DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 12

Stellantis shares plunge 27% as costly reset exposes risks of racing ahead of EV demand

0

The scale of Stellantis’ writedown is less about one bad year and more about a strategic reckoning facing legacy carmakers caught between political ambition, consumer reality, and intensifying global competition.

Shares in Stellantis suffered one of their steepest single-day falls in years on Friday after the automaker warned that a sweeping business reset would cost it about 22 billion euros and acknowledged it had moved faster on electrification than many buyers were ready for.

The violent sell-off on Friday was not triggered by weak demand alone, nor by a single earnings miss. It was sparked by something deeper: the unusually blunt admission that it pushed too far, too fast, into an electric future that large parts of its customer base were not yet ready to embrace.

By midday in Milan, Stellantis’ Italian-listed shares had collapsed 27%, wiping billions of euros off its market value. In New York premarket trading, the damage was nearly identical. The move rippled across Europe’s auto sector, dragging down suppliers and peers and reviving uncomfortable questions about whether the industry’s electrification drive has been shaped more by regulatory pressure and investor narratives than by buying behaviour on showroom floors.

At the center of the shock was Stellantis’ decision to book roughly 22 billion euros in charges tied to a sweeping business reset, according to CNBC. Chief executive Antonio Filosa framed the writedown as the price of “over-estimating the pace of the energy transition,” a rare public concession in an industry that has, until recently, spoken almost uniformly about electrification as inevitable and irreversible.

Filosa spoke not just about timing, but about distance — distance from “buyers’ real-world needs, means and desires.” For investors, that phrasing suggested that the problem was not simply macroeconomic headwinds or weak incentives, but product-market fit itself.

From EV evangelism to demand discipline

Stellantis insists it is not abandoning electric vehicles. Instead, it is recasting its approach around demand rather than mandates, a subtle but important shift that reflects a broader change in tone across the sector. Only a few years ago, bold EV targets were framed as markers of corporate relevance. Today, they increasingly look like financial liabilities if they outrun consumer uptake.

The company’s decision to slow its electrification journey comes as it suspends its 2026 dividend and prepares to raise up to 5 billion euros through hybrid bonds, underscoring the strain the reset has placed on its balance sheet. Management says the moves are defensive, designed to preserve flexibility as Stellantis absorbs losses it now expects to post for 2025.

That expectation alone rattled markets. Automakers are cyclical by nature, but Stellantis had been positioned as one of the more resilient global players following the merger of Fiat Chrysler and PSA. A return to net losses, coupled with muted guidance for 2026, punctured that perception.

For next year, Stellantis is forecasting only modest revenue growth and a low-single-digit operating margin improvement. In the context of a 22-billion-euro reset, those targets suggest a long road back to earnings momentum rather than a quick rebound.

A reset with global consequences

Management has been keen to stress that the pain is front-loaded. The company pointed to actions taken in 2025 that it says are already stabilizing volumes, particularly in the U.S., where market share climbed to 7.9% in the second half of the year. Stellantis has also retained its second-place position in Europe, an achievement it argues would not be possible without its broad portfolio of brands.

Still, the reset has forced hard choices. Products that could not reach profitability at scale have been scrapped. Manufacturing and quality systems are being overhauled. Perhaps most symbolically, Stellantis is exiting its battery joint venture NextStar Energy, handing full control to LG Energy Solution and stepping back from a project that once embodied its EV ambitions.

That retreat highlights how dramatically sentiment has shifted since 2022, when former CEO Carlos Tavares set out plans for all-electric sales in Europe and a 50% EV mix in the U.S. by the end of the decade. Those goals were applauded at the time. Today, they look aspirational at best and financially risky at worst.

Not alone in pulling back

Stellantis’ experience mirrors a wider industry pattern. Ford and General Motors have both taken multibillion-dollar EV-related charges, citing slower-than-expected adoption and the high cost of scaling battery production. The common thread is not a rejection of electrification, but a reassessment of how quickly it can be monetized.

What makes Stellantis’ case stand out is the sheer magnitude of the writedown and the candor of its explanation. UBS analysts described the move as “kitchen sinking,” a classic strategy of clearing the decks early under new leadership. They argued that, once the dust settles, Stellantis could emerge leaner and better positioned, particularly in the U.S.

That optimism, however, sits uneasily alongside the market’s verdict. Investors are not just pricing in near-term losses, but uncertainty about whether Stellantis can differentiate itself in an EV market increasingly dominated by Chinese manufacturers like BYD, which have combined aggressive pricing with rapid innovation.

Russ Mould of AJ Bell pushed the debate further, arguing that the broader narrative around EV hesitancy may no longer fully explain Stellantis’ struggles. Charging infrastructure is improving, battery ranges are extending, and prices are gradually falling. If consumers are warming to EVs elsewhere, why not to Stellantis’ offerings?

That question goes beyond strategy and into design, branding, and execution. Stellantis controls a vast stable of marques, from Jeep and Peugeot to Fiat and Chrysler. Managing that diversity has always been complex. Doing so in the middle of a technological transition may be even harder.

Filosa has called 2026 the “year of execution,” a phrase that acknowledges how little room for error remains. The company is still grappling with tariff pressures, leadership changes, and the lingering effects of past missteps. Its shares had already lost much of their value before Friday’s collapse, reflecting years of investor frustration.

When Stellantis reports its full 2025 earnings on Feb. 26, markets will be looking not just for numbers, but for evidence that the reset has a coherent endpoint. The upcoming Capital Markets Day in May now takes on added significance, as investors seek clarity on how Stellantis plans to balance electric, hybrid, and combustion vehicles in a world where certainty has evaporated.

What Friday’s sell-off ultimately exposed is a broader truth confronting the global auto industry. The transition to electric vehicles is not failing, but it is proving messier, slower, and more capital-intensive than early narratives suggested.

Bitcoin Attempts Recovery, Retraces Above $70k After Dramatic Drop

0

Bitcoin is showing early signs of stabilization after a turbulent week, rebounding above the $70,000 level as buyers cautiously step back in.

The recovery follows sharp volatility that rattled market sentiment, leaving investors weighing whether the move marks the start of a sustained rebound or just a temporary relief rally.

This week, BTC traded to a level not seen in more than a year, going as low as $59,829 that sparked bearish concerns. This fall erased 15 months of bullish gains as investors accumulated more at lower levels.

This extended the drop from its all-time high of $126,000 reached in October 6, 2025, to 50% and was accompanied by massive liquidations across the derivatives market. The crypto asset has however retraced to $70,173 at the time of this report.

What Triggered BTC Dramatic Drop?

The selloff erased nearly all of Bitcoin’s post-election gains from late 2024 and reversed much of the 2025 bull run fueled by institutional adoption expectations, ETF inflows, and pro-crypto political sentiment.

Analysts point to a combination of factors:

– Macroeconomic uncertainty and rising interest rate fears

– Profit-taking after Bitcoin’s parabolic run above $100,000

– Large-scale deleveraging in futures and perpetual markets

– Fear and fatigue spreading across risk assets

Despite the deep correction, Bitcoin remains 45% below its 2025 peak, still leaving many long-term holders in profit compared to earlier cycles.

Shifting Narratives: Bitcoin vs Gold

Amid the recent price weakness, Bitcoin’s role in institutional and macro discussions has continued to evolve. Reports indicate that analysts at JPMorgan have recently suggested Bitcoin may now appear more attractive than gold for long-term investors when adjusted for risk, a notable shift given gold’s long-standing status as the traditional safe haven.

Rather than arguing that Bitcoin will replace gold outright, the analysts reportedly highlight how changes in volatility dynamics and Bitcoin’s asymmetric upside, when viewed against gold’s market size are reshaping long-term portfolio considerations.

Recent broader price models show a range of bullish forecasts, with some analysts projecting BTC between $75,000 and $225,000 depending on market conditions, reflecting optimism among technical and institutional forecasters. 

Standard Chartered has maintained a bullish target, forecasting Bitcoin around $150,000 in 2026 based on sustained adoption and market dynamics. Bernstein analysts also project Bitcoin could trade near $150,000 by year-end 2026, with scope for higher levels beyond.

Outlook

Traders remain focused on several critical technical levels. The $70,000–$72,000 range is acting as immediate resistance, combining recent swing highs with a strong psychological barrier.

On the downside, support is seen around $64,000–$65,000, the base of the most recent rebound, with deeper support clustered between $54,000 and $58,000.

A sustained hold above the $69,000–$70,000 zone would strengthen the argument for a broader trend reversal and could open the door to a gradual recovery toward higher resistance levels. Conversely, failure to maintain current levels may invite renewed selling pressure and raise the risk of a move back toward the $50,000–$60,000 region, as warned by several bearish analysts.

For now, market sentiment appears to have shifted from outright panic to cautious optimism. Whether Bitcoin’s rebound marks a meaningful turning point or another pause within a broader correction remains the key question shaping crypto markets in the weeks ahead

Ecobank Posts N1.27tn Profit Before Tax in 2025 as Interest Income and Fees Drive Pan-African Growth

0

Ecobank Transnational Incorporated closed the 2025 financial year with a strong earnings performance, underscoring the resilience of its pan-African banking model amid tighter financial conditions and rising credit risks across several of its core markets.

The lender reported a profit before tax of N1.27 trillion for the year ended 31 December 2025, a 30% increase from the N986.6 billion recorded in 2024. Profit after tax rose by 29% to N959.3 billion, reflecting broad-based revenue growth that more than offset higher impairment charges and operating costs.

The full-year performance contrasted with a softer fourth quarter. On a quarterly basis, pre-tax profit dipped slightly to N264.5 billion in Q4 2025 from N274.3 billion in the corresponding period of 2024, pointing to some late-year pressure from rising credit risk provisions and cost dynamics.

Revenue momentum anchored on interest income and fees

Ecobank’s earnings expansion was anchored on strong growth in both interest and non-interest income, highlighting improved asset yields and deeper customer activity across its network.

Interest income rose 15% year on year to N3.1 trillion, benefiting from higher yields on loans and advances to customers, investment securities, and treasury bills. Net interest income climbed even faster, increasing 22% to N2.13 trillion, despite a moderate rise in interest expense. This suggests that repricing of assets outpaced funding cost pressures, a notable outcome in a year marked by elevated interest rates in several African markets.

Non-interest revenue also played a critical role. Total non-interest income increased 13% to N1.53 trillion, with fees and commission income rising 17% to N1.02 trillion. Cash management fees, card-related income, and credit-linked fees were key contributors, reflecting growing transaction volumes and the continued monetization of Ecobank’s digital and corporate banking platforms.

Trading and foreign exchange income added further support, benefiting from currency volatility across some of the group’s operating markets, although such gains are typically more cyclical in nature.

As a result, operating income expanded by 18% to N3.6 trillion, reinforcing the group’s revenue diversification beyond traditional lending.

Costs and credit risks rise, but margins hold

On the cost side, operating expenses increased by 8% to N1.77 trillion, driven largely by higher staff costs and other operating expenses. While cost growth lagged revenue expansion, the increase points to ongoing investment in people, technology, and regional operations.

More notable was the rise in impairment charges on financial assets, which climbed 28% to N613.2 billion. The increase reflects higher credit risk costs, likely linked to macroeconomic pressures, currency adjustments, and borrower stress in some markets.

Despite this, Ecobank’s operating profit after impairment charges still rose by 30% to N1.2 trillion, indicating that revenue growth and operating leverage were sufficient to absorb the higher provisions without derailing profitability.

Balance sheet growth and funding mix

Ecobank’s balance sheet expanded meaningfully over the year, with total assets rising 14.2% to N49.4 trillion from N43.3 trillion in 2024. Growth was driven by higher loans and advances to customers, increased holdings of investment securities, and stronger cash balances.

Cash balances stood at N8.57 trillion, up from N7.89 trillion a year earlier, enhancing liquidity buffers. At the same time, borrowed funds declined, suggesting some improvement in the group’s funding mix and a greater reliance on customer deposits and internally generated liquidity.

This balance sheet expansion reinforces Ecobank’s role as one of Africa’s largest financial institutions by geographic footprint, while also highlighting the scale of capital it is deploying across diverse markets.

Investors have responded positively to the 2025 performance. Shares of Ecobank Transnational Incorporated were trading at N51.90 on the Nigerian Exchange as of February 2026, up more than 8% month to date. Year-to-date gains stand above 23%, with trading volumes exceeding 19 million shares.

The rally reflects improved confidence in the bank’s earnings trajectory, balance sheet strength, and ability to navigate rising credit risks while sustaining growth.

While Ecobank’s 2025 results underline strong execution, the rise in impairment charges and the softer fourth-quarter performance suggest that asset quality and cost discipline will remain key watch points in 2026. Still, the combination of solid interest income growth, expanding fee-based revenues, and a broad pan-African franchise positions the group to continue delivering earnings growth, even as macroeconomic conditions remain uneven across the continent.

Bithumb Fat-finger Mistake Resulted in 2000 BTC Losses 

0

An employee reportedly made a critical input error during a small promotional reward distribution intended as 2,000 KRW, or roughly $1.50 USD per eligible user, as a “random box prize.”

Instead, due to mixing up the tickers/symbols typing BTC instead of KRW, hundreds of users were accidentally credited with large amounts of Bitcoin—totaling around 2,000 BTC across the affected accounts worth approximately $130–133 million at the time, depending on the exact price.

Many recipients quickly sold the unexpected BTC holdings on the platform, flooding the order book with sell orders. This caused a sharp, temporary flash crash often described as a “wick” or dip in Bitcoin’s price on Bithumb specifically—dropping about 10% below the global market price in a matter of minutes.

Trading was reportedly suspended briefly on the exchange as a result. The price did not wick down to $55,000 globally or even platform-wide in a sustained way; reports describe a localized 10% deviation— if global BTC was trading around $66,000–$67,000, Bithumb might have seen momentary prints in the low $60k or high $50k range during the panic selling, but this was isolated to thin liquidity on that exchange and recovered quickly once the sells exhausted).

This was not a deliberate airdrop but an operational fat-finger mistake. It affected user balances directly (credited unexpectedly), leading to immediate dumps. Bithumb has not officially confirmed details yet as of the latest reports, but the price anomaly and social media/user screenshots corroborate the event.

This highlights ongoing risks with centralized exchanges: human error, liquidity thin spots during mass sells, and potential regulatory fallout in Korea where Bithumb is a major player.

These are human or operational errors—often involving misplaced decimals, wrong amounts, or input mistakes—that led to massive unintended transfers, fees, mints, or price impacts on exchanges.

Bitcoin’s price on Binance.US plummeted from around $65,000 to as low as $8,200 an ~87-88% drop in seconds, triggering a brief market-wide ripple. A former Alameda Research engineer later claimed it stemmed from an Alameda’s trader’s “fat finger” error—a misplaced decimal point during a manual sell order.

The trade executed at pennies on the dollar instead of market price, clearing the thin order book. The price recovered quickly, but it highlighted how one sloppy input can cause chaos on lower-liquidity platforms.

A crypto trading platform DeversiFi, linked to Bitfinex accidentally paid $24 million in Ethereum gas fees for a ~$100,000 transaction due to a coding/input error should have been ~$5. The miner who received the fee returned most of it voluntarily. This remains one of the largest “fat-finger” fee overpayments in crypto history and showed even pros can mess up transaction parameters badly.

Tether’s $5 Billion Accidental Mint (2019)

Tether mistakenly created over $5 billion in new stablecoins at once due to a “token decimals” issue during a chain swap preparation helping Poloniex move from Omni to Tron. This temporarily doubled circulating supply and rattled markets amid broader skepticism. It was quickly reversed, but it exposed fragility in stablecoin issuance processes.

Paxos / PayPal Stablecoin Minting Error (2025)

Paxos accidentally minted an absurd $300 trillion worth due to a fat-finger mistake in their system. This highlighted ongoing risks in automated scripts and centralized control over token supplies, even for regulated entities.

Paxos paid 19 BTC ~$510,000 at the time in fees for a small ~$2,000 transfer—another script misconfiguration/fat finger. Various DeFi examples; Uniswap 2024 trader lost ~$700k due to slippage misconfig + MEV bot exploitation; or massive unintended swaps hitting shallow pools.

Recent smaller ones include Bitcoin fees hitting $105k for tiny transfers in 2025 from manual errors. These incidents often occur on centralized exchanges or platforms with thin liquidity, manual overrides, or automated tools prone to decimal slips.

They frequently cause temporary flash crashes like the Bithumb wick, but recoveries are fast unless broader panic ensues. Crypto’s 24/7 nature and pseudonymous trading amplify the fallout compared to traditional markets.

Fat-finger errors aren’t unique to crypto—traditional finance has infamous ones too like the Mizuho’s 2005 J-Com typo offering millions of shares instead of thousands— but blockchain’s immutability and leverage make reversals harder or impossible without goodwill from recipients.

Perp DEXes Hit $70B Single Day Volume 

0

Perpetual decentralized exchanges (Perp DEXes) recorded over $70 billion in daily trading volume amid a significant market sell-off with notable deleveraging in BTC, ETH, SOL, etc.

This marks the second-highest single-day volume ever for the sector. The all-time high remains October 10, 2025 often called the “10/10” or “1011” flash crash, when volumes hit around $101 billion some earlier reports cited ~$78 billion for on-chain perps specifically, but aggregated figures including the broader event pushed it higher.

That day was triggered by extreme volatility, resulting in over $19 billion in total liquidations across crypto markets—the largest single-day wipeout in history—driving massive forced unwinds and trading activity. For context on February 5: Hyperliquid led with ~$24.7 billion about 31% market share.

Aster followed at ~$10–11.5 billion. edgeX ~$8.7 billion. Lighter ~$7.5 billion. These top platforms accounted for a majority of the total.

This surge highlights how Perp DEXes especially on-chain ones like Hyperliquid have matured and captured significant leverage trading flow, even during downturns, as traders seek decentralized alternatives amid volatility.

Flash crashes in Decentralized Finance (DeFi) refer to sudden, extreme price drops in cryptocurrency assets, often triggered by liquidity shortages, leveraged positions, or market manipulations, followed by rapid recoveries.

These events expose the interplay between high leverage, automated systems, and fragmented liquidity across centralized exchanges (CeFi) and DeFi protocols. Unlike traditional finance, where circuit breakers might halt trading, crypto markets often amplify crashes through cascading liquidations and oracle dependencies.

October 10-11, 2025 (The “10/10” Collapse): This remains the largest crypto flash crash, with over $19 billion in liquidations across CeFi and DeFi platforms. It began with a localized liquidity failure on Binance, where the stablecoin USDe traded as low as $0.65 due to a large sell order overwhelming the order book.

This triggered automated deleveraging, margin calls, and a feedback loop that devalued collateral, leading to widespread forced sells. Bitcoin dropped 14%, while altcoins fell steeper some by 60-80%.

The event highlighted how single-venue pricing can propagate risks to DeFi, where protocols like lending markets rely on oracles that may not account for such dislocations. A recent sell-off saw Perp DEXes hit $70 billion in trading volume, the second-highest ever, amid deleveraging in major assets like BTC, ETH, and SOL.

This caused brief but severe price wicks, liquidating “safe” borrow positions in DeFi lending platforms despite quick recoveries. The 2017 Ethereum flash crash on GDAX saw ETH drop from $300 to $0.10 in minutes due to stop-loss and margin liquidations.

More recently, Venus (XVS) plunged 30% in 10 minutes in January 2026, underscoring ongoing volatility in DeFi tokens. Flash crashes exacerbate DeFi’s inherent vulnerabilities, leading to widespread economic and structural damage.

Cascading Liquidations and User Losses

High leverage in protocols like lending on Aave and perpetuals amplifies drops. In October 2025, $16.8 billion in long positions were wiped out, with Hyperliquid alone handling $10.3 billion. This creates a domino effect: falling prices devalue collateral, triggering more liquidations, which further depresses prices.

Users face permanent capital loss, with sophisticated traders like basis traders hit hardest when hedges fail via auto-deleveraging. In DeFi, this can lead to $180 million in penalties on platforms like Aave if gaps persist.

Sharp swings increase risks of runs on stablecoins or protocols, as seen in Terra’s 2022 collapse attributed to Anchor protocol runs. Flash loans enable attackers to borrow massive sums instantly, manipulate oracles, and exploit compositions of protocols, leading to “flash crash for cash” scenarios where millions are drained.

Out of 10 multi-protocol attacks in 2020, nine were flash-loan funded oracle manipulations. DeFi’s reliance on oracles assumes fair value from secondary markets, but crashes reveal flaws in tokens like USDe or LRTs, where value depends on reserves and redemptions.

Blockchain congestion delays transactions, incentivizing pre-emptive runs. Liquidity mismatches and leverage create fire-sale risks, potentially spilling to traditional finance via stablecoin reserves.

Centralized dependencies like one exchange dominating price discovery undermine decentralization, turning DeFi into “dependency finance.” Crashes wipe out market makers up to 33% in October 2025, delay recoveries, and erode trust, leading to capital outflows and reduced participation.

They also expose smart contract vulnerabilities, increasing exploit frequency. While destructive, flash crashes serve as stress tests, fostering resilience and innovation: DeFi platforms like Uniswap handled $9 billion in volume with zero downtime in recent crashes, while Aave automated $180 million in liquidations efficiently.

Crashes like October 2025 deleveraged overleveraged markets, paving the way for healthier rallies post-2021 drawdowns preceded booms. Over 90% of positions in some protocols survived, validating designs like crvUSD’s peg stability.

Events highlight needs for better oracles; integrating proof-of-reserves and risk layers, circuit breakers, and adaptive designs to mitigate cascades. They push for real-time attestations, application-specific pricing, and shared standards among issuers and integrators.

Post-crash, DeFi has matured, capturing more leverage trading flow via on-chain alternatives. Quick rebounds allow savvy traders to capitalize, and crashes weed out weak protocols, strengthening the ecosystem overall.

Flash crashes inflict immediate pain through liquidations and volatility but ultimately refine DeFi by exposing flaws and incentivizing robust, decentralized solutions. As the sector scales, addressing leverage and oracle risks will be crucial to prevent systemic failures.