Doomscroll News

Tag: Leverage

  • Deconstructing the Crypto Market Collapse of October 10, 2025

    On October 10, 2025, a single geopolitical announcement triggered the largest deleveraging event in the history of digital assets, exposing the fragile, overleveraged core of a euphoric market. This was not just a market crash; it was a Black Swan event that stress-tested the entire crypto ecosystem, revealing its deepest vulnerabilities and its surprising strengths.

    Executive Summary

    The cryptocurrency market was shattered on Friday, October 10, 2025, by what appeared to be a singular geopolitical shock. In reality, it was the catastrophic failure of a market structure defined by extreme leverage and paradoxical sentiment. This historic deleveraging event, the largest in the history of digital assets, demonstrated the profound systemic risks that had built up beneath a surface of bullish euphoria.

    President Donald Trump’s announcement of 100% tariffs on China was the undeniable catalyst. However, this report will show that the collapse resulted from a dangerous confluence of factors. The market was primed for volatility by a widely accepted “debasement trade” narrative, where a US government shutdown was ironically seen as a tailwind for asset prices. This perception led to all-time highs for Bitcoin and an unprecedented buildup of speculative, leveraged long positions.

    The tariff announcement acted as a pinprick to this overleveraged bubble, triggering a violent liquidation cascade that erased between $9.5 billion and $19 billion from derivatives markets in 24 hours.¹³, ¹⁹ On-chain analysis reveals that the decentralized derivatives exchange Hyperliquid was the primary venue for this deleveraging.¹³ Furthermore, forensic evidence points to the strategic actions of sophisticated whale traders who not only anticipated the market’s vulnerability but also positioned themselves to profit immensely from the chaos.², ¹² This suggests the event was both a market-wide panic and a predatory hunt.

    The analysis concludes with an assessment of the market’s structural health in the aftermath, identifying key indicators that will define its trajectory and offering a forward-looking perspective for navigating the new paradigm.

    (more…)

  • The “Good” Buyback vs. the “Bad” Buyback

    Imagine a successful company like Apple. It generates enormous amounts of free cash flow, far more than it needs to run its business and invest in future growth. It uses this excess profit to buy back its own shares. This reduces the number of shares outstanding, which increases Earnings Per Share (EPS) and the ownership stake of the remaining shareholders. In this scenario, shareholder equity remains robust and positive because it is constantly being replenished by massive retained earnings.

    Now, consider a company with stagnant growth, inconsistent profits, or a struggling business model. To make its financial ratios look better and to prop up its stock price, the management might decide to buy back shares. But where does the money come from if not from excess profits? It often comes from taking on new debt or draining cash reserves that are needed for operations and innovation.

    This is the “bad” buyback. The company isn’t creating new value; it’s using leverage to manipulate its financial appearance. On the balance sheet (Assets = Liabilities + Equity), liabilities (debt) go up, and assets (cash) go down to pay for the shares. This combination aggressively eats away at the equity portion of the equation. When a company buys back so many shares that the cost exceeds its retained earnings and initial capital, shareholder equity flips to negative. It means the company’s liabilities now exceed its assets, a state of technical insolvency.

    Even more concerning, is when a company does both buybacks and dilutions (selling new shares). This is a major red flag. It’s like a frantic attempt to tread water: they sell new shares to raise needed cash (diluting your ownership), and then use cash (often borrowed) to buy back other shares to support the stock price. This financial churn suggests a lack of a coherent long-term strategy, prioritizing short-term stock performance over fundamental business health.