Jonathan Bird

@StockMarketNerd On the other hand, scarce data center capacity/electricity in the USA could mean it makes economic sense to retire GPUs early for new more efficient models. Maybe they can be moved or sold in to overseas data centers to extend useful life.

@DataDInvesting The FMV wars feel like a lifetime ago. This post is an important remembrance. Thank you for your service.

For three years from 2021-2024 covering $SOFI all I heard was, "They are cheating with their fair value accounting, if they did CECL accounting like $LC, the earnings would look terrible and the company would go out of business. The OCC and the Fed are going to shut them down any time." I felt like the meme below. I was told what they were doing was tantamount to fraud, that they were hiding things, that their fair value marks were aggressive, that when the tide went out we'd find out they were swimming naked, that their earnings were completely fake, their capital ratios were farcical and on and on. I wrote multiple 4,000+ word articles about this. I was lambasted over and over, told I was a shill and that I didn't understand accounting. This point was made by Seeking Alpha authors @BankingIp and @siyul, it was hammered on by fund managers like @ramahluwalia and @Seawolfcap (yes, that Porter Collins from the Big Short), repeated by X accounts like @PersianMacroGuy @The_Keto_Guy @Dan3Weston and others, and trotted out ad nauseum by Wall Street analysts including @giulianoab of Compass Point, Tim Switzer of @KBWfinthink, and David Chiaverini of @Wedbush . Fast forward to 2025: $LC just announced that they will use fair value accounting for ALL NEW ORIGINATIONS starting in 2026 at their investor day today. They've been shifting this way for years (as I've pointed out) and now the transition is complete. They stole a page from SoFi's playbook because it is a better business practice for this type of loan business. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness” - Oscar Wilde There are a lot of analysts out there who owe @anthonynoto and @CLapointe12 a huge apology. And this is huge validation for those of us who held through all that fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Vindication is sweet. See you all at $50/share

@DataDInvesting @zou_yunhan You are wrong about being wrong Chris. Anchorage Digital has a "National Trust Bank Charter" while SoFI has "National Bank Charter". Anchorage is a non-FDIC insured Tier 3 institution. SoFi is Tier 1. Tier 3 does not have direct access to deposit funds with the federal reserve.

This is actually not true, Anchorage Digital Bank already offers stablecoins and has an OCC charter, so $SOFI will not be the first nor the only one who can do this. My apologies and shout out to @zou_yunhan for pointing this out.

Just imagine what democrats will want to do to Elon's companies when they regain power. If, in the next 3.5 years, he can prove himself undisputedly indispensable to the world will it blunt the blowback? I've also been pondering the right $NVDA / $TSLA balance of my portfolio so it was nice to read your comments.

On May 2nd, I sold my entire $TSLA position (my second biggest position at the time) and rotated into $NVDA (my largest position). It wasn’t an easy decision. I’ve held Tesla for a long time and still believe in its long-term potential. I plan to be a shareholder again. But in the short term, I had concerns. Not just about the business, but the political heat surrounding Elon. It was starting to feel like a distraction. At the same time, Nvidia felt like the opposite. Jensen Huang has been a superhero of a CEO. He’s navigated global politics, chip bans, and supply chain risks better than almost anyone. My conviction in $NVDA was STRONG (been a shareholder since 2018). Still is. I believe it can break past $200 very soon. Since the switch, the trade has worked out. Nvidia has outperformed (+49.5%). Tesla has lagged (+9.1%). I'm still rooting for Tesla. But for now, I needed to follow where I saw the clearest upside. Sometimes that means making hard, unpopular moves. I hope to be a $TSLA shareholder again in the near future, I do think most of what we are seeing is short term noise... I know Tesla will play a massive role in the AI revolution but for now, I am happy to have consolidated my portfolio into one of the core names at the center of AI that’s putting up some of the most incredible earnings growth we’ve ever seen.

@jwilkes I love that observation, and I really think it would give investors hope, if only they could actually land a US community bank that uses Cyberbank Core. It is a tough argument to make until that happens.

@RiskyBirdness - would it be too bold for me to point out that people who want Galileo to becomes "the AWS of Fintech" by selling core software to big banks don't understand how AWS scaled up from startups?

@StockMarketNerd Not concerned and don't begrudge anyone for selling shares after such a run. Just worth noting that now three board members have sold shares in recent weeks and what the implies about how insiders view the stock price after so many years in the wilderness.

@RiskyBirdness I would assume he can repay the loan with cash proceeds or whatever the equivalent is (or just use cash to buy more shares that he's liable for). I think it's fair to think of this as a sale and I wouldn't call this a good piece of news. Just not concerning either IMO.

$SOFI Borrow EVP Eric Schuppenhauer purchased $500K in shares. 👍 Boosts stake by 200%. He joined the company 6 months ago & this is his first open market purchase.

@StockMarketNerd @VadimKotlarov Fine point. But if he had 34M in cash he probably wouldn't have taken the loan. So unless he expects to have 34M in cash when the loan comes due it suggests he intends to use the proceeds from the sale of the shares to repay.

@VadimKotlarov @RiskyBirdness I don't think it matters how he pays back the $34 million -- whether that be in shares or cash. Highly liquid asset.

@StockMarketNerd Are the shares being used as more than collateral? Will he for sure be using shares to repay the loan and we just don't know how many? Or are they just collateral in case he defaults on the loan? If it's the former, then this is effectively a sell.

Looks like he’s pledging shares based on a $ amount today, to pay a fixed $ amount in the future. Meaning fewer shares cover that same $ amount if shares keep moving higher. So instead of selling shares today. Borrows against shares to repay the value via fewer shares in the future.

@DaveyBitcoins @Rex_Finance Only way I can read this is that they are buying the shares that the investors in the convertible notes are about to sell short. In other words, they are trying to cushion the stock price from the delta hedging done by the buyers of the notes.

@Rex_Finance “ to use up to $125 million of the net proceeds to repurchase shares of the Company's common stock (the "common stock") from investors in the Convertible Notes” not open market is this their attempt to buyback from the same ones shorting the stock right now??

I used to be completely against convertibles, but a few things have changed since mid-August. Here's an update for full transparency: $CLSK (and others) that have recently done convertibles have utilized stock buybacks & capped calls to a) minimize dilution, and b) kill the natural short interest that comes from holders hedging their long exposure to the stock via the convertibles. I still very much disagree with using proceeds to buy spot Bitcoin, so I'm glad CleanSpark stayed away from that. (However, don't be surprised if they buy spot BTC in a bear market with yield from their HODL) CleanSpark now has the cheapest cost basis of any company that HODLs Bitcoin in the world! This means their bankruptcy risk is lower and they'll be protected from ill-effects that come during bear markets while others struggle to 'float the boat'. The stock should receive a premium for this alone. This also means CLSK's HODL yield will be much more powerful. (They'll bring cash to the bottom line in both bull and bear markets without being forced to sell their underwater BTC).

Bondholders do not need to hedge their position. Downside protection is inherent in the convertible bond. If MSTR goes down(or does not go up past convert price) then bondholders are made whole through repayment of the bonds. So putting the blame for the CLSK short interest on MSTR bondholders makes no sense.

Many investors are unaware that $CLSK stock has come under attack this week due to hedge funds opening large sell positions against their stock Many investors continue to believe that the fall in the stock this week is due to the CleanSpark management purchasing a private jet and diluting shareholders back in march, if you do some research you will find that this is simply not true. $MSTR recently announced that they will create 0% interest convertible bonds. In plain english this means that hedge funds and retirement funds can loan their capital to Micro Strategy by purchasing their bonds at 0% interest, however if MSTR's stock price appreciates enough during the term of the bond, then the bond purchaser has the opportunity to convert their bond into equity at a discounted price This is a smart and effective strategy Micheal Saylor has executed but it should be known that this process will dilute shareholder int he future when the bonds are converted As hedge funds have been buying these convertible bonds, they have been hedging their bets by opening short positions in the mining stocks, hence why we have seen underperformance during a period when the mining stocks should be hitting new highs with Bitcoin being at $100K

🚨Here is my latest $CLSK update🚨 Today I will share my analysis on $CLSK shares given that the stock has massively underperformed Vs Bitcoin which is basically at $100K Firstly, I would like to congratulate everyone who bought $MSTR & $BTC, you guys have smashed it this year and if I could wind back the clock ofc I wish I would of bought them instead of CleanSpark. The past is the past, I look into the future so lets get started 👇🏼

@stmdc @VadimKotlarov @DataDInvesting Darn! I hoped perhaps there was a loophole here that SoFi Bank could exploit to hold the deposits of Galileo clients while still maintaining the favorable economics of exempt issuers.

@RiskyBirdness @VadimKotlarov @DataDInvesting Neither. Issuers of decoupled debit are not eligible for the small issuer exemption.

Huge $SOFI tech platform win!!! Galileo will be the prepaid debit card provider for the US Treasury's program. Congrats to the Galileo team!

@stmdc @VadimKotlarov @DataDInvesting I was not previously acquainted with the "decoupled debit" concept. Ignoring the case at hand involving government payments, would qualification for Durbin exemption be based on the assets of the issuing bank or the deposit holding bank?

@RiskyBirdness @VadimKotlarov @DataDInvesting BNY is the financial agent and will hold the deposits. They don't do much in retail banking, so it appears Sunrise was brought on to issue the cards. Decoupled debit has always existed at theoretical level, but all past attempts at it have failed.

@stmdc @VadimKotlarov @DataDInvesting Thanks. Why do you think BNY needed to bring Sunrise Banks on board?

@RiskyBirdness @VadimKotlarov @DataDInvesting Debit cards issued pursuant to a "government-administered payment program" are exempt from the Durbin rate caps. Direct Express cards would get full interchange no matter which bank issues them. See 12 CFR 235.5(b).

I now think Sunrise Banks, NA, not BNY, will be the issuing bank for the Direct Express card program because the economics of debit card processing greatly favor issuing banks with less than 10B assets. Banks below this size are Durbin amendment "exempt" from caps on interchange fees. This is the same reason SoFi Bank will never be competitive as an issuing bank for Galileo's clients.

@VadimKotlarov @DataDInvesting It's not clear, but Galileo may be THE processing partner and BNY the issuing bank. The are multiple companies working together on this contract. They may all have a different role.

Still learning more. Here is my guess: 1. BNY Mellon: Manages the overall program. 2. Mastercard: Provides the payment network. 3. Galileo: Supplies payment processing technology. 4. MoCaFi: Offers digital banking services. Maybe a website and app? 5. Senture: Handles front office customer service operations. 6. Sunrise Banks: Acts as the card issuer. 7. Ubiquity: Provides back-office support services.

@VadimKotlarov @DataDInvesting Yes. But I dont think they are competing providers. They are a team of providers working together to satisfy the contract. mocafi.com/news/

@VadimKotlarov @DataDInvesting That could be correct that the load will be split. But some of the other companies mentioned are not processors.

@RiskyBirdness @DataDInvesting I'll need to read some more about all of them. I assumed that the processing "load" would just be split between some of them.

@ReadyAimFeuer Will Galileo being doing the processing? Or something else?

Galileo has been selected as a provider for the US Treasury’s largest prepaid debit program! Honored to support this initiative and deliver innovative, secure financial solutions at scale. finance.yahoo.com/news/bny-manag…

@CalebFranzen Is there any BTC price where you believe miners will outperform BTC? Said another way, are miners a call option on BTC at $125K? Or $150K? Surely there is some price.

#Bitcoin miners have failed so far this cycle. Just look at the data... 🟠 Bitcoin $BTCUSD 🔵 BTC miners vs. BTC $WGMI / $BTC They have zero correlation, even though they should. In other words, anyone who bought miners (on the aggregate) since BTC bottomed in Nov.'22 have underperformed spot $BTC. Yes, miners have gone up in value... but they've been more volatile than BTC and actually underperformed BTC since the bear market bottom in Q4'22. So what's the point of owning them if they give you lower returns are higher volatility? In mathematical terms, that's called a lower Sharpe ratio. There is no point. If you don't know what the Sharpe ratio is or if you have to look it up, you have no business commenting on this post, telling me that I'm wrong, or that I'm going to eat my words. FYI, this is exactly what I said in March 2024 when I publicly denounced the miners in favor of MicroStrategy and everyone in the BTC mining community turned on me. I ate my words for a few weeks, but we all know how that story ended... $MSTR is the darling of the cycle and continues to breakout and make new highs, both on an absolute and relative basis (vs. BTC and vs. miners). I just follow the data and the charts, objectively. I was bullish on the miners one year ago. Everyone told me I was crazy. It was a hell of a trade. Then I adapted, based on market data, and everyone told me I was crazy again. As far as I'm concerned, I've been proven right, once again. Let's continue to observe how this evolves, but my general belief is that miners have been (and will likely continue to be) a poor allocation of capital on a relative basis vs. spot $BTC... because that's exactly what they've been for the past 18 months (WGMI/BTC peaked in July 2023). I don't invest based on emotions. I invest based on objective truths. Cheers fam.