Estimate of Tesla’s Bitcoin Holding and Analysis of 1Q2021 Bitcoin Sale

AA Uses Only the Most Accurate Equipment
for His Estimates

I thought I’d throw my chapeau into the ring of those analyzing Tesla’s Bitcoin Holdings.

And then for good measure provide my own analysis of the 1Q sale.

Summary

• Numbers of BTC and original costs are estimates.

• Tesla originally purchased BTC 46,561.73 at an average original cost of US$ 32,215.30 per “coin”. (My Scenario #2).

• Using averages of my Scenario #1 and #2, in March it sold 4,466.64 BTC at an average price of US$ 60,895.95 per coin.

• As of 31 March Tesla held BTC 42,901.81 at an average cost of US$ 31,621.36 per coin.

• Under US accounting “rules” once Tesla takes an “impairment” on its BTC holdings, it cannot reverse it if fair value increases later. The only way to “capture” the increase is to sell BTC in which case the higher fair value over carrying cost is a component of net profit.

• Because of these accounting “wrinkles”

  • Tesla may have an economic incentive to support BTC’s price because impairments flow through the income statement.

  • Or to sell BTC to generate a profit to offset impairment charges.

Introductory Comments

Don’t be followed by the apparent precision in my numbers below.

There isn’t sufficient information to achieve precision.

So my numbers and those of others cited below can only be rough estimates.

You’ll find those other estimates here and you can compare methodology and results.

First up is Shawn Tully at Fortune: 38,300 BTC held at 31 March 2021.

Second is Chuck Jones at Forbes: 42,902 BTC held.

I’ll be using Tesla’s 1Q2021 10Q as the source document for data.

If you’re interested in the US accounting treatment for digital assets, here’s a link to an AICPA publication on ASC-350.

What are Tesla’s BTC Holdings as of 31 March 2021?

From Note 3 in Tesla’s 10Q the fair market value of their BTC as of 31 March 2021 is some US$ 2.48 billion.

Using Yahoo Finance data, the closing price of BTC on 31 March was US$ 58,918.83.

That equals BTC 42,901.81. US$2.48 billion divided by US$ 58,918.83.

That number is in agreement with Chuck Jones’ calculation.

Shawn’s number differs because he’s using a profit of US$ 101 million on the March BTC sale, due to his including the US$ 27 million impairment as a component of the sales proceeds. Therefore, his cost of sale is US$ 171 million not US$ 144 million.

By my calculation the carrying value of Tesla’s BTC portfolio is US$ 31,621.36 as of 31 March 2021. US$1.331 billion divided by 42,091.81 coins.

But that is an adjusted cost after the US$ 27 million impairment. (Also disclosed in Note 3).

First cut.

To determine the original purchase price of the remaining BTC we have to add back the US$ 27 million impairment charge. That means the original cost of the Bitcoin remaining after the March 2021 sale but before impairment is actually US$ 1.358 billion.

Note the implicit assumption that the impairment was taken after the March sale.

On this basis the historic cost per Bitcoin is US$ 32, 262.81.

But another wrinkle.

As Shawn Tully points out, reconciling the balance of the BTC holdings results in a US$ 2 million difference.

That is, Tesla purchased US$ 1.5 billion sometime between 1 January 2021 and early February. The last purchase would have had to occurred some time prior to 8 February.

Why?

Tesla first announced the purchase in its 2020 10-K which is dated 8 February.

As per note #3 in Tesla’s 10Q Tesla recognized gains of US$ 128 million on the BTC sale and took a US$ 27 million impairment.

As per my understanding of the required accounting, the impairment is unrelated to the sale.

From the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows, we see that Tesla received proceeds of US$ 272 million from the BTC sale. If the recognized gain on the sale was US$ 128 million, then the cost of the BTC must be US$ 144 million.

(Note that is 9.6% of the original purchase amount and would seem confirm Tesla’s 1Q statements that it sold 10% of its original holding)

US$ 144 million plus US$ 27 million equals an expected US$ 171 million decrease in the balance of BTC from first purchase through 31 March 2021

But that amount is US$ 2 million more than the net change in BTC holdings—US$ 169 million.

Is this due to rounding? Or to vehicle purchases using BTC? Or a combination of both?

We don’t know.  Sadly, a question that might have shed light on this issue was not selected for the Q&A on Tesla's 1Q Call.

We also don’t know what the US$ 27 million impairment charge relates to.

Is it the original BTC purchase? Or BTC received for car purchases? Or both? Or something else?

Scenario #1

If we assume there were no material car purchases with BTC and use the US$ 1.358 billion figure above, the original historic purchase cost per “coin” is US$ 32,262.81.

Tesla would have had to sell 4,463.34 BTC to equal the US$ 144 million cost of BTC sold in March.

The original number of BTC bought would then be 46,555.15

You’ll notice this equals US$ 1.502 billion at the estimated historic cost above. Thus it includes the unexplained US$ 2 million “difference”

Scenario #2

Same assumptions as Scenario #1, but US$ 2 million assumed rounding differences is excluded. The original cost of the BTC purchase is US$ 1.356 billion. That gives an original purchase cost of US$ 32,215.30 per “coin”.

In this case Tesla sold some 4,469.93 BTC.

Under this second scenario, it would have originally bought 46,561.73 BTC

Key Accounting Considerations

Under ASC-350 and ASC-820, once fair value is lower than carrying value, Tesla must make a one way adjustment in carrying value via an impairment charge.

If fair value later increases, the impairment can not be reversed. (Question #6 pages 6-7 in the AICPA publication linked above)

However, on sale of BTC in the future, the difference between carrying value (reflecting any impairments) and sale proceeds will be recognized as “profit”. 

Thus, if fair market value has increased but not carrying cost, Tesla would recapture the difference between FMV and carrying cost in additional profit on the sale.

Implications of Accounting Rules

It would be interesting to see if Tesla or any of its senior officers announce BTC initiatives or tout BTC when the price of BTC appears in “danger” of declining below the carrying value in Tesla’s financials: US$ 31,621.36 as of 31 March 2021.

It will also be interesting to see if Tesla conducts any additional sales to offset any future impairments.

March 2021 BTC Sale

The Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 estimates for the number of BTC sold are very close. So let’s use the arithmetic average of both. That’s 4,466.64.

Using this number, the average price received on the March sale was roughly US$ 60,895.95. US$ 272 million divided by 4,466.64.

If you look at the Yahoo Finance historic prices for BTC, you’ll see several days that might be candidates for a sale, e.g. March 14^th.

 

Profoundly Disturbing FT Article on Bitcoin and the Environment

Asleep at the Switch

 

Katie Martin and Billy Nauman had an extremely scary article in the FT on Friday 21 May.

While the main point of the article was about the amount of energy used to mine Bitcoin and its impact on the environment, it was this quote that sent the real chill down my spine. 

Tesla chief executive Elon Musk has highlighted the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies. Amid calls from climate activists for tighter rules, governments and central banks are starting to take notice.

So what the FT seem to be saying is that absent the Technoking’s statement and that of “climate activists” –who by the way have been ignored for years--, governments and central banks would still not have “taken notice”.

Thus, our fate apparently depends on the random tweets of celebrity businessmen, including one who actually thinks cryptocurrencies are investable assets and whose statements have a volatility mirroring that of Bitcoin. 

Did I mention that he has an (indirect) economic interest in a portfolio of some US $1.5 billion (cost) in Bitcoin?

Just the sort of chap one would go to for wise counsel.

What a damning statement on several levels about the official entities whose remit is, as we are told, to look out for us!

Unclear as to whether we should ascribe this sorry state to attitude or aptitude.

Or perhaps more likely to both.

This is not the only example of such behavior.

We’ve seen another just this week.

After the ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline, the US House of Representatives “sprang” into action. Given the prior somnolence, it must have been quite a “leap”. Olympic at least.

The House Homeland Security Committee—as aptly and ironically named as the House Select Committee on Intelligence—apparently just discovered that cyberattacks and hacking pose a national security threat. 

It has in the words of the Committee’s Chairman brought a “new urgency to our work”.

Given repeated past cyberattack incidents and a manifest failure to act, it may be appropriate to remove the word “new” from the Chairman’s statement.

Otherwise, the unwary reader might be tempted to think that there was some urgency in the past.

Having made this criticism, if you’re the faithful reader of this blog, you know that I try to be fair.

I should, therefore, acknowledge Congress’s achievement in reducing pollution through the prevention of the burning of the USA flag. Achieved without a constitutional amendment or even legislation!

And I think we can be almost certain they will “stand tall” to prevent plant-based substitutes for the hamburger and beer.

So, perhaps, all is not lost.

Just most.

Tesla, Its Techno-king, and Bitcoin

But Before You Do
Make Sure They Really Are An Expert

You will probably have seen by now that Tesla’s “Techno-king” announced that Tesla would not accept Bitcoin to purchase its cars.

It was, as I envision it, an almost a Biblical moment – a modern Saul on the road to Tarsus struck by the realization that Bitcoin was very energy intensive and thus not good for the climate.

This scenario does raise one question in my mind.

Tesla’s Technoking is a widely acknowledged genius.

Whether he is smarter than Bill Gates is I understand a matter of serious and furious debate in many quarters.

Given that, I am perplexed as to how this simple fact eluded him?

Saul’s conversion was occasioned we are told by a blinding light and the voice of Jesus.

Pretty darn hard to ignore.

Perhaps, Tesla’s Techo-king had a similar experience.  

The blinding light an exploding battery? 

The voice that of Bill Gates? In which case the debate referred to above may have been conclusively resolved.

Some but certainly not I might suspect that Mr. Musk has been having a bit of fun with the gullible out there.

Talking up Dogecoin one day, driving up the price.

Then calling it a "hustle", and driving down the price on another day.

The same with Bitcoin.

Hard to tell, but I doubt it.

What we can do is look at Tesla’s conditions for the use of Bitcoin for the purchase ot its vehicles for greater insight into its core beliefs.

Veritas may often be in vino.

But it is demonstrated more often and concretely in matters financial.

The T&C were posted on Tesla’s website, but have been removed.

Presumably, in line with the most recent decision on Bitcoin.

We can turn to electrek for what they claim are the original T&C.

Here’s the “bit” about refunds.

I’ve highlighted the pertinent text in red.

If you are entitled to a refund of your payment or to a buyback, we reserve the right to refund to you either the exact Bitcoin Price that you provided to us at the time of purchase or an amount of US Dollars that is equivalent to the US Dollar price of the product that you purchased, at our sole and absolute discretion, taking into consideration operational efficiency. The same applies to all fees and incidental costs to which you are entitled. THE PRICE OF BITCOIN CAN BE VOLATILE AND THE VALUE OF BITCOIN RELATIVE TO US DOLLARS MAY DECREASE OR INCREASE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU MAKE YOUR PURCHASE AND THE TIME THAT WE PROVIDE A REFUND OR BUYBACK. IF WE REFUND YOU IN BITCOIN, THE VALUE OF SUCH AMOUNT OF BITCOIN RELATIVE TO US DOLLARS MIGHT BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE VALUE OF SUCH AMOUNT OF BITCOIN RELATIVE TO US DOLLARS AT THE TIME OF YOUR PURCHASE. IF WE REFUND YOU IN US DOLLARS, THE US DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE PROVIDE TO YOU AS A REFUND MIGHT BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE CURRENT US DOLLAR MARKET VALUE OF THE AMOUNT OF BITCOIN IN WHICH YOU MADE YOUR PAYMENT. YOU ASSUME THE RISK OF BITCOIN PRICE. DEPRECIATION AND APPRECIATION AND WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELECT THE METHOD OF REFUND. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANY APPRECIATION ON THE VALUE OF THE BITCOIN THAT YOU PROVIDED TO US AS PAYMENT IN CONNECTION WITH A REFUND OR BUYBACK.

Clearly, despite its once stated belief in Bitcoin—which we can presume was or should have been operative at the time the above was written--, Tesla was unwilling to accept a potential decline in the US dollar value of Bitcoin. But was glad to accept an increase in its value.

If Bitcoin is the righteous alternative to evil fiat currencies, then why would one measure one’s profit or loss in such (fiat) currencies?

And more importantly seek to retain that fiat currency profit?

Hard to square that circle, except perhaps to note that there are many "hustles" and "hustlers" out there.

But then I am neither a Master of Coin nor a Techoking.

That being said, it’s not untypical for an investor in debt or equity to look to keep the upside and shift off the downside to some “sucker”. 

Tulips and Bitcoin

At Least They're Real

This Tuesday self-described “no nonsense take no prisoners” Jamie Dimon lambasted Bitcoin at a New York investor conference as per press reports. 

The cryptocurrency “won’t end well,” he told an investor conference in New York on Tuesday, predicting it will eventually blow up. “It’s a fraud” and “worse than tulip bulbs.”

Indeed, at least if you buy a tulip bulb, you have something tangible.  A Bitcoin is the monetization of a wish.

Many self-described “sober investors” who buy Bitcoin offer as their “sound” rationale that governments create national currencies out of thin air without “backing” the issuance with any tangible asset and that as a result these currencies are inherently dangerous.  To avoid this “clear” danger they instead “invest” in a currency issued by a private sector entity out of thin air without “backing” by any tangible asset.  

But there are key differences that make this investment a “wise” one so they say. 

• First, aggregate issuance is limited.  
• Second, unlike a government, the private sector entity issuing Bitcoin has no legal powers or ability to support its currency’s value, instead relying on the proven performance of the “free market” for magical solutions.  A dogma that almost certainly Jamie sadly won't have time to address.

To those wise investors AA wants to offer an even more compelling opportunity: AA’s new “virtual” company that will manufacture digital electronic vehicles.  The upside is clearly unlimited as costs of manufacture and selling are low. No raw material except an odd electron here and there is used in the manufacturing process.  There are no associated shipping costs for the product.  Nor do our dealers need to hold physical inventory.

AA’s digital cars also are environmentally friendly.  There are no emissions associated with the manufacturing process or the finished product when in operation.       

Patriotic investors will be happy to note that AA is a proud participant in the current Administration’s Make America Great Again Manufacturing Program.  Our factory is based in the United States where we project that we will employ a virtual workforce of over 150,000 when full capacity is reached.  Strict sourcing standards ensure that only US electrons are used in our product.    

Disclosure: AA and a member of his direct household (Madame Arqala) hold investments in tulips between 15 and 30 bulbs planted in the elegant gardens of Chez Arqala.