CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

Michael Saylor responded to the deepening selloff in Strategy’s stock and preferred shares Friday with a statement on X.

“Volatility tests every capital structure,” Saylor wrote.

“Strategy remains focused on Bitcoin, disciplined capital allocation, credit quality, and long-term value creation.

We appreciate our investors and will continue to execute with transparency and resolve. $MSTR”.

The tweet landed as MSTR shares and STRC, Strategy’s variable-rate perpetual preferred, both hit 52-week lows. MSTR has shed more than 80% from its all-time peak. STRC, which carries a par value of $100, traded near $74 — a 26% discount.

When preferred shares trade below par, the mechanism that funds bitcoin purchases through preferred issuance breaks down: the company cannot raise capital on favorable terms on instruments trading at a discount.

Bitcoin broke to $58,000 Wednesday for the first time since October 2024, pushing Strategy’s paper losses above $14 billion. The company holds 847,363 bitcoin at an average purchase price of $75,680 per coin — a gap of more than $17,000 per coin at current prices.

MSTR shares, which had shed around 25% over five trading days going into Friday, extended that decline somewhat in pre-market trading as bitcoin’s slide appeared to stagnate. The stock trades at an mNAV below 1.0, meaning the market values Strategy’s shares at a discount to the bitcoin on its balance sheet.

That matters because the company’s model depends on a premium: Strategy issues stock or preferred instruments above NAV, deploys proceeds into bitcoin, and lifts NAV per share in the process. With the premium gone, both capital taps are constrained at the same time.

Strategy’s cash strain deepens further

The pressure on the capital structure extends past bitcoin’s price.

Annual dividend obligations on Strategy’s preferred instruments — STRC, STRK, STRF, STRD, and STRE — have risen from $300 million at the start of 2026 to $1.2 billion, a fourfold increase in six months.

Cash reserves have fallen 38% this year. Dividend coverage, once above seven years, has compressed to about 14 months.

A Bloomberg report Thursday described investor scrutiny of Saylor’s funding model as the most intense the company has faced. CryptoQuant issued a note this week calling on Strategy to halt bitcoin purchases and rebuild cash to $2.8 billion before resuming accumulation.

Strategy made its first bitcoin sale in four years in early June, offloading 32 BTC at an average of $77,135 per coin. Saylor framed the move as proof the company could cover dividend obligations through asset liquidation. The market’s reaction suggests that framing did not hold.

Last week, Strategy bought 520 bitcoin — a fraction of its prior pace — and put $300 million of a $335.5 million equity raise into cash rather than bitcoin.

Saylor has not elaborated on the tweet beyond the statement posted to X.

We give the last (someone testy) word to Saylor...

Watch Michael Saylor freak out when asked where his $MSTR money will come frompic.twitter.com/bW4qMOgSwW https://t.co/iOJJ8IFZaY

— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) June 26, 2026

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hailed the new agreement signed between Israel and Lebanon, hosted in Washington on Friday, as a major blow to Iran. He has said Israeli forces will remain in southern Lebanon so long as Hezbollah does not disarm: 

"I want to announce a great achievement for the State of Israel. The most important thing is that, first of all, Israel remains in the security zone in southern Lebanon. This is a great achievement, and we will maintain it as long as Hezbollah does not disarm, as long as there is a danger to the State of Israel."

Mideast regional media is also calling the 'trilateral framework agreement' (given it was also signed by the US) as likely the most significant agreement between the two enemy countries in decades.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated at the signing ceremony that it was aimed at achieving "lasting peace and security". The US top diplomat proclaimed, "Today is a good day in that we are happy to announce a framework agreement between the sovereign government of Lebanon and, of course, the government of Israel, with a mediation and support of the United States of America that begins to put in place a framework for lasting peace and security."

He added: "And that’s what these two nations deserve." Following on this, the State Department also said officially, "The two sides agreed with the guidance of the United States to swiftly advance the creation of pilot zones in which the Lebanese Armed Forces will take exclusive control of the territory to the exclusion of all non-state actors."

Ultimately, it shows a serious effort by the Trump administration to scramble behind the scenes and ensure events in Lebanon can't derail the fragile peace and ceasefire achieved with the MoU signing between the US and Iran earlier this month.

Iran has insisted that a broader peace deal bring Lebanon into it, after small Mediterranean country suffered relentless aerial attacks by Israel, which is seeking to eradicate Hezbollah while occupying more territory in the south.

But the hard reality is that without Hezbollah going along with this, it only remains symbolic. In the below is seen the crucial fine print:

The agreement, which came as a result of talks mediated by the United States, calls for the implementation of a ceasefire between the two nations.

That ceasefire is contingent on a complete cessation of fire by the paramilitary group Hezbollah and the evacuation of all Hezbollah operatives from the South Litani Sector, an area in southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah was not a party to Friday’s agreement. It is not clear whether the group will abide by any ceasefire.

As for some of the key details, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will hand over control of two areas within its six-mile southern Lebanon buffer zone to Lebanese forces. Al Jazeera says this is a prelude to a full Israeli withdrawal later on.

Having already cleared Hezbollah infrastructure from these sectors, Israeli forces are prepared to step back. The prior clearance operations included leveling entire border villages - a move Israel defended by claiming Hezbollah used the civilian infrastructure as staging grounds for attacks.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the Israel-Lebanon peace framework: "It's the beginning of the beginning. There is a lot of work ahead." pic.twitter.com/djoFtFMeaQ

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) June 26, 2026

Prior agreements have come and gone though - given things usually devolve into sporadic exchange of fire to start, and then move to intensified conflict. But the Trump admin has high hopes that this one will stick, truly earning the 'historic' label that many officials are currently attaching to it.

Media reports earlier this week about SpaceX's inaugural post-IPO investment-grade bond (and we mean inaugural, as the company rushed to tap the corporate bond market just days after going public with a low-IG rating of Baa1/BBB) which priced on Tuesday, had it as almost 4x oversubscribed, at roughly $90BN in orders for the $25 billion offering (upsized from $20 billion), signaling relentless demand for the paper. Alas, it took just 48 hours for the myth of sterling demand to crash and burn, with Bloomberg reporting today that the "blockbuster bond sale is weakening so quickly in the secondary market that traders say they can’t recall another recent deal that widened this sharply."

This is what we mean.

Confirming the TRACE data shown above for the company's bonds due 2056, Bloomberg says that a large dealer was quoting the SpaceX bonds at levels as much as 0.32 percentage point wider than the issue price of 1.75 percentage points above Treasuries.

Parallel selling across the entire SpaceX bond complex means that paper losses on the company's $25 billion offering have mounted since the debt broke for trading Wednesday and totaled roughly $400 million as of Friday, relative to Treasuries. The longest-dated SpaceX bonds, which drew more skepticism than those with shorter maturities, have erased all the tightening from underwriters that followed as orders swelled to nearly $90 billion.

So much for that oversubscription.

Traders who spoke to Bloomberg said the moves suggest fast-money accounts, rather than traditional buy-and-hold investors, piled into the deal looking to flip it for a quick profit. In other words, the momentum monkeys who have dominated stonks, decided to try their hand at flipping bonds. It didn't work out well: the selling pressure stands out even more because SpaceX shares have been largely stable since the bonds priced on Tuesday, after lurching 16% lower the day before, which it not say that the stock has been especially stable and it once again broke below its first day of trading price earlier today when it briefly dipped below $150.

Even if there are more technical reasons behind the selling - hedge funds covering or hedging short positions, for example - the unprecedented magnitude of the rapid selling points to SpaceX’s unique profile. The company, which at its peak this month had a $2.64 trillion market value, won investment grades despite expectations for years of negative cash flow and a dependence on Elon Musk that Fitch Ratings deemed a “key rating constraint.”

“We expected SpaceX to widen from issuance level, but not this much,” said Tony Trzcinka, a portfolio manager at Impax Asset Management. “That magnitude is likely a perfect storm of the stock shedding $600 billion+ since launch, weak technicals from the upsized supply, and investors still scratching their heads over how to price its unique risk profile.”

SpaceX's selling is a rare move compared with how other recent mega bond sales have traded in the secondary market.

Take Nvidia, which raised $25 billion in a seven-part high-grade offering this month. The spreads on its 5.55% bonds maturing in 2046 have widened by just 11 basis points since issuance, while the spreads on its 5.625% bonds maturing in 2056 are 12 basis points wider. The spread on Alphabet’s longer-dated bonds issued in February have broadly tightened.

Meanwhile, after weakening, SpaceX’s credit curve is now trading more in line with those of similarly rated Oracle, whose longer-dated bonds also widened soon after they were first sold. 

One way to track the SpaceX relative credit performance is through CDS, as Credit-default swaps tied to the company began actively trading after the company sold high-grade bonds this week for the first time, allowing investors to hedge against potential losses or to speculate on the creditworthiness of the firm. And yes, SPCX CDS has blown wider since breaking for trading, indicating the market is not as hopeful on the company's "otherworldly" ambitions, as Elon Musk or the friendly Wall Street sellside, which expects 100x higher revenues by 2030. 

But here a bigger problem emerges: as we have been pounding the table since last October, when we said that "AI Is Now A Debt Bubble Too, Quietly Surpassing All Banks To Become The Largest Sector In The Market" and most recently two weeks ago when we profiled "The $1.8 Trillion Off-Balance Sheet Time Bomb At The Heart Of The AI Supercycle", bondholders have been inundated with massive hyperscaler bond sales this year as tech giants race to raise billions of dollars to finance artificial intelligence projects (read: pay memory chip makers ridiculous prices for their commodity product). US high-grade supply of $180 billion as of Wednesday has set a new June record, surpassing 2020’s $169 billion haul, according to Bloomberg calculations. Morgan Stanley's internal calcs are even more insane: the bank's latest Debt Financing Tracker (available to pro subscribers) found that YTD $236BN in AI-linked debt has been issued, a 357% increase from the same period last year. By year-end, MS expect this number to more than double to $570 billion.

Even more amazing is the recent explosion in hyperscaler gross leverage, which has surged from 0.9x in Q3 '25 to 1.8x currently, doubling in just over two quarters, and surpassing the gross leverage of the entire energy sector. At this rate, hyperscaler debt is growing at about 0.3x turn per quarter.

Echoing Bloomberg's observation that the borrowing spree is starting to weigh on corporate bond spreads, pushing average high-grade risk premiums out of a historically tight range, Morgan Stanley noted that hyperscalers are drifting wider, and after trading insider AA spreads for much of 2025, are now on top of A, and as MS warns, "may widen further on supply." And it's not just outlier Oracle: META is now trading wider to CDX IG. 

Not surprisingly, Bloomberg reported earlier this week that demand for the SpaceX bond sale was strongest for the five-year notes, i.e. the lowest duration part of the offering, which let the company cut borrowing costs more on that portion of the deal than on the longer maturities. Interest was weaker in the 20-year and 30-year bonds, which saw the biggest drop-off in demand. Ironically that's precisely where the bulk of the "shareholder value" is concentrated, deep in the future when SpaceX is expected to be colonizing Mars, flying through worm holes, and enjoying other activities that push its EBITDA north of $1 trillion, or something. 

SpaceX’s long-dated bonds are widening despite “some initial excitement and demand,” with bondholders “seemingly concluding that there may be plenty more debt issuance to come, as the loss-making company finances its future path to profitability,” Mark Dowding, CIO for fixed income at RBC BlueBay Asset Management, wrote in a note.

Mark is undoubtedly correct, and we expect both SpaceX and other IG names to continue flooding the market until spreads eventually blow up like they did one year ago, and shut the debt issuance window for good, at which point the capex cycle will end as there is no more free cash flow, and in a few months, there will be no more debt either. 

We recommend reading the latest Morgan Stanley Debt Financing Tracker for a comprehensive analysis of the hyperscaler debt flooding the investment grade bond market (available to pro subscribers).

A series of high-profile Democrats and party strategists this week sounded the alarm that socialists have hijacked the Democratic Party, with radical left-wing revolutionaries increasingly gaining power not just in local elections across the country, but most notably in far-left-controlled New York City.

Let's begin with President Trump's overnight comments on Truth Social, in which he told the anti-American, pro-globalist radical left:

The Communists are finally making their move. I've been waiting and preparing for this for a long time. It's easy to be a Communist — All you have to do is say, "I'll give you everything," but that means you're taking it away from others that have earned it. Over thousands of years, that Ideology has not worked once. The game is on.

Trump also fired off another Truth Social post early Friday afternoon, joking that:

"Communism is very easy to sell. I’d be the Greatest Communist in History. I’d give free rent, free houses, free food, everything is free. Unfortunately, after two or three years, the Country where this is taking place would fail."

He concluded by taking aim back at the Democrats:

"These are not social Dumocrats; these are hard-core, godless Communists. This is the most serious threat to our Country since its existence 250 years ago."

We have been warning readers for some time about the radical left's expanding power footprint and how they operate, from alleged foreign influence networks such as the China-linked Neville Roy Singham network, to billionaire- and union-funded left-wing NGOs, to the Democratic Socialists of America that are hellbent on crashing capitalism and the nation.

The wake-up call this week came in NYC, where Democratic Socialists scored closely watched House primary victories, beating out candidates backed by House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

After Democrats allowed socialists and Marxist wolves into their DEI kingdom, the party is now facing an internal power struggle between its traditional establishment wing and the revolutionary left. This infighting has been obvious for some time, but until now, Democrats were unwilling to admit it publicly.

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville was on News Nation on Thursday, blasting the DSA for hijacking the party to advance its far-left and anti-American agenda instead of launching its own party.

New York (D) Congressman Tom Suozzi joined Fox and addressed the growing division within the Democratic Party.

"Like I said, we're capitalist, not socialist. We believe in safety, not lawlessness. We're proud of America, not ashamed of it. We believe in fiscal discipline, and we have to organize better," Suozzi said.

'START YOUR OWN MOVEMENT': Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville is calling on Socialists to start their own movement and stop using the Democratic Party to advance it.

"If it's such a powerful, sweeping movement that's got momentum everywhere, then go ahead and be at the… pic.twitter.com/et3mZzqIA8

— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) June 26, 2026

Hakeem Jeffries joined CNBC on Thursday, as it only appears Democrats are in full-blown damage control mode, in addressing the parasitic nature of DSA hijacking the party.

Hakeem Jeffries refuses to answer if he will work with New York City Democrat Socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier.

CNBC: How are you going to work with some of these folks?

JEFFRIES: “Her views are clearly not my views… in terms of what brings Democrats together…” pic.twitter.com/JdjmwxSfr2

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 25, 2026

The damage control continued with New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), blaming far-left NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani for "blowing up" the party...

"Some of the candidates that he [Mamdani] has supported are individuals who do not understand the politics of New York City, the cultural differences from district to district, who have not been part of the history and the struggle of some of these districts, and are relatively new to the body politic," James told CNN.

James warned that Democratic Party officials have expressed concern and are "disappointed" in Mamdani's push to overhaul the party (really, it's the nonprofits behind Mamdani).

"All of us are a little frustrated with the Democratic Party. But you don't blow it up. That's what MAGA has done," James told CNN.

In case you're wondering what DSA stands for ... 

Even deep state Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich, warned on SiriusXM's "Straight Shooter": "That's why I believe we need significant new leadership. The old models are no longer working, and that includes the Democratic Party."

?? DEMOCRATS IN FULL CIVIL WAR — MODERATES VS SOCIALISTS!

Even Elissa Slotkin is reading the tea leaves: “The Democratic Party is a circular shooting squad… we just don’t have people who understand the moment and what leadership means.”

James Carville straight-up telling the… pic.twitter.com/IlGBHWUNMQ

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) June 26, 2026

Putting this together, the Democratic civil war appears to be finally emerging this summer - just ahead of midterms. Democratic Socialists and Marxist-aligned factions, most visibly through the DSA, are gaining uncomfortable levels of power inside the party, posing a direct challenge to old-school Democratic elites. The DSA's agenda seeks to push the party toward an anti-capitalist, anti-Western, and increasingly radical ideological posture that remains far outside the mainstream voter and does not resonate with most working-class Americans.

Democrats are absolutely terrified when the unofficial spokesperson of the DSA, Hasan Piker, calls for his followers to kill capitalists: "Yeah, kill them! Kill those motherfuckers and murder those motherfuckers in the streets. Let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist blood, dude."

Hasan Piker calls on his followers to kill capitalists:

“Yeah kill them! KiII those motherfuckers and murder those motherfuckers in the streets. Let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist blood, dude.”

Democrats are campaigning with him. pic.twitter.com/YiZxGgRkgc

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) April 9, 2026

We have profiled this emerging radicalization fomenting like cancer within the Democratic Party, one that appears increasingly aligned with foreign influence networks, including the China-linked Neville Roy Singham network and, potentially, communist-linked actors in Cuba.

• Is There A "Cuba Connection" Behind The Radicalization Of America's Nonprofit Left

In circles at the highest levels of government, from Washington to Brussels, there is a clear and new understanding, only in the last month, that this left-wing revolutionary movement has created a very troubling pattern of radicalization among the youth:

• Troubling Pattern Of Left-Wing Revolutionaries Targeting "Capitalists" Raises Alarm Over Youth Radicalization

But get ready for an action phase because it appears Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been watching:

• Bessent Signals Crackdown On Dark-Money Funded NGOs In "Weeks, Months Ahead"

Rubio as well:

• "No Longer Tolerate Radical Marxists": Rubio Sanctions Revolutionary Cuban Influence Network Tied To U.S. Left-Wing NGOs

Circling back to Trump's overnight comment against communists: "The game is on."

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

Florida permanently closed the temporary illegal immigrant holding center “Alligator Alcatraz” June 25 after transferring federal detainees to other facilities, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced.

“Alligator Alcatraz now has zero detainees,” DeSantis told reporters at a press conference outside the facility at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport in the Florida Everglades, about 50 miles west of Miami.

“It has helped remove many, many dangerous people from the street and get them out not only the state of Florida but the United States of America,” DeSantis said.

The facility was completed in less than two weeks and led to the deportation of almost 21,000 illegal immigrants, mainly people who had criminal records or were wanted for crimes, DeSantis said.

Crimes committed by the foreign nationals who were deported from the facility included sexual battery, international cartel activity, drug trafficking, homicide, burglary, fraud, fentanyl distribution, and Medicaid fraud, according to records.

The 2026 hurricane season started June 1, prompting Florida officials to move detainees out of the soft-sided facility.

Florida will continue to cooperate with the Trump administration on its immigration program, DeSantis said.

The state’s Deportation Depot in Baker County has processed 10,000 illegal immigrants and will continue to operate, he said.

“We’re proud to be able to be in this fight,” DeSantis said.

Florida is the only state in America that requires all state agencies to cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies in Florida for immigration enforcement.

President Donald Trump (2nd L), Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (L), and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem (R) tour a detention center for illegal immigrants, dubbed Alligator Alcatraz, located at the site of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport in Ochopee, Fla., on July 1, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

As a result, Florida has accounted for 40 percent of all immigrant arrests during President Donald Trump’s second term, according to the governor.

U.S. Border Czar Tom Homan joined Florida officials at the closure of Alligator Alcatraz June 25, touting the state’s success in helping the administration achieve a “record number of arrests and deportations.”

“Targeting national security threats is a priority of President Trump and we’re achieving that,” Homan said. “This doesn’t end the relationship. This is a continuation.”

Homan reported the administration had reduced illegal immigration by 97 percent at the border and had recovered 147,000 out of the 300,000 immigrant children that went missing under President Joe Biden’s administration.

“We are saving thousands of lives by securing that border,” Homan said. “A secure border is the most humane thing you can do. This is what the American people voted for and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.”

White House border czar Tom Homan takes a question from a reporter outside the West Wing of the White House on June 22, 2026. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Even before Alligator Alcatraz opened its doors, the site drew protests and lawsuits filed by immigrant rights groups.

In July 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the facility. The ACLU alleged that there was a lack of access to it and that detainees lacked due process.

State and federal officials have denied all allegations of torture and inhumane conditions at the detention facility.

The ACLU’s Florida chapter celebrated the governor’s announcement about the site’s permanent shutdown.

“Through pushback and litigation pressure, we the people successfully closed the chapter on this facility’s dark record,” the ACLU of Florida posted on X.

A protester stands outside the migrant detention facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Facility in Ochopee, Fla., on July 12, 2025. AP Photo/Alexandra Rodriguez

The Sierra Club of Florida welcomed the closure.

“We welcome efforts to permanently protect lands previously used for the prison camp known as ‘Alligator Alcatraz,’” the Sierra Club stated in an X post. “But fulfilling this commitment will require far more than the closure of the detention center alone.”

The Sierra Club is calling for the state to permanently protect the national preserve around the facility from future development, fossil fuel exploration, and drilling.

The U.S. has become increasingly irrelevant to Polestar's growth story.

The Geely-backed EV maker said Thursday that it is "increasing its strategic focus on Europe," where much of its growth is now centered. The shift follows a decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security not to authorize Polestar to sell future model-year vehicles in the U.S. under connected-vehicle rules aimed at limiting Chinese-linked technologies on American highways.

"This follows a decision from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security to not grant Polestar an authorization under the current Connected Vehicle Rule to sell vehicles in the U.S. from model year 2027 onwards," Polestar wrote in a statement.

Polestar said that 94% of its retail sales volume in the first quarter of 2026 came from ex-US markets, and that, following the US Commerce Department's connected vehicle rule, it is now "increasing its strategic focus on Europe."

According to the Q1 retail sales data, which totaled 13,126 cars, the 94% figure means that the EV company sold only 788 vehicles in the US, or about 6%. This compares with the 117,300 EVs Tesla sold in the US market in the same quarter.

Michael Lohscheller, Polestar CEO, said: "The automotive industry is entering a new phase, based on regional dynamics. Our strategy reflects that, with Europe being our largest growth engine and our plan to manufacture Polestar 7 in Europe."

What Citi analyst Ross MacDonald says:

In May-26 Volvo Cars was granted specific authorizations for the continued import/sale of connected cars in the US (LINK), thus avoiding a costly US sales ban. Reuters is today reporting that Geely sub-brand Polestar has not received this favorable ruling, being denied authorization to sell vehicles model year 2027 cars in the US market. While this may at first be seen as an opportunity for Volvo Car to gain share in the premium US BEV segment, we actually see a small negative read-across to Volvo Car from this ruling. This reflects the fact – as shown below and discussed in our initiation (LINK, 25-June) – Volvo car actually share factory space with Polestar in several plants. The ruling could therefore drive some additional fixed cost absorption for Volvo Car across these plants if Polestar volumes decline rapidly and was likely not assumed in CMD targets, we would argue. Remains Sell.

What hat Bloomberg Intelligence Says...

"Polestar's inability to sell US model-year 2027 vehicles under the connected-vehicle rule may put about $250 million of 2027 revenue at risk. Yet that equates to only about 5% of group sales. A Europe focus also appears strategically sensible because Polestar could redirect South Korea-built Polestar 4 vehicles from the US to Europe, avoiding EU tariffs on China- made EVs."

Polestar American depositary receipts closed down 6% on Thursday following the news. Shares are down 11% on the year and have been locked in a vicious multi-year bear market:

Bloomberg noted, "Polestar 3s for the US market are assembled at Volvo's plant in Charleston, South Carolina. A Volvo spokesperson said it was too early to speculate on any impact, adding that previously announced investments at the Charleston plant remain unchanged."

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

I honestly don’t know where Bitcoin is going from here.

It could be substantially higher a year from now. It could be substantially lower. It could spend the next five years frustrating both the bulls and the bears. I’ve learned over the years that making precise price predictions about speculative assets is a fool’s errand, and I’m not interested in pretending otherwise.

This article isn’t a referendum on Bitcoin, Ethereum, or digital assets generally. It’s also not an attempt to settle the endless debate between Michael Saylor and Peter Schiff. It’s about accountability, and whether financial media has any obligation to revisit the narratives it spends years enthusiastically promoting once those narratives begin to crack.

That question came to mind yesterday after Peter Schiff posted a tweet criticizing CNBC’s coverage of the recent collapse in Strategy-related securities and weakness in Bitcoin. Schiff wrote:

“Given how much airtime CNBC gave @Saylor to shill his MSTR house of cards, they are barely devoting any airtime to its current collapse…”

It’s one thing to never have Schiff on your network. That’s fine. But Schiff is right: this story is too big to not be covering. In the last 12 months, Strategy is down about -78%:. The scales are leaning slightly more towards “Schiff was right” than “Strategy is poised for a comeback” at this point, if you ask me.

I’m a realist, though, and I’m sure many people dismissed the Tweet yesterday because it came from Schiff. After all, he’s been one of Bitcoin’s most vocal critics for more than a decade. If you’ve followed financial markets for any length of time, you’ve heard someone say “Schiff has been calling for Bitcoin to collapse forever.” Fair enough. That’s true.

But it’s also worth remembering that Schiff was among those publicly questioning Alex Mashinsky and crypto firm Celsius before its collapse. Eight months before the firm blew up, on Kitco, Schiff criticized the platform’s unusually high yield promises, warning that such returns were often a red flag in the crypto industry and could signal underlying insolvency or mismanagement. He argued that Celsius was taking excessive risks with customer funds and questioned the transparency of its operations, suggesting that investors might not fully understand how their assets were being used.

And that’s why, in April, with Strategy’s STRC preferred product still trading at its $100 par price, I pointed out to my readers that it probably wasn’t a bad idea to listen to Schiff’s criticism of the product and take its 11.5% yield with a grain of salt.

“When you’re telling people to put their savings into this for income, that’s a huge red flag,” Schiff argued earlier this year. Now, STRC is trading at a $73 handle, representing a more than 20% loss of principle for people who bought then — a hole that would take years of collecting dividends to make up for. Some crypto commentators believe that STRC will never trade at par again and that “the damage has been done”.

And so you don’t have to agree with Schiff’s long-term conclusions on Bitcoin to acknowledge that he has occasionally identified serious problems before the broader market was willing to confront them. More importantly, history is full of people who sounded repetitive until they were suddenly proven right about something else entirely.

Madoff’s whistleblowers were ignored. The skeptics of Enron weren’t exactly invited onto television every week while the stock was climbing. Analysts warning about subprime mortgages in 2006 and early 2007 were mocked for “missing the new paradigm.” Critics of the SPAC boom were dismissed as people who simply didn’t understand innovation. Looking back, their warnings seem prescient. Living through them, however, they simply sounded like broken records.

That’s why I don’t think Schiff himself is the story here. His tweet merely raises a question that deserves a much broader discussion: what responsibility does financial television have after it spends years giving a platform to the same handful of market evangelists and those guests are imploding and taking viewer and investor capital with them?

Think about the amount of airtime Michael Saylor has received over the past several years. It seemed like every new Bitcoin purchase became an interview. Every convertible debt offering became another segment. Every financing announcement was treated as an opportunity to explain why borrowing billions of dollars to buy more Bitcoin was a revolutionary corporate strategy.

Likewise, Tom Lee has become one of CNBC’s most frequent market commentators, not only discussing equities but increasingly making the case for Ethereum and digital assets. Whether you agree with either man is beside the point. The point is that viewers have been exposed to these bullish narratives constantly.

And there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Bullish guests deserve airtime. Bears deserve airtime too. Markets function because different people have different opinions. But journalism doesn’t end once the interview is over. If a network is willing to devote hundreds of hours to amplifying a thesis during the ascent, shouldn’t it devote at least some meaningful coverage to evaluating that thesis when things begin going the other direction?

Like, for example, how some sources estimate that between Saylor and Lee, they have over $20 billion in losses on their respective crypto investments. And how Lee’s BMNR is down about 58% year to date.

The media imbalance becomes even more glaring when you look at products like Strategy’s STRC preferred shares. When the offering was launched, the messaging wasn’t that this was some wildly speculative instrument appropriate only for aggressive traders. Quite the opposite. It was discussed as a safe yield-oriented security designed to broaden Strategy’s investor base and appeal to investors looking for income.

One video from Michael Saylor’s Twitter account shows a woman, retired on what appears to be a tropical island. Someone asks her if she’s on vacation while serving her a cocktail. She responds: “I’m retired. I just don’t think I was meant to live an uncomfortable life. I worked hard as an engineer to save money, then I put my savings into STRC…”

Saylor’s text above the video says “You weren’t meant to live an uncomfortable life.” Below the video, Schiff had Tweeted in response:

I think this ad is deceptive and leaves Strategy open to lawsuits from investors who lose money. I don’t think the small print at the end will offset the deliberate intent of the ad that preceded it.

CNBC covered the launch of STRC and gave Saylor TV time to make his case for it, as did virtually every major financial publication.

“If Bitcoin’s up 2% a year, we can pay those dividends forever,” Saylor said a couple months ago on CNBC. He wasn’t asked directly what would happen in bitcoin went down for a prolonged period of time.

And today on STRC, shares trade dramatically below their $100 par value, falling to about $73 this morning in the pre-market session. Investors who bought near issuance are down more than 20% on principal alone, meaning it could take roughly two years of those attractive dividend payments just to recover the capital loss, assuming nothing else changes.

Which makes me ask: how is that also not a major financial news story?

Imagine if a preferred security issued by a regional bank had been aggressively marketed, only to lose more than one-fifth of its value within months. Imagine if a dividend-focused REIT had produced that outcome shortly after management completed a nationwide media tour. Financial TV would almost certainly have panels discussing what went wrong, analysts debating whether investors had underestimated the risks, and anchors asking executives difficult follow-up questions. Yet when the same thing happens in the crypto ecosystem, the conversation seems subdued compared to the enthusiasm that surrounded the launch.

Nor is this phenomenon unique to crypto.

Take Cathie Wood, for example, who I have written about extensively. She gets tons of CNBC time since getting her Tesla investment “right” around 2020. By 2024, Morningstar estimated that ARK had destroyed approximately $14 billion in investor capital. They listed her as one of the top 15 funds that have destroyed the most wealth over the past decade. The CNBC appearances, however, have not stopped.

$14 billion is the kind of number that should invite some uncomfortable questions. Instead, the broader narrative around Wood has remained oddly charitable, as though the earlier success still carries more weight than the subsequent reality. Here she is getting 10 minutes on CNBC a couple months ago. A month before that, in March, she got another 10 minutes with Tom Lee. To start the year she was asked about her predictions for 2026 in another 6 minute look interview.

Wood is currently clinging to a 2024 analysis of Tesla that predicts shares could go to $2,600 by 2029. They are currently at about $350, down from recent highs over $400. She has missed a ton of operational targets and price targets on the name since her 2020 jump to fame. Since January 1, 2019, her flagship fund has underperformed the NASDAQ by about -259%. And this includes her Tesla run up where she was thrashing her benchmark by more than 100% at one point! 

Since January 1, 2021, ARKK is down -38% while the NASDAQ is up 128%.

I discussed more about Wood during my recent interview with Adam Taggart here.

Despite all of this, Wood remains one of television’s favorite guests, regularly invited back to explain why the next disruptive innovation is just around the corner. Again, she has every right to make her case. My question is why the media rarely spends equal time examining the cost to the investors who followed it.

I estimate that between Michael Saylor, Tom Lee and Cathie Wood, there has been over 100 total appearances on CNBC over the last two years.

Now we’re watching what feels like the next chapter with the relentless promotion of SpaceX’s valuation. Cathie Wood is buying it, of course. And hey, maybe SpaceX ultimately becomes one of the greatest investments of this generation. It’s certainly one of the world’s most impressive companies. But I’d love to know how many people appearing on financial television to tout the opportunity already own shares, work for firms with exposure, or otherwise stand to benefit from continued enthusiasm.

Conversely, how many guests are invited simply to explain why investors should be cautious? How many independent skeptics are asked whether today’s private-market valuations make sense? Those voices seem remarkably difficult to find.

This is where the issue shifts from just Bitcoin to financial journalism.

Financial television does not have to predict market tops. Nobody can do that consistently. It doesn’t need to become bearish every time prices fall, nor should it refuse to interview people with optimistic outlooks. But it should have an obligation to revisit those optimistic narratives with some gusto after investors have experienced meaningful losses. If an executive spends months explaining why a strategy is revolutionary, that executive should also be invited back to explain why shareholders are down billions of dollars when circumstances change. If serious allegations of wrongdoing are leveled at a multi-billion dollar company and CNBC gets a chance to interview the CEO on live television, why not ask some pointed questions more than once?

---

?? 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

---

Otherwise, what exactly is financial journalism accomplishing?

Too often it begins to resemble marketing. Bull markets create charismatic personalities. Those personalities attract viewers. Viewers generate ratings. Ratings sell advertising. Everyone benefits while prices are climbing. When prices reverse, however, the cameras simply move to the next exciting story. There is very little institutional memory. Few difficult follow-up interviews. Almost no serious discussion of whether the original thesis was incomplete, overly optimistic, or simply wrong.

That’s particularly unfortunate because ordinary investors absolutely notice this pattern. They notice which guests appear repeatedly during speculative booms. They notice that the skeptical voices often receive a fraction of the exposure. And they certainly notice when the enthusiasm disappears much faster than the accountability once prices begin falling.

Ironically, I don’t lose much sleep over it. If anything, it probably helps independent writers like me. Every time financial television fails to ask the questions viewers are asking themselves, more people begin searching for alternative sources of analysis. That’s probably good for my subscriber count. It’s why I started a podcast and a blog to begin with.

But let’s not pretend investors don’t see what’s happening. They’re smarter than the industry often gives them credit for. They understand that nobody can predict markets perfectly. They’re perfectly willing to forgive a bad call. What they’re less willing to forgive is the appearance that financial media is eager to amplify bullish narratives during the boom but reluctant to scrutinize those same narratives after billions of dollars have evaporated.

That’s ultimately why Schiff’s tweet resonated with me yesterday. Not because I suddenly agree with his outlook on Bitcoin. Not because I think Michael Saylor or Tom Lee shouldn’t be interviewed. And certainly not because I think CNBC should root against innovation or speculative assets all the time. It resonated because it asked a question that applies far beyond crypto: if financial television is going to enthusiastically hand out microphones on the way up, shouldn’t it be equally eager to ask hard questions on the way down?

That isn’t being bearish, it’s just journalism.

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Update (11:55am ET): While today's announcement by Dubai that the UAE was under missile attack proved to be a false alarm, the US ceasefire it nonetheless becoming increasingly unstable. Following yesterday's attack by Iran drones on a cargo ship next to Oman, we were wondering how long until Trump responds (and how), and he did just that moments ago when he posted on Truth Social that Iran shoting "at least four One Way Attack Drones at Ships transversing the Strait of Hormuz" is "a foolish violation of our Ceasefire Agreement." 

However, Trump's post follows earlier reports that the US and Iran had set up a deconfliction hotline involving precisely such events in the Gulf, so we doubt that there will be much if any follow through from this latest round of jawboning, especially now that Trump is set on maintaining the flow of oil through Hormuz as much as possible, which has allowed oil to tumble to pre-war levels.

* * * 

With each week and month that passes since the start of Trump's Operation Epic Fury, more and more reports have come out revealing the massive extent of damage to US military facilities in the Mideast region based on Iran's retaliation across the region. 

This is often based on fresh satellite imaging and analysis, despite US government pressure for these research entities to refrain from publishing such data, and to censor open source photographs. After a series of deep investigative reports, it has been proven time and again that the Pentagon and Washington officials have been downplaying and covering up the real extent of devastation caused by Iranian missiles and drones.

More fresh reporting in the Wall Street Journal once again adds confirmation to this, referencing satellite imagery which shows far more serious damage at a key naval base in Bahrain than the US has publicly acknowledged.

The damage is said to be bad enough that the Pentagon is mulling shrinking its troop presence there and elsewhere in the Gulf, including a potential reduced troop footprint in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran is hailing this reported pullback as a significant strategic victory produced by its retaliation.

Unnamed officials were cited in the report as saying American forces could retreat as far westward as Israel, after some bases essentially became unusable or uninhabitable altogether.

Concerning the Bahrain base details, WSJ writes:

The U.S. Navy base in Bahrain was repeatedly targeted between late February and June. Strikes that got through caused extensive damage, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of satellite imagery, social-media footage and interviews with current and former servicemembers—damage that the Pentagon hasn’t publicly acknowledged. Hit hard were the command headquarters and at least a dozen other buildings, along with two satellite communications terminals. 

The military said no one was killed at the base, known as Naval Support Activity Bahrain, and that the strikes didn’t significantly impact operations. The U.S. evacuated most personnel but has kept a small staff on the ground. 

Notably in Bahrain the headquarters building for the US Navy in the Middle East was struck and seriously damaged, along with sensitive communications centers being destroyed.

But here is a key, somewhat unexpected line in the Journal report: "The extensive damage done to America’s sole naval base in the Middle East - along with hits to at least 20 U.S. sites across the region, including military installations and diplomatic facilities - has the U.S. re-evaluating its entire footprint in the region, according to U.S. officials familiar with the deliberations.

This means that damaged structures and bases may not be rebuilt at all, and the sites may just be abandoned as future key US military hubs, WSJ says.

The draw-down of expensive Pentagon comms centers could include from Bahrain: "The military is now considering revamping the base in Bahrain, reducing the U.S. presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and moving some bases or base functions west, farther from the reach of Iranian missiles and drones, according to the officials familiar with the deliberations," WSJ writes.

Reconstruction costs would be staggering, per the same report:

The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated in a report published Tuesday that the total cost of the war was about $40 billion. That estimate included their calculus of $2.2 billion to $5.1 billion in damage to U.S. bases, based on structures that CSIS identified as damaged. 

The Journal used satellite images and social-media footage to identify which buildings on the Bahrain base were damaged. To estimate what it would cost to construct buildings of the same types today, the Journal reviewed a publicly available Defense Department cost model as well as procurement reports. The estimates only cover construction, and don’t include other costs that ?could factor into the total if the buildings were to be rebuilt, such as debris removal and reinforcement. ? 

*Report: Iranian Strikes Damaged Key U.S. Naval Base in Bahrain During War - Wall Street Journal*

* A new report says Iranian missile and drone attacks caused significant damage to the U.S. Navy's headquarters in Bahrain and other military facilities.
* The attacks are… pic.twitter.com/59uS1hQ4pm

— Global Osint (@GlobalOsintNew) June 26, 2026

"The estimated construction costs at NSA Bahrain totaled about $400 million," it continues. But ultimately a draw-back from these locations would be based on the proven reality that Iran can easily hit them at any time.

Some further implications to all this are that in any future flare-up or even return to all-out war between the US and Iran, American forces would find themselves executing a conflict much further away from the theatre itself. For example, dozens of major Air Force refueling tankers have already had to be relocated far away from the Gulf, to places like Tel Aviv. Many were destroyed in the opening weeks of the war while parked at Gulf airfields, clearly over-exposed as it seems Iran knew exactly where to target.

Back in late March, US officials admitted to the NY Times that Iran's significantly retaliation damaging US bases was "a war that is much harder to prosecute."

German business news outlet Manager Magazin reports that Volkswagen CEO Oliver Blume is eyeing a major restructuring that could eliminate as many as 100,000 jobs. The latest VW earnings show just why: Europe's largest automaker remains bloated in a world of weak demand, a softening Chinese market, rising Chinese competition in Europe, and low margins.

"Volkswagen CEO Oliver Blume is getting serious. He plans to drastically intensify job cuts, actually phase out production at four German plants, and spin off the VW brand into a new company. Volkswagen is to become a new company," Manager Magazin wrote in the report.

If fully implemented, the 100,000-job reduction would eliminate about 15% of Volkswagen's current global workforce of 650,000. Bloomberg data shows VW went on a hiring spree between 2008 and 2020.

Now, it appears a generational high has been reached in VW's workforce, as a shift toward efficiency, automation, and AI could soon result in massive job losses. We're sure lefty unions will be furious.

Manager Magazin also noted that Blume plans 11 billion euros in cost cuts by 2030, which could include spinning off component operations and the core VW brand.

The restructuring plan will be presented to the supervisory board next month and is expected to face intense resistance from labor unions and Lower Saxony lawmakers, who hold significant influence over the company's governance.

The urgency behind a restructuring stems from deteriorating earnings: its first-quarter revenue fell 2.5% to 75.7 billion euros, while operating profit dropped 14.3% to 2.46 billion euros, and the operating margin slipped to 3.3% from 3.7%. Earnings after tax fell 28.4% to 1.56 billion euros, while vehicle sales fell 6.9%, and deliveries were down 4%.

A Volkswagen spokesperson told the Hamburg-based outlet that the struggling car company "must undergo profound change." The executive board "has been working intensively over the past few months on a future-oriented plan to realign the company."

Shares in Germany slipped 34 basis points following the report and remain down 25% on the year. The stock is trading at 2010 levels...

The implosion of VW tells you all you need to know about Europe's crumbling industrial base at a time when war is still raging, and in fact accelerating, in Ukraine. Time to convert unused civilian vehicle production lines into interceptor missile production.