Everyone is right about Akshay Sapra's story. He lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. He probably should not keep trading. And his own explanation — "the highs are too good" — is a confession, not a strategy.
The consensus will now file him under "cautionary tale about speculative stocks." That is the comfortable version, and it is mostly useless. The useful version is hiding a layer down: he did not lose the money because his stocks were bad. He lost it because he bought the one bet everyone was already holding, with borrowed money and options that turned a modest market move into total ruin. The tickers on his screen — SpaceXSPCX--, Beyond MeatBYND-- — were almost incidental. The position was the problem.
Here is the sequence he described to Business Insider. Between 2024 and 2025, a 31-year-old software engineer in the Toronto area turned options bets on AMD and Nvidia into more than CA$1.7 million in trading gains. He had set a target of CA$500,000 — enough for a house, told himself he would stop — and kept going as the account crept toward CA$2 million. Funded by Uber driving, lines of credit, and loans. Then, inside about two weeks in late 2025, nearly all of it disappeared: roughly CA$200,000 in a single Beyond Meat position, then more than CA$350,000 in one week of day trading SpaceX. He ended the year owing his broker money, still investing borrowed cash.
Quick Backtesting Tool
The trade that did the most damage is the one worth studying, because it looked the most guaranteed.
On July 7, 2026, SpaceX joined the Nasdaq-100. This was the capstone of the largest IPO in market history — the June deal raised $85.7 billion — and JPMorgan estimated the index entry alone could draw more than $4 billion of forced buying from funds that track the benchmark. Modeling this is obvious. Billions of index dollars must buy; therefore the stock must pop. That is the thesis, and it was not wrong; it was just late.
Everyone who wanted to front-run the inclusion had already done it. SpaceX had surged about 50% on its June debut, and even the usually-optimistic coverage carried the historical warning that index-inclusion pops tend to be the high, not the entry. Sapra loaded up on thousands of call options and shares for July 7 to collect the one day of buying pressure. The stock opened near $158.92 and fell to $149.47 by the close. A drop of roughly six percent. A survivable number — if you own shares without leverage.
Sapra did not. He bought options, which decay with every passing hour, and he was doing it weeks up the runway. The stock did not need to crash to empty his account. A single quiet down-day against a betting slip priced for a pop was enough to turn that one day into a loss of more than CA$200,000. Within a month, he said, he lost, made, and lost again over $300,000 swinging on SpaceX.
Now the uncomfortable part, and the reason this is not just a freak show: his reported success was the same trade done in the same way.
The $1.7 million did not come from out-thinking anyone. It came from being leveraged long the most popular consensus of the era — AI-adjacent names, via options — during a window when that consensus kept paying. That is not "finding the edge"; that is riding the crowd's chariot with the fastest horse. The cruel test of a method is not whether it makes money when its bet is fashionable. It is whether it survives the day the fashion turns. His did not, because the style of the bet — leverage, borrowed capital, a champion-of-his-own-confidence mindset — was the same on the way up and the way down.
Look at how he diversified. Once AI wobbled, he put money into fresh hot stories: Beyond Meat, then SpaceX. Different securities, zero different futures. Beyond Meat was down roughly 86% over the past year before the story broke, a five-year collapse of about 99%. SpaceX was the most crowded name on the board. Owning both with the same leverage and the same impatience is concentration by behavior wearing diversification's costume — the "looks like many bets, is really one future" trap. Security count is not diversification when every position needs the market to reward the obvious winner on a short deadline.
Even his remedy encodes the error. He plans to livestream his trades on YouTube so an audience can stop him from making "emotional or dumb" ones. But streaming changes who watches; it does not change leverage, the bases of his bets, or the fact that the obvious trade is the crowded one. If he keeps buying the story everyone already knows with borrowed money and options, then ten thousand viewers applauding his discipline changes the math not at all.
What would prove him wrong, and the crowd too, is whatever breaks the pattern rather than the posture. A real position sized so a bad day is a bad day, not a total wipeout. No borrowed capital. And one honest look at the base rate of leveraged day-trading — most retail accounts that trade this way lose money. None of those require SpaceX or Beyond Meat to be "good" or "bad." They only require the bet itself to stop being structured so that volatility runs one-way to zero.
Here is the version worth carrying out of this story. Nobody needs to feel superior to a man who lost CA$1.7 million; the market took real money out of his real life. But recognize the mechanism he ran on, because it is not rare. The more obviously a stock "must" rise — the index inclusion, the unmissable sector, the narrative everyone repeats at once — the more likely the buying is already done and the late buyer is holding the bag. The guaranteed trade is the dangerous one. Consensus is a position, and by the time the sure thing is on every screen, someone is holding the exit open for you.
The crowd will walk away with the moral that hot stocks burn you. Fine. The sharper investor walks away with the actual lesson: he never lost because his thesis was wrong — he lost because his thesis was so popular that its price had already collected everyone who agreed with him, and then he borrowed money to prove it too late.
