Adrian Morris

tae kim Verified account @firstadopter · 6h

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang's email to Nvidia employees:

To my colleagues at NVIDIA,

I owe my family and all of you an apology.

I was unfaithful to my wife. My actions hurt her and our children. There is no excuse for what I did. I am deeply sorry.

Throughout my life, my family has given me love and support. They deserve my honesty and loyalty. Instead, I let them down and damaged the life we built together. I take full responsibility for what I did and the hurt I caused, and I accept the criticism that comes with it.

To my wife and family: I love you. I know an apology cannot undo what I have done. I hope our family will heal and that, over time, I can earn back your trust.

To my colleagues at NVIDIA, including those I have worked alongside for decades, and to our board, partners, and shareholders around the world: you deserve better from me. Leading NVIDIA is the privilege of my life. My responsibility is to serve you and be worthy of your trust. I have fallen short of that responsibility. I am fully committed to NVIDIA and will work to earn back your confidence.

Regarding the national security concerns raised in news reports, NVIDIA’s Board of Directors has initiated an independent investigation. I support the investigation and will cooperate fully. I love our country and our company. I am committed to protecting NVIDIA and supporting America’s national security. I am proud and grateful to be an American.

My family bears no responsibility for my choices. I do. Please give them privacy.

Jensen

View quoted post on X

Matt Cole Verified account @ColeMacro · 12h

The hurdle rate is orange.

View quoted post on X

Adrian Morris Verified account @_Adrian · 2d

I think that @Strategy ₿ank has a rather nice ring to it.

If | when this transition happens; $MSTR becomes a monster.

View quoted post on X

Adrian Morris Verified account @_Adrian · 1d

Appreciate the respect, but it really isn't a matter of being "with" or "not with” a particular point. I am going to address your question with data and a holistic market view.

Strategy's ATM issuance (and resulting BPS changes on the common) aren't constant, they are wildly episodic and range from being zero for weeks on end to tens of millions and even multi billion dollar issuances.

Over the last two years we have witnessed extremely positive BTC yield | BPS gain in late 2024 to BPS (and I suppose CEBE) and mNAV “compression” in 2026. I think investors are mistakenly correlating this with share issuance or corporate action, but neither guide the price.

Going further, and I apologize for getting technical, due to the market determined (having sufficient volume and liquidity) and episodic nature of share issuance; in my modeling ATM activity (ATM_Pct) and BPS disclosures (KPI_Log_BPS_Growth) have massive time series variance across the 2021–2026, 2024–2026, and 2025–2026 samples.

What this means is that as variables they can't “hide” in the data or be appreciably smoothed out and lost over longer timeframes. I deliberately test if the issuance of common stock shares or the change in BPS were what the market was pricing in either mechanically on execution days via (ATM_Pct_Raw), over multi week windows via (ATM_Pct_5d/10d/20d_sum), and upon KPI disclosure (KPI_Log_BPS_Growth).

If  they were qualitatively or quantitatively driving price they would show up, covary with returns and register in the models R2 and they don't.

Now onto your question more directly.

The reason I don't have to guess about a counterfactual around "how much more $MSTR could've gone up without the ATM” is that testing that exact question is what multivariate regression with controls is designed to do.

@Strategy doesn't leverage share issuance at the same rate on every single strong $BTC or high volume day. Across the multiyear sample, there are many strong $BTC and high volume buying days with heavy issuance, and plenty of comparable strong buying days with zero issuance.

In my model I explicitly control for $BTC direction, buying volume | liquidity strength, options positioning, volatility etc., and directly compare strong buying days WITH the ATM active against comparable buying days WITHOUT the ATM active. I even tested a binary ATM on vs. off indicator alongside 5d, 10d, and 20d rolling issuance sums.

Here is what can inform a counter-counterfactual and I am going to keep highlighting these points because they are important:

If the ATM were suppressing the upside of rallies when buying is strong, then it makes sense that days with ATM issuance would underperform comparable non ATM days. But that isn't what the results show, the issuance indicator gives results that are statistically indistinct from zero across all models.

Regarding your point on the float and that “the path matters”, my model measures the price path and as I noted in my reply to @VatcheBalayan; in the 8-2025 to 10-2026 window, when tradable shares have been at their largest levels, the directional $BTC slope for $MSTR was actually higher (~1.51 vs. ~1.27) over the window. This directly undercuts the general assumption that a larger share float structurally dampens $MSTR's upside convexity.

I also think that investors have missed that Strategy’s Q3 2026 earnings results illustrate this perfectly: During Q3 2026, they raised $5.41B exclusively via the MSTR common ATM, and MSTR’s share price rose 76% 43% for $BTC in the quarter.

What I am trying to illustrate here is that there isn't a trade-off between using the ATM and letting the stock or mNAV run because @saylor | @Strategy are not in control of when the stock runs or when mNAV expands. When $BTC trades up, the options | volatility complex expands, and $MSTR runs and will run hard even with the ATM active. Conversely, when $BTC is range bound or in a bear trend, reducing or stopping issuance of the common ATM won't make the stock run either.

View quoted post on X