Post

Borrowing money to trade stocks is one of the easiest traps for traders to fall into. Raju is a living example. At first, he traded with his own savings. He had wins and losses, but kept a level head: if he lost, he treated it as tuition; if he won, he didn’t get too excited. But after getting it right several times in a row, he got carried away. He thought he had a good eye for the market and knew how to time his trades, so he started using leverage. Leverage feels great when you’re winning: with 5x leverage, a 10% rise in the underlying asset can generate a 50% return on your principal, making it easy to mistake a rising market for trading skill. But leverage is an amplifier, and if you get the direction wrong, you can lose your entire principal. Here’s the simple math: with 5x leverage, you put up 100,000, borrow 400,000, and have a total position of 500,000. If the asset drops just 20%, its market value falls to 400,000, wiping out your principal. With 10x leverage, a 10% drop in the asset could get you liquidated. And that’s not even counting the interest, repayment deadlines, and liquidation thresholds that come with borrowing. A little market volatility can leave you feeling like you’re roasting over an open fire. I’ve always thought that position sizing is a hundred times more important than stock picking. Picking stocks is about finding opportunities; position sizing determines whether you’ll survive long enough to realize them. Losing your own money hurts, but losing borrowed money makes you panic. Once you panic, your decisions go off the rails: you can’t bring yourself to cut losses when you should, and you can’t hold on when you should. All the discipline you’d planned goes out the window. I knew someone who used a consumer loan to take on 3x leverage. After a series of pullbacks, he watched the market all day and couldn’t sleep at night. In the end, he was liquidated near the bottom, lost his principal, and still owed interest. By contrast, people who limit the risk on each trade to 1%–2% of their total capital and keep their overall leverage at zero or very low may not catch a winning stock every time, but they can stay in the game. Do you know anyone who can’t sleep once they start using leverage? Share your thoughts.

View Original
post-image
This page contains third-party content and does not constitute any advice, nor does it represent Gate's endorsement of such views. For details, please see disclaimer.

  • 1

Add a comment
Add a comment

Comment 9
Lighthouse in the Mist
“That ‘when panic sets in, your execution falls apart’ is spot on, but what I want to focus on is that stretch of back-to-back pullbacks—when liquidity dries up, even 1%-2% risk controls can’t save you from forced liquidation. On-chain data has seen too many of these death spirals.”
GateUser-e0042e15
Still watching? You guys really dare to take out consumer loans to get in?
SybilHunter
I’ve got this address covered—if Raju has an on-chain record, I can dig up the exact block where he first used leverage. Consumer-loan fund flows are far more honest than candlestick charts. Suggest tagging the address in your next post.
MintYield
The overcollateralization ratio checks out, but liquidations at 5x leverage are even more brutal than crvUSD’s PegKeeper. I’m still waiting for clearer on-chain liquidation data. Is the author watching any particular monitoring dashboard?
HeadroomTrader
I agree with 1%-2% risk per trade, but bringing total leverage down to zero… does opportunity cost count as a hidden risk?
AntiPhishGuard
Raju clicked a phishing link, right? Have you checked the leverage platform’s domain?
ZKApprentice
If the ZK cross-chain bridge can prove liquidation, I won't run the testnet anymore.
The wind on the bridge is too strong.
Taking on consumer debt to save a little on interest, only to lose it all in a single cross-chain bridge hack—is it worth it?
RevokePro
Could Raju have lost less if he had revoked the borrowing authorization first.