Today marks one year since the company formerly known as MicroStrategy announced it was rebranding to simply Strategy (MSTR), leaning all the way into its new identity as a Bitcoin treasury company instead of a software business.
Since that announcement, MSTR is down more than 60%, closing yesterday at fresh 52-week lows.
But this isn’t really about MicroStrategy.
It’s about a pattern.
Because we’ve seen this movie before.
When management teams feel so confident in a narrative that they literally change the company’s name to match the trend, it’s often not the beginning of something big.
It’s the end.
By the time the story is obvious enough to slap on the front door, the easy money has usually already been made.
Square became Block (XYZ).
Facebook became Meta Platforms (META).
MicroStrategy became Strategy.
Each time, the rebrand didn’t mark liftoff.
It marked exhaustion.
Today, we’re going to walk through those examples, look at the charts, and talk about why corporate rebrands tied to hot themes tend to show up closer to major peaks than fresh starts.
Because markets don’t reward what’s obvious.
They punish it.
What’s in a Name Change?
Here’s the chart of the artist formerly known as MicroStrategy.
For years, this thing was a monster. One of the best-performing stocks in the entire market.
It outperformed every component of the S&P 500, and even kept pace with leadership names like Nvidia (NVDA), as investors piled into the “Bitcoin treasury” story.
Then came the rebrand one year ago today:
The company didn’t just lean into the narrative. They renamed the whole business around it.
And that’s when the character changed.
Instead of fresh highs, we got failed breakouts.
Instead of momentum, we got distribution.
Instead of leadership, we got a 60%-plus crash in the stock.
Not exactly what you’d expect if the trend were just getting started.
This is the part most people miss.
By the time a theme is obvious enough to make it into the company’s name, it’s usually already crowded. Expectations are already maxed out. Everyone who wanted in is already in.
That’s not the beginning of a move.
That’s how moves end.
And, as you’re about to see, this isn’t some one-off coincidence. It’s a pattern that shows up over and over again, usually right near the end of major cycles.
Déjà Vu All Over Again
To quote the great philosopher Yogi Berra, this whole thing feels like déjà vu all over again.
Because it is.
This isn’t some weird, isolated case with MicroStrategy. It’s a pattern.
In October 2021, Facebook didn’t just pivot its strategy. It renamed the entire company around the metaverse.
The narrative was everywhere. Spending exploded. Expectations went vertical.
The stock didn’t.
Instead, it had already topped and immediately went on to lose more than 70%:
Not exactly the start of a new era.
More like the end of one.
Then there’s Square.
At the height of the crypto and blockchain craze, it rebranded to Block to signal its Bitcoin-first future.
Same playbook. Same excitement. Same timing.
And the stock?
Down more than 80% from that announcement:
Again, the name change didn’t launch the next leg higher.
It marked that the peak was in.
There’s a lesson here, and it’s not subtle.
When companies feel the need to rename themselves after the hottest theme of the cycle, they’re not early.
They’re late.
By then, the story is crowded, expectations are stretched, and the buyers are already exhausted.
Rebrands don’t create trends.
They usually show up right as the trend is ending.
So today isn’t just an anniversary for MicroStrategy. It’s a reminder.
These signals show up over and over again. The clues are always there.
Next time a company changes its name to chase whatever theme everyone already loves…
Don’t get excited. Get defensive.
Because that’s often not the opportunity to enter. That’s the opportunity to get out, or even to take the other side
When it happens again, we won’t be surprised.
We’ll be ready.
Stay sharp,
JC Parets, CMT
Founder, TrendLabs