At
@smarterwebuk we think "mNAV" creates confusion and non-standardisation.
To date, treasury companies have used varying definitions of "mNAV." For the numerator, some use Market Cap while others use Enterprise Value. For the denominator, some use Net Asset Value while others use Total BTC Value - often while calling it "BTC NAV" rather than something more accurate like "Gross BTC Value."
In tradfi, "mNAV" typically means Market Cap / Net Asset Value, resulting in a multiple of NAV. The typical "mNAV" for a BTCTC includes neither this numerator nor denominator!
In our view, this non-standardisation can create confusion, which becomes more problematic when debt or preferred equity obligations are introduced, making comparisons between treasury companies less meaningful.
For this reason, we are shifting our analytics to a more specific metric that will be more informative and precise to institutional audiences. Our analytics dashboard now shows "Fully Diluted EV vs. BTC Value" which is calculated as = (Fully Diluted Enterprise Value) / (Total BTC Holdings * Current BTC Market Price).
We think this is a much better metric to evaluate the current value of a Bitcoin treasury company, as it more completely and transparently accounts for the real economic impact of debt, cash, warrants, options and all other instruments. We think that it is important to also consider amplification or leverage and then perhaps most importantly the Bitcoin per share change over different time periods (Bitcoin Yield) and understanding how this can continue into the future.
If Bitcoin treasury companies are going to become a recognised asset class, the industry needs transparent and consistent standards. And analytics that institutional investors can immediately understand.
Over the next few months, we will make further changes to our analytics dashboard, alongside working with others in the space, to try and improve consistency between different approaches.
LSE:
#SWC | OTCQB:
$TSWCF | FRA: $3M8