Author: admin

By Jamie Chisholm

The No. 1 crypto is closely correlated with the Nasdaq

Liquidity pressures should ease, helping bitcoin rally

The latest stock market pullback has been led by technology plays, it’s pretty clear. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite COMP closed Thursday down 3.8% from its record high registered last week, while the broader S&P 500 SPX has retreated 2.5% from its peak.

Why Big Tech has been struggling of late, however, is more open to debate. The most popular theory is that rich valuations can’t cope with burgeoning doubts about returns on AI-linked capital investment.

But strategists at Citi, led by Dirk Willer, are skeptical that recent volatility is because of angst over Big Tech ROI. “We will not wade into this debate, as our best guess is that the market will give the companies some more time before expecting a return on investment,” the Citi team said in a note published late Thursday.

Citi does accept that hyperscalers raising debt on and off their balance sheet – rather than using cash – to pay for the AI build-out is a source of worry. But they argue the main cause of the stock market’s latest wobble is declining financial-system liquidity.

And one of the best ways to track that, they reckon, is via the performance of bitcoin (BTCUSD). The crypto asset this week fell into bear market territory, having lost more than 20% from its recent record high. The move came as the Treasury is rebuilding its general account (TGA), which in effect takes funds from the market. Since mid-July, bank reserves have fallen by around $500 billion, and such a trend has historically impacted bitcoin, according to Citi.

“Traditionally, falling reserves have also impacted equities negatively, but this did not happen prior to this week. But it is plausible that bitcoin is a more sensitive instrument for pure liquidity, especially with equities caught up in the fundamentally-driven AI narrative,” Citi says.

And the problem for tech stocks is that bitcoin acts as a warning signal for the Nasdaq NDX, Citi suggests. “We had shown in the past that NDX trades much better when bitcoin is trading well, and vice versa,” Citi says. “In particular, being long NDX only when bitcoin is above its 55-day moving average (and lagging it by a day) improves the active information ratio for NDX from 0.95 to 1.4 and is similarly significant for longer 2 and 3 day lags.”

The information ratio measures portfolio returns and indicates a portfolio manager’s ability to generate excess returns relative to a given benchmark.

Bitcoin is currently below its 55-DMA. The good news for the crypto, and by extension tech stocks, is that Citi says the TGA has now reached more than $900 billion, a level at which the Treasury typically has stopped the rebuilding process in the post-COVID period.

“This would suggest that liquidity conditions should improve going forward, which should support bitcoin, and could also get the NDX Santa rally back on track,” says Citi.

The markets

U.S. stock-index futures (ES00) (YM00) (NQ00) are lower as benchmark Treasury yields BX:TMUBMUSD10Y rise. The dollar index DXY is up, while oil prices (CL.1) gain ground and gold futures (GC00) are trading around $4,015 an ounce.

   Key asset performance                                                Last       5d      1m      YTD      1y 
   S&P 500                                                              6720.32    -1.75%  2.56%   14.26%   12.09% 
   Nasdaq Composite                                                     23,053.99  -2.24%  0.13%   19.38%   19.64% 
   10-year Treasury                                                     4.11       3.10    7.40    -46.60   -20.00 
   Gold                                                                 4012.5     -0.02%  -0.57%  52.03%   49.07% 
   Oil                                                                  60.16      -1.18%  3.30%   -16.29%  -14.58% 
   Data: MarketWatch. Treasury yields change expressed in basis points 

Need to Know starts early and is updated until the opening bell, but sign up here to get it delivered once to your email box. The emailed version will be sent out at about 7:30 a.m. Eastern.

Take control of your news. Make MarketWatch your preferred source on Google.

The buzz

U.S. economic data due Friday include the University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey for November, released at 10 a.m. Eastern.

Federal Reserve officials speaking Friday include Fed Vice Chair Philip Jefferson at 7 a.m., and Fed governor Stephen Miran at 3 p.m.

Tesla stock (TSLA) is slightly lower after investors approved Elon Musk’s $1 trillion pay package. Separately, Musk said Tesla plans an AI chip fabrication plant in conjunction with Intel (INTC).

The U.S. will block sales to China of some scaled-down Nvidia (NVDA) chips, according to a report.

Peloton Interactive shares (PTON) are jumping in premarket action after the fitness company beat first-quarter fiscal 2026 earnings estimates.

DraftKings stock (DKNG) is falling after the betting group trimmed its full-year sales outlook, as it invests more in prediction markets.

Expedia (EXPE) shares are jumping after the travel group gave upbeat guidance.

Best of the web

Beware the three Ls: leverage, liquidity and lunacy.

Blackstone is offloading a flopped $1.8 billion investment in senior housing.

The man who shaped the internet won’t be able to fix it.

How the lowly soybean got trapped in the crossfire of the U.S.-China trade wars.

The chart

It’s time to buy cyclical stocks says Jim Paulsen. Writing in his Paulsen Perspectives blog, the Wall Street veteran strategist argues that this weeks news of a jump in the Challenger Job Cuts Announcements index makes it more likely that the Federal Reserve will continue cutting interest rates, “helping to spike the punch bowl for cyclical companies.”

“Cyclical stocks have greatly underperformed this year, but with job losses mounting, during the months ahead, even the Mag7 may not be able to keep pace with old-line CYCLICALS!” says Paulsen.

Top tickers

Here were the most active stock-market tickers on MarketWatch as of 6 a.m. Eastern.

   Ticker  Security name 
   TSLA    Tesla 
   NVDA    Nvidia 
   PLTR    Palantir Technologies 
   AMD     Advanced Micro Devices 
   GME     GameStop 
   BYND    Beyond Meat 
   TSM     Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 
   META    Meta Platforms 
   IREN    IREN 
   OPEN    Opendorr Technologies 

Random reads

Did you hear that?! Elf movie costume up for auction.

U.K. housing website’s AI travails highlights adoption angst.

‘Lion’ on the loose in Ireland was a big dog ‘with a fresh haircut.’

For more market updates plus actionable trade ideas for stocks, options and crypto, subscribe to MarketDiem by Investor’s Business Daily.

-Jamie Chisholm

This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

  (END) Dow Jones Newswires

  11-07-25 0743ET
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Under the Electronic Communications Code 2017 (the Code), telecoms operators can ask a property tribunal to impose a so-called ‘Code agreement’ on landowners in the event they cannot agree on such an agreement between themselves. However, where landowners can demonstrate their intent to redevelop all or part of the land to which the desired Code rights would relate, or any neighbouring land, and that they could not reasonably do so if a Code agreement was imposed, the tribunal is prohibited from imposing such an agreement on the parties. This ‘redevelopment defence’ is provided for under Paragraph 21(5) of the Code.

In a recent case ruled on by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT), Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited (Icon) sought to resist the imposition of a Code agreement on it in respect of freehold land it owns at Queens Oak Farm in Northamptonshire. On Tower UK Limited (On Tower) has maintained a telecoms mast on a site on that land since around 1997. On Tower’s mast is used by the UK’s biggest mobile network operators (MNOs) – EE, Three, Vodafone, and Virgin Media O2 – for hosting electronic communications apparatus.

On Tower previously held a formal lease to operate from the Icon-owned site, but that lease agreement expired in 2016. Since then, On Tower has been operating from the site under a so-called tenancy at will, which is a form of tenancy that is not subject to a formal lease or end date. Under this arrangement, On Tower pays Icon an annual rent and a proportion of the income it receives from the mobile network operators for use of its mast.

On Tower is seeking a Code agreement to enhance its rights to operate on the site. Compared to the preceding legislative regimes, the 2017 Code is weighted more heavily in favour of telecoms operators than landowners in respect of the rights a Code agreement confers on operators to install, inspect and maintain equipment such as masts, cables and other communications apparatus on others’ land.

On Tower previously won a protracted legal battle that ended up in the UK Supreme Court over its rights to seek a Code agreement with AP Wireless, a company in the same group as Icon, in respect of the Queens Oak Farm site. However, when the case was remitted to FTT, Icon, which was by then the owner of the Queens Oak Farm site, claimed it had a redevelopment defence to defeat the imposition of the Code agreement sought.

As well as being a landowner, Icon is also a telecoms company, part of the AP Wireless group. It has designs on installing its own mast on the site On Tower occupies at Queens Oak Farm and of encouraging the MNOs that use On Tower’s mast currently to switch to its mast. In the latest proceedings in this long-running dispute, the FTT had to decide whether Icon had a legitimate redevelopment defence it could rely on.

The central question the Tribunal had to determine was whether Icon could demonstrate a “firm and settled intention” to redevelop the site, such that it could not reasonably do so if On Tower remained in occupation of the site.

The Tribunal applied a two-stage test to help it answer this question, involving assessment of subjective and objective factors. In respect of the subjective part of the test, the Tribunal considered whether Icon did genuinely intend to redevelop. With the objective part of the test, it considered whether there was a reasonable prospect of Icon being able to carry out the redevelopment.

The Tribunal also considered whether Icon’s intention was “conditional” – i.e. whether its plans for redevelopment were tied to the purpose of defeating On Tower’s bid for Code rights. It further had to determine whether the works Icon planned amounted to genuine “redevelopment”.

On this last point, the Tribunal held that replacing one mast with another can constitute redevelopment under the Code, but only if the legal tests around intent and reasonable prospects are met.

On Icon’s intent, the Tribunal found that the company’s redevelopment plan was investment-led, based on a business plan assuming all MNOs would migrate to the new mast. However, it found no evidence that Icon had actually engaged with the MNOs, and Icon’s own witnesses accepted there was a real risk the MNOs would not move to the new mast. The Tribunal said that while Icon has “a firm and settled intention to carry out its redevelopment” this plan is “wedded to MNO’s migrating from On Tower”.

In considering the likelihood of redevelopment works going ahead, the Tribunal concluded that Icon had not shown a reasonable prospect of carrying out the redevelopment as planned, because “on the balance of probabilities … the most likely outcome is that the MNOs will not migrate to Icon’s new tower”. It reached this view after considering evidence that pointed to Icon’s lack of relationship with the MNOs, the fact Icon has built other “speculative” towers which remain unoccupied, and the fact the MNOs have been working with On Tower to find an alternative site.

The FTT said: “MNOs have not migrated to any of Icon’s new towers. This litigation will have damaged any future relationship Icon may have had with MNOs.”

On the issue of conditionality, the Tribunal accepted that while Icon’s strategy was partly motivated by a desire to remove On Tower as a competitor, this is “a perfectly legitimate business aim” and not improper. However, case law has established that, for the redevelopment defence to be relied upon, the intention to redevelop must exist independently of whether an operator asserts a claim to Code rights – and the Tribunal in this case considered that Icon’s redevelopment plan was so closely tied to the outcome of the litigation that it lacked that necessary independence.

On the issue of conditionality, the Tribunal accepted that while Icon’s strategy was partly motivated by a desire to remove On Tower as a competitor, this is “a perfectly legitimate business aim” and not improper. However, case law has established that, for the redevelopment defence to be relied upon, the intention to redevelop must exist independently of whether an operator asserts a claim to Code rights – and the Tribunal in this case considered that “Icon would intend to do the same works” even if On Tower did not seek Code rights.

As a result of its findings, the Tribunal held that Icon had not established a genuine and deliverable intention to redevelop within the meaning of paragraph 21(5) of the Code. As such, its redevelopment defence failed. The Tribunal ruled that the statutory test for imposing a new Code agreement in favour of On Tower was met.

Property dispute resolution specialist Mairghread Yule of Pinsent Masons, who acted for On Tower in the case, said: “This decision will be welcomed by Code operators. This judgment will be of wide interest and application in the industry, especially regarding redevelopment. It provides useful findings on redevelopment intention – subjective, objective and conditionality intention – and how this will be assessed and considered by the judiciary.”

Ian Morgan, who was part of the Pinsent Masons team involved in the earlier Supreme Court proceedings, added: “This decision will be of significance not only to parties dealing with the Electronic Communications Code, but also because it considers in some detail significant case law relevant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which may be of broader appeal.”