B. Riley’s new Buy ratings on MicroStrategy and Strive rest on a specific claim: the sharp compression in bitcoin treasury stock valuations looks tied to bitcoin’s drawdown and market positioning, not to a permanent break in the treasury-company model. That distinction matters because both names still trade largely on bitcoin sensitivity, but B. Riley argues their capital structure and non-bitcoin businesses give them more staying power than the recent multiple collapse suggests.
What changed in these bitcoin treasury stocks
Bitcoin treasury equities sold off hard after bitcoin fell from roughly $125,000 in October 2025 to around $70,000 in early 2026. In that move, the market cut the premium investors were willing to pay for listed vehicles that hold bitcoin and use public markets to expand those holdings.
MicroStrategy, still the largest corporate bitcoin holder, owns 738,731 BTC, or about 3.4% of total supply. Its shares now trade near 1.2x modified NAV, down from a 3.4x peak in 2024. B. Riley’s point is not that the premium should return to prior extremes, but that the current compression should not automatically be read as evidence that bitcoin treasury companies have lost their strategic value.
Strive sits in a different position but faces the same market question. It holds about 13,100 BTC and pairs that treasury with a roughly $2.5 billion asset management business. At around 0.9x modified NAV, the stock trades below the value B. Riley assigns to its combined bitcoin and operating assets, which is why the firm frames the setup as a dislocation rather than a structural impairment.
Why B. Riley thinks the discount is not a permanent problem
The core support for that view is balance-sheet design. MicroStrategy’s structure is more complex than a simple bitcoin holding company: it has five series of perpetual preferred stock, common equity, and convertible notes, giving management multiple ways to raise capital across market conditions. In FY2025 alone, it raised more than $25 billion, which matters because access to capital is central to the bitcoin treasury strategy.
Just as important, MicroStrategy holds a $2.25 billion cash reserve, enough to cover about 30 months of interest and dividend obligations. That reduces the risk that a bitcoin drawdown forces treasury sales at the wrong time. For a company whose equity often trades as leveraged bitcoin exposure, that liquidity buffer is one of the clearest reasons B. Riley does not treat the recent valuation reset as a sign of model failure.
Strive’s case is less about scale and more about diversification. Its asset management business gives it an operating base beyond bitcoin, and B. Riley also points to low leverage and a preferred share yield near 12.5% as features that can appeal to investors who want some income support rather than pure directional bitcoin exposure. That does not remove bitcoin risk, but it changes the way the market should think about downside durability.
MicroStrategy and Strive are not the same trade
Both companies are bitcoin-sensitive, but the source of that sensitivity and the margin for error differ. MicroStrategy is a much larger treasury vehicle with more financing tools and much greater direct exposure to bitcoin price changes. Strive is smaller, trades at a discount to modified NAV, and has a more visible operating business relative to its treasury size.
| Company | Bitcoin holdings | Valuation signal | Support for the bull case | Main constraint |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MicroStrategy (MSTR) | 738,731 BTC | About 1.2x mNAV, down from 3.4x peak in 2024 | Five preferred series, convertibles, common equity access, $2.25 billion cash reserve covering about 30 months of obligations | Very high bitcoin sensitivity and ongoing dilution risk from capital raises |
| Strive (ASST) | 13,100 BTC | About 0.9x modified NAV | $2.5 billion asset management business, low leverage, preferred yield near 12.5% | Smaller scale and continued dependence on market confidence in a hybrid treasury model |
The valuation gap also affects how each name should be read. MicroStrategy still trades above modified NAV, so the market continues to assign value to its financing platform and bitcoin accumulation strategy even after the reset. Strive, by contrast, is closer to a discount case where investors appear to be giving limited credit to the operating business and treating the bitcoin treasury more cautiously.
The real driver is still bitcoin liquidity and price sensitivity
B. Riley is not arguing that these stocks have become insulated from bitcoin. The opposite is true. For MicroStrategy, every $1,000 move in bitcoin changes treasury value by roughly $739 million. For Strive, the same move changes treasury value by about $13.1 million. That sensitivity is the main reason the stocks have been so volatile, with MicroStrategy down more than 50% over the past year and Strive down more than 40% year to date.
That is why the firm’s targets are relatively restrained. B. Riley set a $175 target for MSTR and $12 for ASST, both below broader analyst enthusiasm, especially on MicroStrategy, where consensus is around $355 and some estimates go much higher. The lower targets suggest the bank is not making an aggressive call on immediate multiple re-expansion; it is saying the selloff has likely gone too far relative to capital structure resilience and business mix.
For crypto investors, the useful distinction is signal versus narrative. The signal is that these equities remain listed vehicles for amplified bitcoin exposure, and their valuation can compress quickly when bitcoin falls or financing conditions tighten. The narrative to avoid is that lower mNAV multiples alone prove the treasury-company model is broken. B. Riley’s initiation argues that the market may be overextending that conclusion.
What to watch next: regulation, capital raising, and dilution
The next checkpoint is not just bitcoin price. Regulatory clarity around crypto and treasury-company structures could affect how much premium public markets are willing to assign to these vehicles. If regulation becomes more predictable, the market may be more willing to separate temporary compression from structural risk.
Capital raising is the second key variable. MicroStrategy’s strategy depends on continued access to equity, preferred, and convertible markets without pushing dilution or funding costs to a level that undermines per-share value. Strive faces a similar test on a smaller base: whether it can maintain or grow holdings while preserving confidence in its hybrid operating model.
Investors do not need to assume a return to 2024-style premiums for B. Riley’s thesis to work. They do need to watch whether these companies can keep funding themselves without forced bitcoin sales, whether preferred obligations remain manageable, and whether regulation improves enough for the market to treat valuation compression as cyclical rather than permanent.
About the Author
