$250K Bitcoin Targets And Other Bedtime Stories
Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance
Since one of my favorite names is crashing 18% this morning, seems like a great time to point the finger at someone else and be critical of them, in order to divert attention away from my own horrific ideas. Hey, at least I’m honest about it.
You may have noticed that every few hours, like a recurring rash, Tom Lee reappears on CNBC to announce that Bitcoin is about to explode into the financial stratosphere.
This quarter, the destination is neat and tidy: $200,000 to $250,000.
Delivered with the price in the same ballpark, with the same confidence and same straight face.
Apparently, when a prediction fails, the correct response is not reflection, recalibration, or embarrassment. It is simply to recycle it and try again, preferably on live television. Oh, and hope the Fed fires up its printer immediately because, like the rest of the entire industry, you require their liquidity to be proven right and without perpetuating our macroeconomic ponzi scheme, all of a sudden all the “analysts” on CNBC look like they have the financial acumen of Snooki.
As best as I can tell, the numbers come from something called the Cathie Wood model, wherein you just make up a bullshit number that sounds good (a la Tesla is going to $5,000!) and then back some halfhearted “analysis” into the figure to try and justify it. Rarely do I see discounted cash flows, productivity analysis, or even a semi-coherent valuation framework. It feels like these numbers come from vibes.
Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars sounds dramatic. It fits nicely in a headline. It looks great on a chyron. It does not, however, emerge from any transparent analytical process as best I can tell. It seems more like a marketing number, and less like a research result.
When pressed on fundamentals, the conversation usually slides toward “liquidity,” “M2,” and “macro tailwinds.” In other words, more money exists, therefore Bitcoin should be worth more. That is not valuation. That is a bet on monetary expansion dressed up as insight. Bitcoin does not generate earnings. It does not pay dividends. It does not reinvest profits. It does not scale productivity. It sits there and waits for someone else to pay more for it later. I’m long some speculatively, and even I realize: that’s it.
Calling this “digital gold” or a “macro asset” does not change that reality. Crypto remains largely...(READ THIS FULL COLUMN, 100% FREE, HERE).