-vol was oversold: it trades below par in stress, but the coupon reset exists to pull it back. Owning the common equity for BTC upside is a fine trade, just a different one.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Khing Oei@khingoei · 4 天前赛道影响

Fair to reiterate that the discount rate is where all the soft risk hides. But the framework doesn't assume that risk away; it isolates it. At 85.29 the market is charging 13.7%, and the ~170bp over my 12% is precisely the premium you're describing: structure drift, management behavior, timing. That's the "distance and the doubt" line in the article. The real debate is whether 990bp over risk-free is the right charge for it, one notch below a senior that clears at 10.4%. On the specifics: dilutive MSTR raises cut against common holders, not STRC — every dollar of common ATM adds assets beneath a fixed claim, so dilution at the equity layer is accretive to preferred coverage. The behavioral risk that actually bites is new leverage senior to STRC. That runs against Saylor's stated end state — common equity, variable preferred, and nothing else — and if it comes anyway, it moves the leverage axis the sensitivity table already prices, not the discount rate. So the framework lets you pick: at 12% the stream is worth 96, at 13.7% it's worth today's 85.29. My argument isn't that behavior risk is zero but that the market is overpaying for it.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Khing Oei@khingoei · 4 天前赛道影响

Thanks. But careful, that math assumes the one thing the article says you can't assume: a date. Adding "upside to par" to the dividend yield as a one-year return only works if par arrives in exactly one year, and STRC promises no such thing — no maturity, no par obligation, just a ratchet and a leverage path. That's why the framework values the stream instead of the scenario: NPV of the dividends the structure can actually support is 96.3 with Bitcoin flat forever, and par only once leverage compresses — roughly $80k BTC in the sensitivity, or sooner via ATM-funded buybacks. At 85.29 you're paid a 14.1% running yield (12/85.29) while you wait, with 17% to par when it closes. The upside is real. The framework just doesn't let you date-stamp it.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Khing Oei@khingoei · 4 天前观点输出

For $MSTR to pay $STRC dividends forever, Bitcoin needs to grow 3.4% a year. That's it. Below that growth rate, the dividend runs for 29 years. The market prices STRC as if 3.4% is heroic.

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Khing Oei@khingoei · 5 天前观点输出

@JohnLeupp Specifically cash dividend coverage matters - because STRC is already well covered on an asset basis (c 3.5x)

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。