Written by: @Areskapitalon

A policy option lacking even a legal basis being seriously considered means that all normal options have been exhausted. The due date for this thirty-year gamble has arrived.

On March 24, 2026, Japan's Ministry of Finance sent an unusual inquiry to the oil trading departments of several major banks in Tokyo: Could it intervene in the crude oil futures market?

After the news broke, Morgan Stanley's chief foreign exchange strategist in Japan immediately commented that the possibility of Japan actually entering the crude oil market was "extremely low," as it was unclear whether the Ministry of Finance had the legal basis to participate in crude oil futures trading, and leaders of several major global exchanges had previously expressed opposition to any government intervention in the oil futures market.

What does it mean for a government to seriously consider doing something it may not have the legal authority to do? It means it has exhausted all legally authorized tools.

This detail is a window through which we can see how a country with the world's fourth-largest economy and $5 trillion in foreign assets has slowly walked into a deadlock without an exit over thirty years of path dependency.

I.

To understand why Japan has reached the point of shorting crude oil futures, we need to pull the timeline back further.

In September 1985, finance ministers from the United States, Japan, West Germany, France, and the United Kingdom signed an agreement at the Plaza Hotel in New York, with the core demand being a significant appreciation of the yen and the mark to alleviate the increasingly severe trade deficit faced by the United States.

The essence of this agreement was that the order provider handed a forty-year bill to its dependents: Since 1945, Japan had achieved an economic miracle under the security guarantees and market access provided by the United States, releasing GDP that should have been invested in the military into an export-oriented industrialization process, with the entire economic miracle hinging on the United States' willingness to tolerate Japan's persistent large trade surplus, as the Cold War needed Japan to act as an anti-communist bastion in Asia. By 1985, the hollowing out of American manufacturing and trade deficits had evolved into a serious domestic political issue, the preconditions had changed, and the bill was due.

At the time, Japan was the world's second-largest economy, holding a significant amount of U.S. Treasury bonds, theoretically possessing considerable negotiating leverage. France and Germany, which signed the Plaza Accord at the same time, demonstrated much more proactive defense of their interests in the subsequent monetary policy coordination. The difference was that the European political tradition has a legitimate foundation for the concept of "equitable games between sovereign states," while Japan has never established such a concept in its relationship with the United States. As a result, Japan fully accepted the demands of the agreement, and the yen appreciated from 240 yen per dollar to 120 yen within two years, a full doubling.

To cushion the impact of the soaring yen on export businesses, the Bank of Japan chose to significantly lower interest rates. This was a technical policy decision, but the reason it was chosen over other options, such as utilizing the purchasing power from appreciation to promote economic structural transformation, develop domestic demand, or open up the domestic market, fundamentally lies in the fact that structural transformation means disturbing the pattern of vested interests in the country. In a society where "maintaining order" is the highest political value, the cost of disturbing existing interests is always higher than the cost of maintaining the status quo, even if maintaining the status quo requires paying with asset bubbles.

Thus, cheap funds flooded into real estate and the stock market, with land prices in central Tokyo multiplying within a few short years, and the Nikkei index climbing to a historical high of 38,915 points by the end of 1989, marking an era where Japanese companies bought Rockefeller Center, and golf memberships were speculated to over a hundred million yen. Bubbles are never accidents; they are the inevitable product of a system rejecting to face structural problems by inflating asset prices to cover up contradictions.

In 1990, the bubble burst, the Nikkei index was cut in half within a year, real estate prices entered a prolonged decline lasting over a decade, and the banking system was inundated with a mountain of bad loans.

II.

After the bubble burst, Japan faced a fundamental choice: to acknowledge the severity of the problem and endure short-term severe pain to thoroughly clean up bad assets and push for structural reforms, or to delay the exposure of problems using monetary and fiscal policies, maintaining the superficial stability of the system.

Japan chose the latter, and this choice seemed "reasonable" at every specific moment: the interest rate cut in 1991 was to avoid an immediate collapse of the banking system, the fiscal stimulus in 1995 was to prevent a spiraling economic decline, the zero interest rate policy in 1999 was due to the traditional room for cutting rates being exhausted, quantitative easing in 2001 was because zero interest rates were still insufficient, the "three arrows" of Abenomics in 2013 were because the mild measures of the previous two decades were inadequate, and negative interest rates in 2016 were required because the economy could not function under positive rates.

Each step was a supplementary action inadequate to the previous one, pushing Japan deeper into dependency.

Over these thirty years, a profound structural change has occurred in Japanese society, with impacts far more profound than any single policy failure. Zero interest rates and a weak yen formed a dual-track model: domestically, interest rates were compressed to zero or even negative, and the government maintained public spending through continuous issuance of government bonds.

The Bank of Japan bought these government bonds on a large scale through quantitative easing. Since 1991, Japan has continued to run fiscal deficits, and the ratio of government debt to GDP has risen from 60% to over 230%. By the end of 2025, total debt reached a historical high of 1,342 trillion yen, while the average financing rate from 2016 to 2025 was only 0.33%. With nearly free financing costs, this mountain of debt appeared manageable.

Overseas, things took a different direction: domestic interest rates being extremely low meant that Japanese savers, life insurance companies, pensions, and banks could hardly earn any returns domestically. They were forced to look overseas for assets that could produce positive returns, and the weak yen further strengthened this incentive, giving export companies price competitiveness, while institutional investors could earn both interest differentials and exchange rate appreciation gains by buying and holding overseas assets in a weak yen environment.

After thirty years, Japan amassed a massive presence in the global financial system: life insurance companies held over $1.5 trillion in overseas securities, and the GPIF alone held about $424 billion in stocks and $450 billion in bonds abroad, with the total overseas assets of all Japanese institutions exceeding $5 trillion. Japan is the world's largest net creditor nation, with net overseas assets exceeding $3.7 trillion and being the largest single foreign holder of U.S. Treasury bonds, holding over $1 trillion. Japan's funds flowed into nearly all major economies' bond and stock markets, becoming the soil beneath the tall building of liquidity in the global financial system.

This is the essence of Japan's thirty years of "coexistence" with the international financial system: Japanese savings, through institutional investors, flowed globally, providing financing for governments and companies while lowering global borrowing costs. In return, Japanese institutions gained investment returns unavailable domestically to pay policy commitments, pension obligations, and banking operating costs.

The growth of Japan's own economy stagnated, with nominal GDP declining from $5.55 trillion in 1995 to $4.27 trillion in 2025, and real wages fell by about 11%, with global market share shrinking from 17.8% to 3.6%. However, through the inflow of overseas investment income, the basic operation of society was maintained.

This is a simpler way to sustain than self-reconstruction, as it does not require disturbing domestic vested interests, does not require painful structural reforms, and does not require difficult political decisions; it merely needs one condition: the international financial system must operate normally, interest rates must remain low, exchange rate fluctuations must be predictable, and trade channels must be open, with the United States willing to continue providing security guarantees and market access.

This condition has been valid for thirty years; it has lasted so long that every level of Japanese society no longer regards it as a condition that needs to be actively maintained, but rather as an axiom that does not need validation.

III.

Under the shelter of this axiom, the Japanese government bond market quietly grew to become the world's second-largest sovereign bond market, with a total scale of $7.3 trillion, but its mode of operation has a characteristic that is not openly discussed.

For the fiscal year 2026, the Japanese government plans to issue 180.7 trillion yen in government bonds, of which about 29.6 trillion yen will be new deficit financing, and the refinancing bonds alone will reach 135.8 trillion yen, accounting for more than 75% of the total issuance. The government needs to issue new bonds to pay the interest and principal of old bonds, and the new bonds have higher interest rates than the old: the average financing rate from 2016 to 2025 is 0.33%, while the current ten-year government bond yield has reached 2.37%, with 30-year bonds close to 3.7%, and 40-year bonds nearing 3.9%. Each round of refinancing at maturity is completed at a higher cost.

This structure has a mathematical characteristic isomorphic to a Ponzi scheme, where the stable returns obtained by early participants do not come from growth in the real economy but from the inflow of funds from subsequent participants. In the context of the Japanese government bond market, "subsequent participants" mean the newly issued bonds and the money printed by the Bank of Japan.

The Japanese government's interest expenditure has already surpassed 31.3 trillion yen, exceeding the 30 trillion yen barrier for the first time. The Ministry of Finance's own estimates show that if interest rates normalize to 2%, which is still considered low by global standards, the debt repayment costs will consume more than 40% of the primary budget by the early 2030s.

Who supports this structure? The Bank of Japan holds more than half of the government bond stock, with the rest owned by domestic banks, life insurance companies, pensions, postal savings, and retail investors, totaling approximately 90% of government bonds held by domestic investors. This figure is often used to argue the "safety" of the Japanese government bond market, as it is believed that there will be no panic selling by foreign investors since it is all owned by "insiders."

But the figure of "90% domestic ownership" hides a fatal fact. A February 2026 report by Fortune magazine used a precise term to describe this structure: mutual assured destruction. Banks hold government bonds as assets; if government bonds plummet, banks' capital is insufficient; life insurance companies hold government bonds to match long-term liabilities; if government bonds plummet, their solvency collapses; pensions hold government bonds as "safe assets"; if government bonds plummet, pension payments are threatened; the central bank itself holds over half of the stock, and if government bonds plummet, the central bank's balance sheet may face technical bankruptcy.

Each participant is locked inside, not because government bonds are good assets, but because the cost of exit is greater than that of continued holding.

Meanwhile, the force that truly determines daily price movements comes from a completely different place. Data from the Japan Securities Dealers Association indicates that foreign investors now account for about 65% of the monthly cash trading volume of government bonds, whereas this number was only 12% in 2009. Although 90% of the stock is held by domestic institutions, most of these domestic institutions are locked in by "mutual assured destruction," neither buying nor selling, and the true market transactions, which determine prices through buying and selling behavior, are that 65% of foreign capital.

They are hedge funds, global macro funds, and trading departments of foreign banks, with no "patriotic duty" or systemic constraints; if they judge that government bonds will continue to fall, they will short, sell off, or withdraw.

On January 20, 2026, the fragility of this structure was violently exposed.

IV.

That morning, Prime Minister Kishi Sanae announced the dissolution of parliament and a general election slated for February 8, along with a stimulus plan of 21.3 trillion yen, including the suspension of the food consumption tax for two years. After the announcement, a 20-year government bond auction faced disastrous demand shortages on that same day, with traders describing it as the "most chaotic trading day in years." The yield on 40-year government bonds exploded to 4.24% within hours, the first time since the introduction of that maturity in 2007 to surpass 4%; the yield on 30-year bonds jumped by 25 to 30 basis points in a single day, the biggest single-day fluctuation since 1999.

The most shocking aspect was the small volume of trades required to trigger this chaos: trades of just $170 million in 30-year bonds and $110 million in 40-year bonds caused a destruction of $41 billion in value across the entire yield curve. In a $7.3 trillion "market," a few hundred million dollars in trades can obliterate tens of billions in value because the real liquidity providers have already exited.

The contagion spread globally within hours, with U.S. 10-year Treasury yields spiking nearly 6 basis points, and the 30-year yield approaching 4.93%, nearing the psychological 5% level; European sovereign bonds faced pressure simultaneously, and U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent called Japan's Finance Minister to discuss the situation as panic swept through global markets.

Then the crisis was "resolved": officials rushed to soothe the market, the New York Fed conducted "currency checks" inquiring banks about their positions in dollars against yen, which the market interpreted as a signal for U.S.-Japan coordinated intervention. The yen fell back rapidly from over 159 to around 152 against the dollar, the central bank maintained rates at the January 23 meeting but hinted at possible rate hikes in the future; after the February 8 election, Kishi's Liberal Democratic Party won with a supermajority of 316 seats, easing uncertainty, and yields fell from their peaks, with the 40-year yield dropping to 3.62% and the 10-year yield returning to about 2.1%.

The market breathed a sigh of relief, with terms like "technical overshoot," "election noise," and "not a structural crisis" appearing in analysts' reports, while analysis from State Street explicitly stated, "Japan's 90% domestic financing, no leverage, and no forced seller risk" seemed rational under the then-static environment.

However, they overlooked a critical issue: the reason the crisis in January could be "resolved" was that four conditions were simultaneously met. Officials' reassurances were credible because the trigger for the crisis was merely a political announcement that could be corrected or downplayed; the United States was willing to cooperate because the collapse of Japanese government bonds had increased U.S. Treasury yields, aligning American interests with stabilizing Japan's situation; the central bank had policy space because inflation was at 3% but not accelerating, allowing for a simultaneous hawkish stance and dovish flexibility; and the crisis had a built-in endpoint, namely the general election on February 8. All these conditions share a common premise: no sustained external pressure.

Five weeks later, the U.S. and Israel launched military strikes against Iran.

V.

On February 28, 2026, the U.S. and Israel struck Iran, with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard immediately announcing the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, halting tanker traffic to nearly zero, cutting off about 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, and causing Brent crude prices to soar to a peak of $126 per barrel, the largest energy supply disruption since the 1970s oil crisis.

For Japan, this is not a geopolitically irrelevant incident. Over 90% of Japan's crude oil imports come from the Middle East, with the majority passing through the Strait of Hormuz, causing energy import costs to suddenly skyrocket. The yen began to depreciate continuously against the dollar from early March, breaking through 160 by the end of March, nearing the level at which the Japanese government spent $37 billion to intervene in 2024.

Finance Minister Katayama indicated that the government was prepared to take "bold action" to respond to exchange rate fluctuations, but the market noted another detail: the Ministry of Finance began inquiring if intervention in crude oil futures was possible. Iran stated it had no intention of negotiating directly with Washington and instead proposed a five-point plan under Iranian control of the Strait. On March 26, Iran further announced it would only allow vessels from China, Russia, India, Iraq, and Pakistan to pass.

Japan was excluded. Prime Minister Kishi had previously made a clear stance for the U.S. in Washington, praised Trump, condemned Iran, and signed a joint statement expressing willingness to "contribute to ensuring safe passage through the Strait," effectively burning the bridge to an independent diplomatic channel with Iran in front of the world.

Ironically, while she was in Washington "demonstrating loyalty," Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif had expressed willingness to allow Japanese vessels to pass through the Strait due to the longstanding friendly diplomatic relations between Japan and Iran, but that door was closed the moment Kishi chose to place all her chips on the order of the U.S.

Oil reserves began to be released, with Japan announcing it would release 8 million barrels from national reserves as part of a coordinated plan by the IEA to release 400 million barrels, along with approximately 13 million barrels jointly held by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE. The CEO of Tokyo-based Yuri Group bluntly stated, "Reserves are short-term supply and price stabilizers, but they are primarily buying time and cannot completely offset the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz." The release reduced national reserves by 17%; what would happen if the Strait remained closed for months?

This is the backdrop against which the idea of shorting crude oil futures emerged: oil reserves are on a countdown, currencies are plummeting, and bond yields are soaring. The very allies are the direct cause of all this, and they have burned their independent diplomatic channels with the crisis creators; what else can they do? Ask banks whether they can short oil in the futures market.

This is not any rational policy option but a symptom of complete despair in policymaking.

VI.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has pushed the Bank of Japan into a real impossible triangle. Soaring oil prices input inflation directly through import costs, and the depreciation of the yen further magnifies energy prices denominated in yen. Japan's CPI has exceeded the Bank's target of 2% for four consecutive years, and now there is a new and persistent external source of inflationary pressure.

If the central bank wants to combat inflation, it must raise interest rates, and raising rates will push up government bond yields. At a debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 230%, every 10 basis points increase in yield means extra annual interest expenditure of hundreds of billions of yen. If the central bank chooses the other route, by increasing government bond purchases to lower yields and stabilize the bond market, it is effectively printing money while inflation is rising; the yen will further depreciate, import costs will rise further, inflation will accelerate further, and the market's required yields will rise further, necessitating the central bank to print more money to buy more bonds, creating a self-reinforcing spiral.

Both roads lead to the same ultimate destination, differing only in speed and path. Moreover, beyond this impossible triangle, there is a deeper structural force at play.

Starting from the fiscal year of 2025 (ending March 31, 2026), Japan began implementing a new economic value solvency regulatory system, J-ICS, requiring life insurance companies to value their assets and liabilities at current market interest rates, with the solvency ratio reflecting interest rate changes in real-time. This is a technical regulatory change, but it generates far-reaching cascading effects in an environment of rising government bond yields.

Japan's four major life insurance companies accumulated a large amount of low-coupon ultra-long government bonds during the zero-interest era. When yields rise from 0.5% to above 3.5%, the market prices of these bonds collapse. Under the old system, they could mark these bonds as "held to maturity" without reflecting losses on the books. However, J-ICS requires economic value calculations, and the domestic bond portfolios of the four major life insurance companies swell to about 9 trillion yen or $60 billion, four times that of the previous year, even when no realized losses occurred.

When the solvency ratio falls below the safety line, life insurance companies must replenish capital. In a market panic, it is impossible to issue new shares or subordinated bonds for financing; the only available source is selling assets to realize existing unrealized gains, and the easiest assets to realize gains from are overseas: in an environment of continuous yen depreciation, the overseas assets held by Japanese institutions are valued higher in yen; selling overseas bonds or stocks in exchange for yen can lock in exchange rate gains to replenish capital and meet regulatory requirements.

This is a "rational" asset management decision at the level of each institution, but the collective effect is another matter.

Selling U.S. and European bonds has pushed global yields higher, and the rise in global yields has led other countries' financial institutions to face asset devaluation and capital pressure, prompting them to sell assets as well, causing global yields to rise further, and Japanese government bond yields are also pushed higher by the global contagion effect, with domestic losses for Japanese institutions increasing, necessitating more sales of overseas assets.

And what did the repatriated Japanese domestic money do? Some went into "portfolio swapping," selling off old government bonds with 0.5% coupons and buying new government bonds with 3.5% coupons. This looks like "buying government bonds," but it is essentially a stop-loss operation, with a net effect on the market of roughly zero; furthermore, Aviva Investors pointed out in February 2026 that under the J-ICS system, life insurance companies can only buy when their solvency buffers are strong enough to absorb additional duration, turning it into intermittent "buying windows" rather than stable demand.

A larger share, the majority, sat in cash on the balance sheet without buying government bonds because the yield was still on an upward trend, with bonds bought today yielding 3.5% potentially generating new book losses tomorrow if yields rise to 4%; they didn't buy Japanese stocks because capital requirements for stocks are much higher under J-ICS; they didn’t return overseas because they had just returned. The only function of this money is to satisfy regulatory red lines on the balance sheet, functioning as dead liquidity.

Japan's banking system also has another vast amount of funds lying idle: Banks sold a large number of government bonds to the central bank during the previous phase of quantitative easing, and the cash received in yen form is held in excess reserves at the central bank, totaling over 400 trillion yen, theoretically deployable in the government bond market to stabilize yields. However, bank investment committees are waiting for signals of "yield peak," and in an environment where the Strait remains closed and inflation continues, no one dares to say where the peak is.

The central bank cannot force banks to place this money into government bonds, as that lies beyond basic central bank authority. Even in extreme situations, if the government were to mandate financial institutions to allocate a certain percentage of assets to government bonds through emergency legislation, the consequences would be disastrous: foreign capital would immediately exit all Japanese markets, as "forcing financial institutions to purchase government bonds" signals forthcoming capital controls in international financial markets.

Thus, the overall picture is as follows: on the overseas side, assets are sold off and liquidity is withdrawn, causing prices to drop; on the domestic side, money returns but is too fearful to invest in any assets, as all assets are depreciating or facing depreciation risks, causing both sides to simultaneously lose active liquidity. This liquidity feels like it has been sucked into a black hole, never able to return to the global market.

The narrative that "mass repatriation supports the Japanese market" is an illusion. While the volume of repatriation can be substantial, potentially in the tens of billions, if every dollar returned freezes as soon as it arrives domestically, the larger the scale of repatriation, the larger the scale of freezing; the liquidity drawn from the global market just means less support obtained domestically. The repatriation itself is part of the illness.

For the past thirty years, Japan has been a source of global liquidity; now it is becoming a graveyard for global liquidity, where money flows in but never comes back to life.

VII.

The reason the crisis on January 20 could be contained was that the United States was willing to cooperate; the New York Fed’s "currency check" was a cheap but effective signal, leading the market to buy back the yen by itself. At that time, the U.S.-Japan interests were aligned: the collapse of Japanese government bonds pushed up U.S. Treasury yields, motivating the U.S. to help stabilize the situation in Japan. Now all these conditions have reversed.

The U.S. cannot help Japan stabilize the yen because stabilizing the yen requires a weak dollar, but a weak dollar exacerbates the inflation problem in the U.S.: the closure of the Strait raises global oil prices, and inflation in the U.S. is rising. At the March meeting, the Federal Reserve voted 11 to 1 to keep rates unchanged at 3.5% to 3.75%, and the market has now priced in a probability of over 50% for a rate hike in 2026. Actively weakening the dollar while inflation is rising would mean dismantling their own defensive line.

The Federal Reserve will also not come to the rescue. Lowering interest rates will intensify inflation, and quantitative easing will push up inflation expectations, causing long-end rates to rise, leading to counterproductive outcomes. Dollar swap lines may provide short-term liquidity, but they do not resolve solvency issues.

If Japan attempts to save itself by canceling the capital requirements of J-ICS to forcibly stop the clearing spiral, it would be akin to telling the market that Japanese financial institutions are essentially insolvent, but the government has decided to pretend not to see it. J-ICS has just begun to apply to the current fiscal year, and the first report has yet to be submitted, making it a disastrous signal of needing to be suspended; furthermore, canceling capital requirements will not make losses disappear. Government bonds will still be depreciating, and inflation will still be rising; it will simply stop requiring institutions to reflect these losses on statements, but foreign traders will immediately interpret that as the real losses of Japan's financial system being much larger than the publicly stated figures and even the regulatory agencies are helping to hide it. The outcome would only lead to greater panic and more intense selling.

Maintaining regulatory rules keeps the clearing spiral going, while canceling rules leads to a collapse of trust, resulting in even larger sell-offs. Just as the central bank faces the dilemma of debt and currency, every option leads to the same end point, just with different paths.

In this stage, it feels more like a quiet, ongoing withdrawal of global liquidity. Japanese life insurance companies are selling tens of billions of dollars in overseas assets weekly, exchanging them for yen to fill capital holes before doing nothing else; there is no panic, no headline news. But this "quiet" is based on a fragile assumption: that the speed of rising yields is slow enough to allow institutions time to sell their overseas assets in rhythm.

Once a trigger point leads to a 30 to 50 basis point jump in yields in a single day, this "quiet" will instantly turn into "acute." J-ICS is calculated in real-time based on market value; a 50 basis point jump means a life insurance company's solvency ratio could plummet in a single day, not when the weekly capital replenishment is necessary, but by the time the market closes today, it could already breach the regulatory red line. Multiple institutions could issue sell orders to the global market on the same day, not in tens of billions weekly, but hundreds of billions or even over a trillion in a single day.

The trigger point could be a disastrous auction for ultra-long government bonds with bidding multiples falling below 1.5, or it could be the central bank being forced to make a clear and unambiguous choice between "buying bonds" and "fighting inflation" when, for instance, CPI exceeds 4%, or it could come from the solvency ratio of a life insurance company officially falling below the regulatory red line, forcing the Financial Services Agency to step in. The market would read this as "Japan's SVB moment." At this moment, the Japanese government and central bank, having already exhausted credit in the crisis, can provide no safety net.

Whoever is responsible for it, once triggered, every step in the chain is not someone's decision. It is the mechanical output of regulatory rules, risk control models, accounting standards, and market mechanisms; no one can hit the pause button. The central bank cannot stop it, the government cannot stop it, and the Federal Reserve cannot stop it.

The only thing that can stop it is the disappearance of external shocks. The Strait of Hormuz could reopen, oil prices fall back to $60, and inflation expectations re-anchor. But as long as the Middle Eastern situation cannot return to stability, the fuel for this spiral continues to be supplied.

VIII.

The thirty-year coexisting relationship of the Japanese economy with the global financial system represents a choice to replace painful self-reconstruction with a simpler maintenance method.

At every specific moment, this choice seems reasonable: each step is easier than structural reforms, each step avoids the political pain and costs, but the cumulative effect of thirty years has transformed Japan into the most proactive dependent of the international financial order while also being its most fragile link. The margin for error has dropped to zero because no allowances have ever been made for system errors.

When the system begins to err, Japan's response is not to exit the system in search of alternatives, but rather to invest everything left into maintaining the system: shorting crude oil futures, investing $550 billion in the U.S., continuing fiscal expansion, and the central bank committing to unlimited bond purchasing.

This is the logic of a "banzai charge" and a collective sacrificial maneuver: not because of the belief in winning, but because there is no longer any position to fall back to. The ending of such a charge has been written in history.

After thirty years of being a source of global liquidity, Japan's conclusion will not come slowly through exhaustion. The $5 trillion in overseas positions, the largest arbitrage trades globally, and all asset prices built on Japan's cheap financing will be cleared mechanically driven by regulatory rules and market mechanisms, passively, acutely, and inexorably.

This may well be the Lehman moment of 2026: a sovereign state facing credit clearing in thirty years of coexistence and dependence on the global financial system; since it is the most fragile node in the system, this clearing will trigger a severe repricing of the entire global financial system.

It is hard to know when this will happen. But everyone should be prepared for it.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。