Bitcoin At Crossroads As Banks Silently Close The Exits!(What You MUST Know) | Mike Alfred

Bitcoin is seemingly stuck at $70,000 while the rest of the world is volatile and shaking up and down all around it. Of course, when we say here in the title that banks silently closed the exits, we're talking about private credit and a whole lot of rumor that that market is going south very rapidly. And of course, oil spiked back over $100 a gallon. In the midst of this, once again, Bitcoin not doing very much, which I personally find is a very encouraging sign. And I would imagine my guest today, Mike Alfred also agrees. We're going to dive in to the market. What's likely coming and everything else right now. [MUSIC] Good morning, everybody. Happy Thursday and March 12 to all of you. Before we do get started today, I told you about it before I'll tell you about it. Again, we have an awesome sponsor today, which is Abra. You've seen Bill Barhide here on the show Countless Times counting myself very lucky to be one of their customers and also to be working with them. Now, if you guys haven't checked them out at all to great place to do a Bitcoin backed and other crypto backed loan, I, as I said, am personally a customer. They give loans out roughly 50% LTV. You give them your Bitcoin. They give you money. You don't get margin called and your life goes on. But what the best part is and always has been for me. I literally called my rep there yesterday. And I was like, can you guys help me through these tax forms that just came, which are insane for all of you who are getting these from exchanges? They'll really sit down with you personally and work through everything. Your priorities make sure that what you're doing there with them is exactly what you intend. You can see the link right down in the description there. Well, it's gripped a wealth with Abra and can't wait to have Bill back on the show very soon. All right, movie on. We have Mike Alford here today. Good morning, sir. Good morning. How are you? I'm doing it. Yeah, perfect. You got a little delay there, but I think we're good. Man, crazy markets, right? I mean, Bitcoin seemingly just like really just dialed in there at the time. 70,400. I mean, you know, I wake up 68. You want to sleep 72 wake up 70 71 69. As I sort of said in the intro, like with all that's going on, I find it actually quite encouraging. I think it's all very constructive. I think there's a lot of energy and effort being expended on the wrong things right now. Like whether or not we go to 50 or 48 or something is sort of irrelevant if you understand what Bitcoin is because if we ultimately end up at a million, then it will have been pretty dumb to not have bought a 50 or 60% decline. This late in time where we really haven't had a business cycle. We really haven't had a crypto bull market. We really haven't seen exuberance with retail. And yet you can still buy Bitcoin here in 2026 going into Q2 for $70,000. Now you could have bought it at 60 or 62. That would obviously be a better price. And if we do go to 50, you would obviously would have preferred to buy 50.70. The issue is that sometimes these assets don't go to the prices that that the chart squiggleers and the kid analysts think they're going to go to. So they draw their squiggly lines and they say, look, the moving averages have crossed over. And if you draw a fractal from last cycle, we've got to go to 48. And if we don't go to 48, that's not the end because it's not a real bear market. I'm just not sure this cycle is like any other cycle that's come before. So I'm not sure you can use an analogy or a fractal perfectly in overlay it. I think there's too many cross-currents. I think Trump's policies. I think it's time to say this, right? Even if you voted for him, like his policies have confused the shit out of the business community. Tariffs have been a net negative. Overly aggressive immigration policies have been a net negative. The government shutdowns have been a net negative. Some of these geopolitical actions have concerned the market. And so we've lagged. We've delayed what would have been, I think, a nice bull cycle at this point. And now we're still coming out of, I think, a prolonged bear market. So that's kind of my view of, and so I'm just interested in adding what I'm not interested in doing is trading around and getting cute and trying to time whether the bottom is 62 or 61 or 48 or, or we've already bottom, right? Because I think that's largely counterproductive if your goal is long-term wealth. Yeah, I 100% agree with that. This is like the most aggressive dollar cost averaging. I've pretty much ever done actually. Obviously, I bought Bitcoin much lower through previous cycles, but my situation is currently different than it was then. And I'm really, excited to be buying in the 60s and 70s instead of the 120s. And as you said, I'd be really excited to be buying in the 50s. Well, it's super asymmetric. I think that's really smart. I mean, nobody knows what's going to happen. I think we all should know this by now. There's a lot of kids on X, right, who think that it's possible to guess correctly. Or if you guess correctly once that that somehow means you know more than someone else. So like if I knew three months or now, we'd be at 84,000, let's say that that that I walk on water and I'm the Messiah, right? Look, it's just investing is simple. You buy high quality assets at the best possible prices that you can get them at. And that usually means that you've got to average in because nobody knows what the best price is going to be. And then your goal is to hold them as long as possible. And I think as much as I love X and you see that I love X, I love it mostly for entertainment purposes. I think it's largely value destructive for most users because they look at that and they think that there's something to be done most days when great investing requires you to do nothing most days. So if you're watching too many influencers who by the way, their primary source of income is telegram groups and trading groups and indicator suites and things like that, they have to sound bearish all the time because acting bearish and sounding bearish is the only way to get people to act. It turns out that if you have a large and bullish message, which is correct, by the way, over five, 10 year periods, then no one's going to buy your stuff, which is why I actually have to make my money as an investor, like I make my money in the real market investing, doing corporate governance, doing the work in the trenches. A lot of these guys just sit around and draw lines on charts and they charge their subscribers a fee to give them a red indicator that says things look nasty. Well, guess what? Everything looks nasty when sentiment is negative and geopolitics are scary and the economy looks like it's slowing down and unemployment's going up, but that has nothing to do with whether you're going to make money in an asset over a two, three, four, five year period. So I just see a lot of that on X. And so as much as I love it, I think most people like 90 plus percent of people need to be careful because they're probably going to be poor because they follow too many charts with their own figures on X. Yeah, how much do you personally handicap geopolitical events? I mean, you actually obviously alluded to the war without specifically saying it, but I'm pretty openly in agreement that this is a blunder and I'm generally anti-war and I think if we even talk about from a market perspective, it confuses markets, but there are some unprecedented things that are happening in the context of this war, right? I mean, the Straits of War moves now have minds on them. They're officially in them. They're officially effectively closed. I mean, I was Arthur Hayes here says, oil up 10 year treasuries up when bail out, you know, complete shutdown in the Straits. U.S. announces it will release 172 million barrels of oil. That's 400 million, I think internationally, right? I mean, it's hard not to. And once again, your point is well taken, I think with X because nobody there, including myself as a geopolitical expert, but you're getting everybody's unsolicited takes on what it means for markets. But the environment is different. I think different and the same. I mean, look, I was a history major at Stanford and basically all of these things rhyme. Markets have been going up for 100 plus years and there have been problems and things that could potentially end human civilization every decade during that time period. In fact, I'd say there are things that probably look much scarier at the time than what we're seeing now. There will always be some things that are different. I think the internet and AI are distinctly different technologies than the seed drill and vaccines and pasteurization. There are things that are step function changes in the way that the human operating system works. But going to war and bombing and missiles and drones and like none of that stuff is new. I think Trump surprised people because he campaigned on being the America first and really focusing more at home and repeatedly said, I will not be at war because I'm such a good negotiator and I'm so tough and people fear me. And I just don't think around cares. I just I think they're willing to literally fight to the death. I think they're they get accolades when they die in defense of whatever their crazy backwards principles are. So I look, I I'm not saying that I'm supportive or not supportive of what specifically is going on to run. But what I think is a markets person is that you can roll all this shit up every few years and you can toss it aside and it won't matter because markets will be higher and it will largely price in and discount all of it. And so I don't want to be overly dismissive but like markets are programmed, especially good assets to go higher over longer periods of time. And that is the time frame that matters for generating wealth. Like I had this cycle for example, like it's been a messy cycle. It's been one of the weirdest cycles, if you can even call it a cycle the last few years. I've made a tremendous amount. I mean, a generational wealth in those three years by simply ignoring every geopolitical headline, every banking system headline, every time there was going to be a credit crisis, every time the Japanese yen was going to tank the world, right? Every time Donald Trump getting elected or Kamala Harris getting elected was going to do XYZ thing and none of it mattered. As long as you buy quality assets at good prices, they largely with a little bit of volatility along the path on a point to point basis, if you close your eyes, they go higher. And so I just, I hear what you're saying. There may be some truth to there being some differences, but I don't think there's going to be a difference in the end outcome. The end outcome is when there's clarity as to how this ends, whenever it ends, and that could include boots on the ground even, which will be quite messy and it won't be supported by most people even in the US. Maybe only Israel will be the country left that supporting the overall war effort if we actually put boots on the ground. And of course, it could go on longer than we expect. It could be messier than we expect. But ultimately, when that's over, I expect a rush of liquidity and higher asset prices. Specifically, we're assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum that are trading already like they've gone through a long bear market. So what happens when something good happens? Well, they'll actually probably go up more than expected because they've been compressed by this prolonged period of so-called uncertainty. Yeah, it's the beach ball being held underwater. Right? And I mean, you have this massive fear of markets in general, which is just disproportionate to the actual price of assets everywhere. Right? So sentiment is so bad on stocks and we're going to talk about, I guess, private credit and oil and all these things. But stock markets right by the all-time high. And to your point, the Bitcoin's already gotten the bear market. So it should be the first beneficiary of any meaningful liquidity. And by the way, these wars historically, we've had pacifist presidents before that went toward stimulate the economy. I mean, that's literally how we got into World War I, Woodrow Wilson ran on the premise of he kept us out of the war and then let them sink the lucetania and took the United States into war to pay JP Morgan. Right? So it's not like this is a, and that's not conspiracy theory. This is not a new playbook. This is the playbook and it's going to mean more liquidity and more money. I mean, I mean, can I comment on that stock market thing? Because I think it's a market of stocks, not a stock market. I think a lot of surface level folks who don't really study the market aren't really in the market every day will say stuff like, well, the S&P's at an all-time high. So we have a long way to fall. And it's like, well, maybe. The reason why the S&P is so antifragile, I mean, some of it is indexing in general as a philosophy. Some of it is foreign came flows. And then some of it is the constitution of the index. The constitution of market cap waiting index will largely hide the dispersion and the rotations that are happening under the surface. And there has been a massive rotation happening over the last three, four, five months out of companies like Microsoft, which were really dominant, into pretty much everything else. 490 companies that didn't get the AI bid, you know, maybe it's more like 470 or 480 because you got all these memory companies now. You've got all the, the Vistras and the constellation energies and the GE for novos. Right? So, the S&P is the ultimate equipment providers. Anything in the AI thematic, which is all the largest companies in the S&P, right? Anything that touches that has had a very different path than the rest of the so-called stock market. So what I think is happening now is a very healthy, normalized rotation where we're seeing real dispersion. Like we've seen railroads up here today. We've seen consumer staples up here today. We've seen energy utilities, healthcare sectors that have largely underperformed for three, four, five years doing quite well, which I think is a healthy component. Small caps outperforming large caps, international stocks outperforming US stocks. These are all, you know, the equal weighted S&P, which is a good sort of a way to looking at this outperforming the market cap weighted version. So I don't, I'm not denying that the S&P looks like unusually strong at what I'm disagreeing with is that somehow a harbinger of some larger drawdown coming because it isn't pricing in what's happening. I think AI is so big and so pervasive and growing so fast. And of course, we have open AI and anthropic probably going public in Q3, Q4. A lot of people misunderstand what that means. That means there's not going to be a top, not a big top. Nothing that matters in the broader market until those companies go out. We've got to get SpaceX out. So I think anybody who's bearish here because of the S&P or because they like, they largely just are unsophisticated about markets. They don't understand the index constitution and they don't understand sequentially what's likely to happen in an environment where you have some of the things that are in the biggest private companies in history yet to go out. They're not going to top the market. The market's not going to go into a long term drawdown until they get those companies out. I could pretty much guarantee that. So I assume you're not too worried about this. Morgan Stanley restricts redemptions, a private credit fund after withdrawal surge. JP Morgan forced to mark down their loans. Private credit exodus is accelerating. So we have multiple companies doing this. Private credit defaults are up 4x since 2024. Because the asset classes for stress tests, investors are bracing for a blow up. You get the idea, right? Profits return to private equity investors is a 16 year low. That's slightly different. Deutsche Bank flags a 30 billion exposure to private credit. This is the new boogeyman. Yep. And it's real, right? Like there are real issues there. I think a lot of people chase the e-liquidity premium. I do private equity and public equity, right? I like early stage all the way up to public companies. So I follow the full life cycle of companies. And I thought it was odd coming into 2023, how people were piling in still to private equities when public equities were so much better price. Because they, public equities mark the market, right? Public assets in general mark the market every week, every day. Private assets sometimes don't get a new mark for five or ten years. And so you can hide a lot of things in a situation where you don't have to mark the reality. Because you can just mark to whatever the last mark was and you don't necessarily have to mark it down. So I thought it was odd for three years now where like a lot of capital was piling in and you see like the blackstone president, John Gray meeting with executives that run for R&K platforms trying to convince them to let retail money into private assets. And I think private assets should continue to be for sophisticated investors who understand the risk. The moment they started opening it up too widely to retail, I started to think, okay, maybe there's something wrong. And I don't think it's just a private credit issue. I think private equity, private assets in general have been mispriced because they never got reprised fully after 2022. Like Netflix and Metta went down 70%, but a lot of these software, private software companies never got a new mark because they didn't need to raise money. So you don't really know what they're worth. And if you're smart, if you're a PE executive and you want to keep your bonuses going forward, you don't take the full mark that you could take. You don't re-rate it fully. You just allow it to continue to float at the price that it traded at last. So the incentives are all off there. But again, any sophisticated investor, like most of us are professionals. Like we've all been watching this for a long time. I don't have any personal exposure to private credit. All my private equity exposure or assets that I personally underwrote years ago where I paid in a lot of cases, significantly lower prices. So I think there's going to be a lot of noise in the media about this is going to be the end. But remember, in March of 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, going down, was going to kill the technology industry forever. And then like three days later, they bailed out the whole industry. And then the next couple of years, the Japanese yen carry trade was going to unwind the entire global economy. And then like there was two major drawdowns culminating with April of last year, where we had a serious, a much more serious drawdown than what we're seeing now. And then what did that just go away? Because I don't hear anybody talking about it. Turns out, the human mind is quite frail. And the news cycle is quite short. And so yeah, they'll be talking about private credit probably for the next year or two. But that doesn't mean that public assets need to go down significantly. And maybe they will for a period of time when it hits a fever pitch. And there's like a lot of news, black rock closes, they're fun. And Morgan's like, there is now, right? But those will tend to, those will tend to coalesce with actual buying opportunities. Meaning like at the fever pitch of private credit, it's going to doom. The world is actually when you want to continue to buy more public assets because those public assets will re re rate, largely price in the worst of it. And then if it turns out not to be so bad, they go up. It's the same as always. Like it'll just be the same old story. Yeah, I guess the narrative there is looking at the fact that JP Morgan is now choosing to write these down and just be done with it. And that's probably the end, not the beginning. Maybe the end for their particular fund and then someone else who's lagging because a lot of these other guys, it's their whole business. So those are the ones that like the blue owls of the world. Those are a little bit riskier because they don't have a such a large diversified business. I mean, they have a diversified business, but private credit is a big chunk of it. Whereas a lot of these big banks, big asset managers, it's a tiny like look at BlackRock say you am and then look at the amount of it exposed to private credit. So there'll be a lot of crypto people, crypto people do this every few years, by the way, they were doing this during the COVID drawdown too. They were saying, S&P, Ryan Selkis was saying, S&P is going to go to zero because the economy shut down. And I was just laughing. I was like, where do these kids come from? Like the lack of understanding sophistication is incredible. No, like these are just buying opportunities. So like you wait until there's a lot of news that makes it sound like private credit is the boogie man, like you said it is. Where you want it to accelerate a little bit from here. You want to hear about everybody potentially and it's going to turn into a massive tsunami of liquidations and blah, blah, blah, blah. And then you want to be able to do that. buy more assets. So because in three to six months after that, nobody will be talking about it. And interestingly, at this same moment, edge funds are shorting stocks at the highest level since 2022. You've got to love that if you have a slightly bullish tilt in my humble opinion. The positioning in the sentiment is beautiful, especially in crypto, because crypto didn't get like any sort of follow through at all since 2023. Right. So you had this huge down year in 2022, a little bounce in 23, a new all time high and a couple things like B and B. And then largely, if you look at it now, they're well below all time highs and they've never really had a cycle. So yeah, you want people shorting, you want people buying puts, you want people saying the market's going to fall further, you want people saying Iran's going to be the end of the world, private credit's going to be the end of the world. Those are perfect conditions for long term investors. And so like, like either you have capital to the play here or you're already invested and you stay invested, or you are going to your dollar cost averaging and you want to keep investing, you want to root for people to continue saying, this is a crisis. Like I saw this guy, this are Jordy Visser, who's saying, oh, all my indicators are saying crisis. They said, please, please keep convincing people that it's a huge crisis for as long as possible, because that's what creates the deeper buying opportunities like April of last year, that April of last year was a slingshot, right? It was a boomerang. It was unbelievable. I had stocks in my portfolio that 10x or more off of the lows because you actually need the liquidity swept at those lower levels where like everybody's scared and everything's going lower in order to get that more explosive up move. And those explosive up moves can go five, six, seven, eight months off the low. So, so like if this is it, and it may not be, but let's say this is it, and the sentiment just gets a little bit worse over the next week or two and then we bought them and we're higher in late March or early April, like I'm not sure we're going to get the same level of slingshot as last year because the fear just isn't where it needs to be. You need people to get their panties a little bit more into a bunch than they are right now. People are largely okay. Even the chart squigglers who freak out every time any of these things, I've watched them freak out two, three times a year for three years, even as markets have largely continued higher. They're not concerned enough yet, right? So I want them to get a little bit more concerned if possible. Like what's happening in the straight-of-hormouse right now is really helpful because you got a bunch of people saying this is the end and oil prices are going to go to infinity and that's really helpful. I'm not sure it's going to tank Bitcoin much further because Bitcoin largely, it snifed out a lot of the issues we're having now three, four, five months ago earlier than the rest of the market. And then it will probably sniff out the liquidity and the recovery and the bailouts and whatever happens after that that causes asset prices to go up. And so that's probably why it's largely seeming uninterested now, even as some people are becoming more bearish and exactly the wrong time. I mean, it went down for like five hours on the war news and it's basically just pressed up and held since then. So it's still at 70 right now, 70 booked, but I'm assuming it's in that, yeah, 70,123 dollars. Yeah. So it was at 74,7400 when we started. It'll probably dip back down into the 69 or 68 region and then maybe later today or tomorrow, it'll be 70 again. I mean, it's just oscillating between 66 and whatever 74. So that's kind of the new ban for now. And when it breaks 74, it'll run into the 80s. And you know, if it breaks 60 on the downside, it'll probably run to 50. But but that's it. Like unless you have options and you have a time constraint, which I can't imagine anyone would be overly at this stage, right? Like if you if you have options now like I do, it's probably a small percentage. Like I have Ibit calls from May and September, right? I have a Theorem calls for June, right? Like I'm always layering in two out of the money calls that are two, three, four, five, six months out because over a long period of time, you capture the the convexity of any of those bigger moves. And so I have no idea whether it'll move into my price range during those time frames, but as long as those positions are size correctly, and I continue to kind of roll them forward, eventually you catch that next move, essentially the beginning of that next cycle move. So but outside of that kind of trading, like I can't imagine people are too worried about time frames. And if you're not worried about time frames, then if your downside is 40, 50, 10, your upside is a million over the next six, seven, eight, nine, 10 years. And again, it could million could come a lot faster. It could be a lot slower. I don't know. But your asymmetry is all to the upside. So I just again, as I said at the outset, I'm struggling to understand why there's so much brain damage and so much energy being expended on whether we have to go lower and whether someone's right or wrong because they called this or that thing. To me, it's largely irrelevant to the path that we're likely going to take in the coming years and the path we take in the coming years is where all the money's going to be in. Yeah. My friend Tillman said on the show one day something that was really, and he said that Palm's conference is well on stage. The idea was basically that sentiment right now is driven by whether you actually have cash on the sidelines or not. People who actually have played this well and have dry powder are very excited about the opportunity. People who are fully deployed or terrified. Yeah. And I think I look, I think that's part of it. I understand that way of thinking. It's a trader mindset. Yeah. Long-term investors are always have some cash and always are largely fully invested. You always have some liquidity or some cash flow. I got a private company that used to distribute every six weeks, but we're accelerating it to every three or four weeks because there's just so much cash. It's a bakery. Completely immune to geopolitics, global stuff, tariffs, it doesn't care. Just a domestic, beautiful domestic business that generates six or seven million of EBITDA and we distribute almost all of it every single year. That money just keeps coming in and I just keep redeploying it into things that I think are cheap. Right here, I want to be largely fully invested. I don't see the benefit of having a lot of cash on the sidelines because again, over a three to five year period, which is my time frame, almost all periods where you hold above average amounts of cash are a drag on your overall returns. It feels good when markets are going down. It feels good to have more cash, but the problem is a lot of times markets go up even when it feels bad. A lot of people are holding cash because they want to feel good, but actually the returns over longer periods of time, three, five, seven years, they're actually hurt through that process. I prefer to have businesses that generate cash in an income streams that are non-correlated. Public board seats combined with private businesses, combined with hedge fund management fees, etc, which are almost entirely uncorrelated in the way they operate, such that I don't really care. Market go down, I'll buy more, if market goes up, I'll just sit tight. I just want to be long. I want to be long here and I want to largely ignore the noise, this loud amount of banging and screaming and yelling from people on the internet about how bad things are going to get. What I find interesting is that a lot of the short term headlines that we see on a day-to-day basis are seemingly headwinds, but if you zoom out on this industry in general, it's nothing but tailwinds, right? I mean, CFDC and years of rivalry with deal that means combined crypto oversight. Okay, I don't think it moves the market today by any stretch or Wells Fargo, a filial trademark for WFUSD. I mean, all plumbing and all small news stories that directionally show you the level of adoption of this industry. So once again, there's an asymmetry, right? You might have Straits of Hormuz and Private Credit today, but you have Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley and all these coming into crypto forever. Yeah, I mean, looking at Clarity Act coming, you've got a new Fed chair coming. You have no sign of let up in the long-term adoption. You've got the other big story, Scott, beyond just the ETFs, which have obviously been a huge sort of fundamental underpinning to particularly the Bitcoin space over the last few years, is the rise of these preferred securities that have been issued by companies like MicroStrategy and Strive. Those products are really starting to work. Now, the traffic guys are arguing their Ponzi schemes and they won't be able to pay out. And there is some truth to the fact that like, there's no guarantee that they're going to pay out 11, 12, 12 and a half percent forever, but they are feeling an important gap. There are not a lot of high quality assets you can buy with yields at that level. And if these companies can build a longer-term track record of doing that as Straits is starting to do and Straits is holding that $100 level, that is a long-term, another long-term fundamental component of how Bitcoin embeds itself in the traditional system. Because there are a lot of retirees who don't have enough capital to retire if their yield is 3%. So if they buy a Procter & Gamble and Merck and even Altria and British Tobacco, they're maybe getting a blended 5% yield. With Straits, they're getting a 10% yield. So they can retire now with 500K and actually continue to live in the US versus having to retire with a million. And so it closes a gap. So if you under-saved during your working career now, you can catch up via stretch and the only thing you're betting on there is does Bitcoin outperform those yields. So if you think it's a simple bet, if you think Bitcoin returns 20 or 30% over the next 10 years on a compound basis, those companies will be able to meet those obligations. If you don't, then maybe those companies will have to cut the yields or cancel the yields at. at some point along that journey, but if you get in at the right price, like if you bought stretch below 100 or you bought SATA under 90 or something, you're getting a yield on cost that's even above the stated yield. And that will actually accelerate retirement and or allow some people to have a more comfortable retirement. And that is a fundamental driver of Bitcoin now because as of right now, as long as that's your C-stays above 100, Michael Staler is able to buy Bitcoin every single day and people will say, the bear is also, well, A, that's not sustainable. And then they'll be say, well, if that's true, why is it Bitcoin going up? Well, all it takes is for the market to flip to a more bullish sort of positive regime. And you'll see that the benefit of having that natural buyer in there every day, selling SDRC actually benefit the market. But right now in a negative regime, all it's doing is causing Bitcoin to be more kind of technically stable than it would be otherwise. But I think it's a bigger story than people think. I see people in Bitcoin talking about it. I don't see anyone outside of Bitcoin talking about it. And SDRC is exploding. People are getting it now. Right? I mean, I think it's paying over 11% now. I'm sure you're getting more. And S-A-T-A strives just raised to 12 and 1/2. And they're now targeting the power value between 99 and 101. So they're going to try to model-- they're basically a slightly riskier, or significantly riskier version of SDRC, where if you want to go a little further out on the risk curve to get a slightly higher yield, you can. But again, they have a debt-free balance sheet. So is it risky at over five years? Yes, Bitcoin does not perform above 12 and 1/2%. Then yes, they won't be able to pay at some point. But I actually think it will. I think especially from these levels, the Cager of Bitcoin has gone up. The forward Cager of Bitcoin from 60 is better than 125. That's just math. Because as long as it eventually goes to 150 or 200, the return of Bitcoin from these levels will be better than it will be if you bought at 125. And if you're buying stretch or S-A-T-A right now, that's what you've got to model. Because that's where the return comes from. It comes from the return from here, not what happened in the past. So I think they're both fine bets. I own a little bit of S-A-T-A largely to start to understand the products better, because I think if the flywheel of those preferred securities really works, then finally, the Treasury company business that we've been talking about for years now will actually have a reason to exist. And this is what I-- one of the things I said-- you were correctly bearish at the correct time. But what I said at that time, even when I was bearish on MSTR in November of '24 at the correct time, which was hard to do because everybody was bullish. And I actually had made money on the way up, 15x off the bottom in '22. But the issue was there was no business model yet. Like selling common equity via the ATM to buy Bitcoin was not going to be sustainable. This potentially actually works over 10 years. And I think the fact that at Strive, for example, you have insurance actuaries working on it to try to model it over 20, 30, 40, 50 years is exactly the kind of mindset you need. It's like the reverse insurance model where all these insurance companies got too heavy in a private credit, because they were all looking for a yield that looked sustainable. And maybe the real yield is actually driven off of Bitcoin. Maybe that's a better way of modeling the long-term obligations of some of these large pensions, some of these large insurance companies. So I'm becoming increasingly constructive. I'm holding my 575,000 shares of ASST. I think it's a lesser understood story than MSTR, but also clean balance sheet. So it's not going anywhere. And really all you need there is for Bitcoin to go up. If Bitcoin goes up in a sustainable way, that stock will rip. And then I'm holding like over 6 million of SATA, a little less than 6 million of SATA, largely because I want to experiment with that asset and understand how it works. But one of the other interesting things that someone pointed out on Twitter the other day is that SDRC pays on the first of the month and SATA pays on the 15th. So if you wanted to have a blended income where you get paid twice a month, like a normal paycheck, you buy 50% in both and you get a paycheck on the first and a paycheck on the 15th. That's right. No idea of that. That's interesting. Yeah, that's cool. Yeah, SDRC is the first in SATA's on the 15th. And SATA, as I said, is a slightly riskier and higher yield. And of course, you're paying below a par now. So your effective yield is even higher than stretch. It's a 200, 300 basis points more at the current price. It'll close, right? If people start to have the same confidence in strive that they have an MSCR, it'll eventually trade in 102. And so then it'll equalize those yields a little bit. And then what will happen over time is those products you figure as the yields will come down because the cost of capital will come down. And eventually, like at Bitcoin's going up in a bull market, you'll see them trade probably well above par, right? Because a 12% yield assumes a lot of risk to the balance sheet of the corporate issuer. It assumes a lot of risk to Bitcoin. And I said this the other day on a space, I don't think institutions are buying those because they really believe in Bitcoin. I think they're buying them because they've modeled the short term that the balance sheets of MSCR allows them to pay that yield for two years. And so if you can get 12% for two years, you can always sell the asset within those 24 months and take your money back. You can put a sell stop on the preferred. So like you can say, look, we're just not going to own it if it goes below 99. So that we're limiting, we're capping our downside at 1%, but we're getting almost 1% a month. So as long as we hold it for two or three months, we've outrun our stop loss. And if it goes below 99, we're out. If it stays at 100, we're in. It's really that simple. People are overthinking it. A lot of the Bitcoin people are like, look, this is a clear endorsement of Bitcoin. I'm like, no, these are private equity vulture type people. These are traditional investors. They're just looking at MSCR's balance sheet. They're saying, forget about the Bitcoin, put that aside. This company has two years of cash on the balance sheet. And they have enough Bitcoin to pay this yield for 20, 30 years or more. So we expect them that they'll do that because their whole business model is toast if they stop paying the yield. So they're not even at the point of underwriting Bitcoin. What happens when Bitcoin starts to work again? And they actually re-underwrite the Bitcoin too. Now you've got a thing that actually maybe works. And again, I think those yields will come down. I think the buyers of SATA and stretch will largely be rewarded if that happens over the next two years. And since I'm betting on that, I want to take different distinct bets on that thematic. And I think it's going to be a winner. See how they are. Buy stuff and stay long. And they-- Buy stuff, generate cash flow, private businesses, preferred equities, bonds, dividend-pank stocks. I've been a huge proponent for three, four years, five years now, of energy MLPs like EPD and tobacco stocks like MO and PM. And all the Bitcoin people are like, Mike, what the hell are you talking about? This is a scam. You're trying to get people into other things other than Bitcoin. I'm like, no, the correct portfolio for a Bitcoin holder is something that allows you to hold Bitcoin forever. So this idea that you should put-- And the main thing is that some of your Bitcoin have no income means you're going to have to sell Bitcoin at some point. Whereas I don't have to because I have all these tobacco stocks and all these energy MLPs and a private bakery and so guess what? If you have cash coming in, you can just hold Bitcoin forever. So I don't care if Bitcoin goes down. I see it on my screen. It looks juicy. And of course, if I had zero exposure, I'd be buying the crap out of it right now. But the most important thing is unlike people are 100% Bitcoin and they're worried about it going lower. I'm not. I just don't care. I agree. Brilliant. All right, Mike. Well, I'm going to let you go. I appreciate you taking the time. That was a master class. So I'll give you the stop at there. Guys, give Mike a follow on X and hope to have you back very soon, man. All right. Thanks, buddy. See you soon. See you guys soon. See you tomorrow. Bye. [MUSIC PLAYING]