The clean takeaway from the latest global bond selloff is that it is nowhere near the scale of 2022.

Looking at the difference between 2022 and today on a rolling 20day performance global government bond yields have risen around 17 basis points, compared with more than 60 basis points during the worst phase of the 2022 rout. The peak-to-trough drawdown in global government bonds is roughly 4.2% this year, against more than 23% in 2022. Volatility is lower, coupons are higher and investors are earning considerably more income while they wait.

All of that is true…. and there is no sugarcoating it.

But comparing the current move with 2022 risks answering the wrong question.

The issue is not whether another generational bond crash is already underway. The more important question is why yields are moving higher when policy is already restrictive, growth data are becoming less consistent and government bonds once again offer meaningful income.

In 2022, markets were violently repricing the destination for interest rates from an almost-zero starting point. In 2026, markets are repricing how long restrictive rates may need to remain in place, how high real rates now need to be, and how much compensation investors require to absorb an expanding global supply of duration.

That is a less explosive process. It may also prove more persistent.

The current selloff is best understood as two overlapping trades, (1) an acute repricing of the Federal Reserve path at the front end, and (2) a structurally higher term-premium regime preventing the long end from rallying. The first determines the speed and shape of the move and the second determines the floor beneath yields.

The smaller drawdown is partly mechanical

The bond market entered 2022 with very low yields, small coupons and an enormous amount of duration risk embedded in portfolios. Investors had little income protection when yields rose, while the sudden change in central-bank policy generated large mark-to-market losses…. cough cough SVB…!

The starting point today is very different.

The average coupon in the global government-bond index is around 2.7%, compared with less than 1.9% in 2022. Higher yields also mean somewhat lower duration for otherwise comparable securities. Investors are therefore receiving a larger carry cushion against adverse price moves.

That explains why the total-return damage is smaller. It does not mean the macro consequences are trivial.

The US two-year yield is around 4.36%, the five-year around 4.53%, the ten-year around 4.79% and the thirty-year around 5.28%. More importantly, synthetic real yields are approximately 2.33% at ten years and 2.90% at thirty years.

A household, company or government refinancing at these levels does not care that the bond index is only down 4%. The economic transmission comes from the absolute cost of capital, not the percentage drawdown in an investor benchmark.

The distinction is simple:

2022 was about getting to restrictive policy. The current regime is about discovering how long the economy can carry it.

The market is not pricing one hike. It is pricing a new plateau.

The current effective cash rate is approximately 3.63%. The implied Federal Reserve path rises toward 4.26%, representing close to 63 basis points of cumulative tightening.

Subscribe now

Join up today and gain access (very tier of paid gains access) to the www.globalmacromethod.com website with G6 rates, fx and equity analysis, curves and models… plus my see my macro portfolio/book.

Read more

Jackson Hole put further tightening firmly into play without committing the Fed to a September decision. The question now is whether weak hiring reflects an economy running short of workers or one beginning to run short of demand.

The Week That Was:

The most useful number this week was not the 1.5% US GDP headline. It was the 4.2% annualised growth in private domestic demand underneath it. Consumer spending and private fixed investment were considerably stronger than the headline growth rate suggested, and that underlying measure was revised higher. Read the GDP headline alone and the economy looks vulnerable. Read the composition and the case for immediate policy relief becomes much harder to make.

That matters because the market is trying to reconcile two different stories, households and businesses are still spending, while employment growth has weakened. July’s payroll decline of 23,000 sits awkwardly alongside an unemployment rate of just 4.1%. Neither number, in isolation, resolves whether the economy is approaching a meaningful slowdown.

The more recent spending data added caution, but not a collapse. Real consumption was essentially flat in July, while real disposable income increased 0.4%. Headline PCE inflation remained at 3.7% year-on-year and core at 3.3%, with both rising 0.2% over the month. That is a softer start to third-quarter consumption alongside inflation that remains uncomfortable, not a clean combination of falling demand and rapidly disappearing price pressure.

My interpretation is that the economy has become more uneven, rather than uniformly weak. That leaves the Fed with a difficult judgement, how much weight should it place on deteriorating hiring when spending and investment are still holding up?

Warsh answered the policy side of that question at Jackson Hole. He characterised broad financial conditions as insufficiently restrictive, described the economy as resilient and put the immediate emphasis on restoring price stability. Crucially, he did not promise a September hike. But he challenged the assumption that some better inflation readings had already done enough to remove further tightening from consideration.

The immediate market reaction fitted that message. September hike odds rose from roughly 35% to 58%. 2yr yields climbed about 13 basis points on Friday, against 6bps at 10yrs and 2bps at yrs. That was a bear flattener, bonds sold off, but near-term policy risk took the bigger hit. The dollar strengthened and small caps underperformed. This was not a long-bond rally.

Nor was it a wholesale equity capitulation. The major US indices still finished the week higher despite Friday’s declines. That distinction matters when judging whether Jackson Hole changed the market’s underlying trend or merely interrupted it.

Nvidia supplied the other side of the argument. Quarterly revenue reached $96.2 billion, up 106% from a year earlier, providing substantial evidence that the AI investment cycle remains powerful. Those are actual revenues, not simply an optimistic story about future productivity.

However, strong AI demand does not make the entire equity market insensitive to interest rates. The companies receiving that spending can deliver exceptional results while businesses dependent on refinancing, housing activity or discretionary consumption face a much less forgiving environment.

For me, that is the week’s central message, strong earnings in one part of the market and a tighter policy outlook are not mutually exclusive. The mistake would be to treat either the technology rally or the weak payroll headline as a complete description of the economy.

Subscribe now

Below, I look at how to separate near-term policy risk from long-end duration risk, why next week’s employment details matter more than the headline alone, and what would distinguish a healthy equity broadening from a narrow rebound. I also examine the different inflation problems facing Europe, Britain, Japan and Australia and the evidence that would make me abandon the current US interpretation rather than simply defend it.

Remember all paid subscribers gain access to a world class insto-grade macro dashboard at www.globalmacromethod.com

Read more

The macro mix is less clean. Second-quarter growth slowed to 1.5%, July real consumer spending was effectively flat, and PCE inflation remained elevated at 3.7% headline and 3.3% core. July payrolls fell by 23,000, but weekly claims remain low, suggesting the labour market is cooling rather than breaking. This is not a recessionary backdrop, but it gives equities less room to rely on easier monetary policy.

From: Efficient market Hype a must follow on X

Subscribe now

Read more

Subscribe now

Subscribe today and gain access to a world class website with G6 rates, equities and fx models and OTC data.

Read more

Subscribe now

For alpha please subscriber or for simple the best dashboard at www.globalmacromethod.com please subscribe… Best values regardless of your needs!

Read more

The Price of Resilience

US exceptionalism is not breaking. It is becoming more expensive to own.

That distinction defined the past week. The market received evidence of firmer US activity, a Federal Reserve still leaning against inflation and a Treasury market increasingly uncomfortable with the amount, price and political management of duration. The result was not a conventional growth scare. It was a price-of-capital shock: the S&P 500 fell 1.4% over the week, technology led the weakness and the 30-year Treasury yield traded as high as 5.31%, its highest level since 2007.

The important point is that this was not simply another repricing of the next Fed meeting. The front end moved higher, but the more significant signal came from the long end’s inability to hold a rally. Growth resilience, elevated energy prices, fiscal supply and a wider term premium are beginning to matter as much as the policy rate itself.

For macro traders, that changes the hierarchy. The question is no longer only whether the Fed hikes in September. It is whether the US economy can remain resilient without forcing financial conditions to tighten through the bond market.

Subscribe now

Subscribe for more, including dedicated dashboard for G6 and global equities. It is simply the best on the market!

Read more

Near-dated STIR pricing became more patient, the Treasury curve bull-steepened and the front end outperformed as the market reduced the probability that the Federal Reserve needs to act immediately. Yet the broader tightening path remains intact. Overnight cash is 3.63%, the implied FOMC path still rises toward roughly 4.01%, and the SOFR curve reaches around 4.12%. The market has delayed some of the tightening impulse rather than removed it.

Subscribe now

Paid subs get access to the www.globalmacromethod.com its a must have for anyone involved with macro.

Read more

July’s (released in August mostely) data gave the Federal Reserve more room to wait, the front end accepted that message and equities remained near record highs. But the long end, oil and parts of FX refused to validate a clean disinflationary relief trade.

That divergence was not noise. It was the most useful information the market gave us.

The week began with Brent jumping almost 5% as the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz remained uncertain. By Friday, it had settled at $88.52, up roughly 6% for the week. That put the current inflation impulse in direct conflict with the backward-looking data about to arrive.

July CPI could show whether inflation was improving before the latest energy move. It could not tell us how much of that shock will pass through into goods, expectations or policy. Oil was the leading signal; the inflation releases described an earlier state.

On its own terms, CPI was supportive. Headline inflation rose 0.1% in July, core rose 0.2%, and core eased to 2.5% year on year. Shelter contributed most of the monthly increase, while energy fell 1.5%.

That weakened the immediate case for another hike and showed underlying inflation moving in the right direction. But headline inflation remained 3.4%, and the favourable energy contribution belonged to July rather than the world investors were trading by Friday.

PPI reinforced the point, with more contradiction beneath the headline.

Final demand was unchanged and goods prices fell 0.7%, largely because of energy. Yet the measure excluding food, energy and trade services rose 0.4% on the month and 4.7% over the year.

Subscribe now

To read more, you need to be a paid subscriber, this also gives access to a world class dashboard for any macro-centric trader or investor.

Read more

It is that the Federal Reserve has been given more time.

A softer payroll report followed by relatively benign CPI and PPI readings has weakened the case for another immediate rate hike. But underneath that headline, the economy remains reasonably resilient, inflation is still above target, oil has re-emerged as a risk, equities are trading around record highs and the long end of the Treasury curve continues to resist the dovish interpretation.

That leaves the US in an unusual position.

The front end has repriced the timing of further tightening. It has not meaningfully repriced the destination.

That distinction is probably the most important macro signal coming out of this week.

Subscribe now

All the G5 Rates and key global equities are published on the website for all paid subs to access. DM for more information if unsure.

Read more

In Part 1 of the Macro Decision Engine, we started with the cycle.

Before risking capital, you need to understand the environment you are operating in. Growth, inflation and liquidity behave differently across different regimes, and the same data point can have completely different market implications depending on whether the economy is expanding, slowing, contracting, or recovering.

In Part 2, we moved from the cycle to the dominant theme.

The cycle tells you the environment. The theme tells you what the market actually cares about inside that environment. Sometimes the dominant theme is inflation. Sometimes it is growth. Sometimes it is liquidity, policy credibility, fiscal risk, geopolitics, earnings, AI, energy, China, credit stress, or positioning.

In Part 3, we moved into market pricing.

Being right is not enough. A macro view only becomes tradable when there is a gap between what you believe is likely to happen and what the market has already priced. The cycle gives you the environment. The theme tells you what matters. Pricing tells you whether the opportunity still exists.

But even after working through those three stages, one more question remains.

Is the evidence strong enough to risk capital?

That is where the information mosaic comes in.

Macro conviction does not come from one chart, one data point, one headline, one model, or one opinion. It comes from assembling multiple pieces of evidence into a coherent view of the world. The goal is not to find a single perfect signal. The goal is to build a weight of evidence strong enough to justify taking risk.

This is the fourth step in the Macro Decision Engine.

Once you understand the environment, the theme and the pricing, you need to build the evidence base.

Subscribe now

The first 4 installments of this series paired with the GMM website (www.globalmacromethod.com) contain all the tool, information to be ‘macro’ so get involved and sign up!

Read more

Last week, markets bought into a very particular version of Goldilocks.

Oil prices fell sharply as hopes of progress around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz reduced the immediate energy tail risk. The US labour market then delivered an unexpectedly negative payroll print, pushing expectations for another Federal Reserve rate hike further out. At the same time, corporate earnings remained strong enough to prevent weaker employment from turning into a broader growth scare.

That combination was enough to send the S&P 500 to a record, pull Treasury yields lower and weaken the US dollar. Brent still finished Friday at US$83.55 per barrel and WTI at US$78.18, but both recorded heavy weekly declines after the market partially removed the geopolitical supply premium.

The problem is that the underlying macro data were not nearly as clean as the price action suggested.

US manufacturing activity strengthened materially. Services demand remained firm. Both ISM surveys showed unusually elevated input-price pressure. The labour market weakened, but not through a conventional wave of layoffs. Instead, the US increasingly resembles a low-hiring, low-firing economy in which output continues to expand while businesses become much more selective about adding workers.

The market did not trade a recession last week.

It traded a Fed with less immediate permission to tighten, while assuming that earnings and economic activity would remain largely intact. That is a much narrower proposition.

This week’s CPI, PPI and retail-sales reports will test whether the three parts of that proposition can continue to coexist: slower hiring, resilient demand and gradually easing inflation.

The Week That Was

The Payroll Report Changed the Timing, Not Necessarily the Regime

The headline number was unquestionably weak.

US nonfarm payrolls declined by 23,000 in July, against expectations for a gain. More importantly, May and June payroll growth was revised down by a combined 103,000. The average monthly employment gain over the previous 12 months is now just 34,000. Wage growth was relatively contained at 3.2% year-on-year.

The unemployment rate nevertheless fell from 4.2% to 4.1%, but that was not an especially positive development. Labour-force participation fell to 61.4% and has declined by 0.7 percentage points since January. In other words, unemployment fell partly because fewer people were participating in the workforce, not because employment demand improved.

The immediate conclusion is that the labour market has weakened more than previously understood.

The more useful conclusion, however, is that the weakness remains concentrated in hiring rather than dismissals.

June JOLTS data showed 7.4 million job openings and 5.3 million hires, while layoffs and discharges were largely unchanged at 1.8 million. Initial unemployment claims were only 199,000 in the week ending 1 August, with the four-week average just below 199,000. Those are not numbers normally associated with an economy entering an aggressive employment contraction.

Businesses are not urgently shedding workers. They are simply reluctant to add new ones.

This matters for the Fed and for markets. A low-hiring environment can persist for some time without tipping immediately into recession, particularly when productivity is improving. Nonfarm productivity rose at a 1.4% annualised pace in the second quarter and was 2.2% higher than a year earlier. Unit labour costs increased only 1.4% year-on-year.

Higher productivity allows companies to produce more without increasing headcount at the same pace. It also provides some protection to profit margins and limits the inflationary effect of wages. That helps explain how payroll growth can deteriorate while economic activity and earnings remain relatively resilient.

The risk is that low hiring eventually becomes self-reinforcing. Workers become less confident about changing jobs, wage growth slows, consumption softens and businesses respond by reducing hiring further. We are not yet at that point, but the payroll report moved the economy closer to it.

Activity Was Stronger Than the Labour Data Suggested

The employment report was difficult to reconcile with the week’s business surveys.

The ISM Manufacturing PMI rose from 53.3 to 55.6 in July, its highest reading since May 2022. New orders increased to 56.7, production jumped to 58.5 and the employment component returned to expansion for the first time in 33 months.

The services economy was similarly firm. The Services PMI held at 54.1, business activity accelerated to 59.1 and new orders rose to 57.2. The important divergence was employment, which fell back into contraction at 47.4.

This is the core US macro dilema.

Demand is not collapsing. Output is not contracting. Businesses are seeing enough activity to increase production and accept new orders, but they remain cautious about hiring.

That is not a standard recessionary mix. It is closer to an economy producing reasonable growth with less labour intensity, potentially reflecting productivity gains, automation, capital investment and greater corporate discipline.

For equities, that can be constructive because output and earnings are maintained without a comparable increase in labour costs.

For the Fed, it is more difficult. Strong demand means the central bank cannot automatically treat weak payroll growth as evidence that inflation pressure will disappear.

The Inflation Signals Remained Uncomfortable

Both ISM reports carried a clear inflation warning.

The manufacturing prices index remained extremely elevated at 71.1. ISM respondents continued to report pressure from steel, aluminium, tariffs and petroleum-related inputs. In services, the prices index increased to 70.3 and exceeded 70 for the fourth time in five months.

This does not guarantee a hot CPI print. The relationship between survey input prices and consumer inflation is neither immediate nor one-for-one.

It does, however, tell us that the inflation pipeline has not disappeared.

The fall in oil prices should provide some near-term relief, particularly if the Strait of Hormuz disruption continues to ease. But energy is only one part of the story. Tariffs, industrial inputs, transport constraints and services pricing remain relevant.

The economy is therefore not moving cleanly towards a low-growth, low-inflation environment. It is producing a more awkward combination of firm activity, weak hiring and persistent price pressure.

That is precisely the mix that makes monetary policy difficult.

Rates: The Front End Bought More Time

The Federal Reserve held the target range at 3.50–3.75% at its July meeting, but the 9–3 vote was unusually divided. Three policymakers preferred an immediate 25-basis-point increase, reflecting concern about elevated inflation and supply-driven price pressure.

The payroll report reduced the urgency of that position.

Expectations for a September hike fell to around 44%, from 55% immediately before the employment report and 67% one week earlier. The two-year Treasury yield declined to around 4.20% on Friday, while the ten-year finished near 4.64%.

The front end outperformed because payroll weakness directly reduced the probability of an immediate policy move.

The long end rallied by less because its problem is different.

Ten-year and thirty-year Treasuries are being asked to absorb elevated inflation uncertainty, persistent fiscal supply, the possibility of renewed energy pressure and questions around the durability of foreign demand. Weak payroll growth can alter the expected timing of Fed policy without resolving any of those structural issues.

That is why I would not treat last week as the beginning of a straightforward duration rally.

The market bought a September pause. It did not receive confirmation that the tightening cycle is permanently finished, nor did it receive evidence that term premium should structurally compress.

Equities: Weak Data Were Bullish Because Earnings Remained Strong

US equities received the ideal combination of a lower discount-rate expectation and resilient corporate cash flows.

The S&P 500 gained 3.58% over the week, the Nasdaq rose 5.19% and the Dow increased 2.96%. The S&P finished Friday at a record high, while advancing shares outnumbered decliners by roughly 2.5 to one on the New York Stock Exchange.

Earnings provided the fundamental support. Of the 436 S&P 500 companies that had reported by Friday morning, 85.1% had beaten analyst expectations, well above the long-run average of 68%.

That allowed investors to interpret weak employment as a rates event rather than an earnings event.

The difference is critical.

Negative payrolls are bullish for equities only while the market believes slower hiring will stop the Fed without materially damaging consumption, revenues or profits. The moment labour weakness begins to threaten corporate earnings, the same data become risk-negative.

That transition has not happened yet. But with valuations elevated and the index back at record highs, the margin for disappointment has narrowed considerably.

The next stage of the rally also needs to be broader.

Technology and semiconductors remain the centre of index-level strength, but the healthier outcome would be a rotation into industrials, smaller companies and other economically sensitive areas as lower yields and lower oil improve the broader backdrop. Continued index gains accompanied by deteriorating breadth would leave the market increasingly dependent on a small number of earnings outcomes.

FX: The Dollar Weakened, but This Was Not a Break

The dollar index fell around 0.3% over the week and ended Friday close to 99.5. The euro rose to approximately US$1.157, while the dollar finished near ¥157.6.

The move was consistent with the decline in US front-end yields. A lower probability of a September hike reduced the dollar’s immediate rate advantage, particularly against currencies where domestic central banks remain cautious about declaring victory over inflation.

However, the dollar’s weekly decline was relatively modest compared with the size of the payroll surprise.

That suggests investors pushed out the timing of a Fed hike rather than fully abandoning the US exceptionalism or higher-for-longer narrative. US growth remains stronger than the payroll headline alone would suggest, while geopolitical uncertainty and weak fiscal positions elsewhere continue to support the dollar’s defensive role.

Gold’s gain of nearly 7% during the week was also notable. It reflected lower yields and a softer dollar, but it also showed that demand for geopolitical and policy hedges remains strong beneath the equity rally.

The market became more optimistic last week. It did not become complacent everywhere.

Below I look at why the US economy is increasingly separating output growth from employment growth, how CPI and Treasury supply will interact this week, the cross-asset implications of the main inflation scenarios, and what developments in Europe, the UK, Australia and Japan tell us about the durability of the dollar move.

Subscribe now

More update coming to the GMM website for paid subscribers, global equities breadth and G5 complete rates dashboard, STIR, Bonds, Reals, Inflation, Nominals, Spreads and more! This alone is worth the cost!

Read more

The global macro backdrop has become less directional but more interesting for relative value.

The latest fall in oil has removed part of the immediate inflation shock. Brent dropped more than 4% on Monday as renewed US–Iran diplomacy reduced fears of further supply disruption. European energy shares fell, while autos, travel and other energy-intensive sectors outperformed. Germany’s DAX rose around 1.4%, materially outperforming the FTSE 100.

However, the policy backdrop remains unusually fragmented. The Federal Reserve held rates at 3.50%–3.75%, but three members voted to hike. The Bank of England also held, with three members favouring a hike. The RBA is already at 4.35%, with Australian underlying inflation still running well above target. By contrast, the ECB and Bank of Canada appear more constrained by weaker underlying growth.

The result is a portfolio focused on curves and cross-market spreads rather than outright global duration or equity beta.

The six positions carry a combined 1.80 units of planned risk, measured as the intended loss at the stop collectively, rather than the gross notional exposure.

Rates spreads are DV01-matched. Equity spreads are PV01-matched rather than established using equal notionals. Entries and stops are measured on the spread itself, not separately on the two legs (details below).

Subscribe now

More details and thesis for each trade is explained below. Sign up to gain access a world class website for macro dashboards at www.globalmacromethod.com for paid sub only.

Read more

Subscribe now

Second-quarter US GDP slowed to a 1.5% annualised pace from 2.1% in the first quarter. Yet real final sales to private domestic purchasers, consumer spending plus private fixed investment, accelerated from 1.7% to 3.9%. Consumption strengthened and equipment and intellectual-property investment remained firm. The economy is still generating real private demand, with the AI and capital-investment cycle offsetting weaker government spending.

The inflation mix was similarly uncomfortable. June core PCE increased only 0.1% month-on-month, but remained 3.3% year-on-year. Headline PCE was 3.7%. Real consumption rose 0.4%, while the saving rate fell to 2.7%. Consumers are still spending despite a thin savings buffer, while quarterly price measures remained elevated. Disinflation is continuing, but demand remains too resilient for the Fed to take much comfort from one cooler print.

That explains the Fed’s 9–3 decision to hold the funds rate at 3.50%–3.75%. Three officials preferred an immediate 25-basis-point increase, making September a live meeting. More importantly, the market did not treat the hold as dovish. Over the week, the two-year yield fell roughly 5 basis points to 4.28%, while the 10-year rose 6 basis points to 4.75% and the 30-year climbed 11 basis points to 5.27%.

This was not a conventional dovish steepener driven by an approaching easing cycle. It was a twist steepener carrying a credibility and term-premium message. The front end judged that the Fed may not deliver a sustained hiking cycle. The long end demanded greater compensation for inflation uncertainty, oil risk and fiscal supply. The Fed left the overnight rate unchanged, but the market raised the economy’s longer-duration cost of capital.

The labour market remains unresolved. Initial claims of 197,000 show that layoffs are still low, while the Employment Cost Index rose 0.9% in the second quarter and 3.4% over the year. At the same time, June payroll growth slowed to 57,000. The regime remains “slow hire, slow fire”: firms are reluctant to add workers, but are not yet cutting aggressively.

Equities looked through the rates shock because earnings did the heavy lifting. The S&P 500 gained 1.05% and the Nasdaq 1.59% over the week, supported by Microsoft and Amazon. Apple’s sharp decline showed the other side. Investors are no longer rewarding AI expenditure automatically; they increasingly require evidence that capex is becoming revenue, margins and cash flow. That leaves the index resilient but the broader market exposed to elevated long-term yields.

Outside the US, the direction was also less dovish. Euro-area GDP expanded 0.4% quarter-on-quarter, while July inflation rose to 2.9%, core inflation to 2.5% and services inflation to 3.3%. Growth is firm enough to remove an easy objection to further ECB tightening. In the UK, the Bank of England held Bank Rate at 3.75% by a 6–3 vote, with the minority favouring a hike because higher energy costs could become embedded in wages and pricing.

Japan presents the largest immediate cross-asset risk. The Bank of Japan held at 1%, but one member preferred 1.25% and the Bank expects to continue raising rates as underlying inflation approaches 2%. Tokyo core inflation accelerated to 1.9%, while it seem clear that coordinated US–Japan intervention helped shaped a sharp unwind in USD/JPY and yen-funded carry positions.

Oil remains the common shock linking these economies. OPEC+ is expected to approve a roughly 188,000-barrel-per-day September quota increase and then pause. With production already disrupted, that headline increase is unlikely to remove the geopolitical premium by itself.

Subscribe now

The Week Ahead

The coming week divides into two US tests. Payrolls will govern the front end and September Fed pricing. Treasury’s borrowing estimates and Wednesday’s Quarterly Refunding Announcement (QRA) will govern the long end. Treasury previously projected $671 billion of privately held net marketable borrowing for July–September. Any hint that future coupon issuance must increase would reinforce the term-premium sell-off, an unchanged schedule would offer relief.

Before payrolls, ISM manufacturing, JOLTS and ISM services will test whether demand and prices paid remain firm. Thursday’s productivity and unit-labour-cost data may be equally important. Strong productivity with contained labour costs would allow the Fed to wait. Weak productivity and firm compensation would imply that wage growth is feeding more directly into inflation.

The key asymmetry is that weak payrolls may rally the two-year far more than the long end. Oil, supply and credibility concerns can keep 10- and 30-year yields elevated even as hike expectations fall. Conversely, a strong report would pull the front end higher and partially flatten the curve.

The base case is that the labour market avoids a clear break, Treasury leaves near-term coupon sizes broadly unchanged, and September remains live rather than predetermined. That would preserve the current regime, resilient nominal demand, an inflation-constrained Fed, pressure on long-duration assets and an equity market increasingly dependent on earnings rather than multiple expansion.

The dashboard (images below, soon to be added to the www.globalmacromethod.com site for paid subscribers) makes that distinction clear. The July meeting prices only 8.3bp of tightening, equivalent to roughly a 33% probability of a 25bp hike. Yet the implied rate rises to 3.89% by September, 4.05% by December and peaks near 4.16% next spring. Across the full fed funds strip, around 50bp of tightening is already embedded. The market is not debating the destination. It is debating the timing and, by extension, the Fed’s reaction function.

Subscribe now

The incoming data give the Committee a defensible reason to wait. June payroll growth slowed to 57,000 while unemployment held at 4.2%. Core CPI was unchanged over the month and eased to 2.6% year on year, although headline inflation remained 3.5%. The apparent improvement also needs qualification: the monthly decline in headline CPI was driven heavily by a 5.7% fall in energy prices, leaving the Fed exposed if the latest Middle East-driven oil shock persists.

Interestingly a Citadel Securities research paper suggested a surprise-hike argument matters even if a hold remains the marginally more likely outcome. Warsh has spent his opening months promising that the Fed will “deliver price stability”. The June minutes already showed that upside risks to inflation were judged elevated, downside employment risks had moderated, and some participants saw a case for raising rates. The Committee also deliberately removed its previous easing bias.

The strongest signal in the market is not the level of inflation compensation, but the rise in real yields. Over the past 21 sessions, the 2-year nominal yield increased 18.7bp even as the inflation component fell 9.9bp; the synthetic real yield rose 28.5bp. At 10 years, almost the entire 24.2bp rise in nominal yields came from a 25.2bp rise in real yields. Inflation swaps remain relatively contained around 2.22% at two years and 2.35% at ten years.

Subscribe now

Read more

This to me matters. The Nasdaq-led decline did not coincide with a collapse in employment, a sharp deterioration in high-yield credit or an obvious break in the broader economy. Instead, the damage concentrated in the assets most exposed to duration, valuation and future cash-flow assumptions, megacap technology, AI beneficiaries, long-duration investment-grade credit and rate-sensitive equities.

The coming week will determine whether this was simply a valuation reset or the beginning of something more consequential. The Fed meets, US GDP and inflation data land, roughly one-third of the S&P 500 reports earnings, Australia releases CPI, and both the Bank of England and Bank of Japan make policy decisions.

The Week That Was: US Macro Remained Firm

The US data were stronger than the equity price action suggested.

Initial jobless claims fell to 187,000, materially below the 212,000 consensus. The July services PMI rose to 53.6, manufacturing remained expansionary at 53.8, and new-home sales increased to an annualised 628,000. The Conference Board’s leading index was softer, declining 0.2%, but the higher-frequency activity data continued to point toward expansion rather than contraction.

The composition was important. The composite PMI reached an eight-month high, with services supported by tourism, sporting events and America’s 250th-anniversary activity. At the same time, firms reported some of the strongest selling-price increases in almost four years. That is a difficult combination for the Fed, activity is holding up, but the inflationary consequences of tariffs, energy and supply disruption are becoming harder to dismiss.

Housing remained the more mixed part of the economy. New-home transaction volumes improved, but the median price fell to $398,300, down 2.7% from a year earlier, while the stock of homes for sale remained elevated at 485,000. Housing is therefore not delivering a clean reacceleration signal. Demand is functioning, but builders still need to compete on price and incentives.

The macro message was consequently not “reacceleration” in the broadest sense. It was continued resilience with less room for an adverse supply shock. Growth has not broken, but oil, tariffs and tighter financial conditions are arriving at a point when inflation remains too high for policymakers to provide an easy offset.

Subscribe now

Below I dive in to the macro action of the week and the coming week and distil the focus point for the near term. Subscribe for access to all articles and a website dedicated to global macro with G6 curves, EQ, FI, FX and Commod models and analysis (www.globalmacromethod.com)

Read more

Oil is reopening the inflation problem just as labour markets are proving too resilient to absorb it cleanly. The US–Iran conflict has widened from the Strait of Hormuz to the Red Sea, US strikes have continued for a twelfth night and rate markets are repricing central-bank hikes rather than cuts. Else where, Australia’s 76,300 employment gain is the warning that the labour market remains firm. AI spending is intact, but its hurdle rate is climbing with energy costs and real yields. Escalation, not resolution, is becoming the near-term base case.

Brent near $98 is not the most important development this morning. The important development is why it is there. Iran’s near-closure of the Strait of Hormuz has been joined by a confirmed Houthi strike on a Saudi tanker near Bab el-Mandeb and a claimed attack on a second, placing the Red Sea workaround at risk. The US has completed a twelfth consecutive night of strikes and retaliation is widening. This is no longer a temporary risk premium sitting on top of an intact disinflation story. It is becoming a policy shock.

My base case over the next few weeks is further escalation before a durable settlement. Each cycle is widening both the geography and the threatened target set, from one chokepoint to two, and from military assets and shipping to bridges and power plants.

Subscribe now

Read more

In Part 1 of the Macro Decision Engine, we started with the cycle.

Before risking capital, you need to understand the environment you are operating in. Growth, inflation and liquidity behave differently across different regimes, and the same data point can have completely different market implications depending on whether the economy is expanding, slowing, contracting, or recovering.

In Part 2, we moved from the cycle to the dominant theme.

The cycle tells you the environment. The theme tells you what the market actually cares about inside that environment. Sometimes the dominant theme is inflation. Sometimes it is growth. Sometimes it is liquidity, policy credibility, fiscal risk, geopolitics, earnings, AI, energy, China, credit stress, or positioning.

But even that is still not enough.

You can understand the cycle correctly. You can identify the dominant theme correctly. You can even have the right macro view.

And still lose money.

Because markets do not reward you for having a good story. They reward you when reality turns out differently from what was already embedded in prices.

That is why the next step in the Macro Decision Engine is understanding market pricing.

This is where macro analysis becomes market opportunity.

Subscribe now

Being Right Is Not Enough

One of the most important lessons in trading is that being right is not the same thing as making money.

A trader can correctly identify that inflation is falling, but if the market has already priced a clean disinflation path, the opportunity may be limited. A trader can correctly identify that growth is slowing, but if bonds have already rallied, curves have already steepened, credit has already widened and equities have already de-rated, the trade may be late. A trader can correctly identify that central banks are likely to cut rates, but if the market has already priced those cuts aggressively, the risk may actually be in the other direction.

This is why the question is never simply, “What do I think will happen?”

The better question is, “What does the market already believe will happen?”

And then, “Where do I disagree?”

That gap between your view and market pricing is where opportunity lives.

A macro view only becomes tradable when there is a misalignment between expectations and reality. If your view is already consensus, already reflected in positioning and already embedded in prices, then being right may not be enough. The market may need you to be more right, faster than expected, or right in a way that changes the path of future expectations.

That distinction matters.

The market does not pay you for describing the world correctly.

It pays you for identifying where the world will differ from what prices imply.

Every Price Is an Implied Forecast

The easiest way to think about markets is that every price contains an embedded forecast.

A bond yield contains expectations about inflation, growth, policy rates, term premium and risk appetite. An equity index contains expectations about earnings, margins, discount rates, liquidity and investor sentiment. A credit spread contains expectations about default risk, refinancing conditions, balance sheet stress and liquidity. A currency contains expectations about relative growth, relative rates, capital flows, external balances and risk appetite.

Prices are not random numbers on a screen.

They are compressed expressions of collective expectations.

This does not mean markets are always right. They are often wrong. But they are always saying something. The job of the macro trader is to understand what they are saying before deciding whether to disagree.

If the two-year yield is rising, the market may be pricing a more restrictive central bank path. If the yield curve is steepening, the market may be pricing future easing, higher term premium, stronger nominal growth, or fiscal risk. If credit spreads are widening while equities remain strong, the market may be sending conflicting signals about growth and risk appetite. If the dollar is strengthening, the market may be pricing relative growth outperformance, relative policy divergence, funding stress, or safe-haven demand.

The price is the starting point.

The interpretation is the work.

Subscribe now

For more research and analysis please join, all paid membership give access to www.globalmacromethod.com the best in class dashboard for macro traders

Read more

US inflation cooled, but crude jumped roughly 16 per cent, semiconductor leadership broke down and credit spreads barely moved. The coming week will test whether that calm reflects genuine resilience or a market that has not yet caught up with the risks.

A roughly 16 per cent weekly rise in crude should not sit comfortably beside a two-basis-point widening in US high-yield spreads. Yet that is where markets stood by week’s end, Brent settled on Friday at US$88.10, WTI at US$82.49, while the latest available high-yield option-adjusted spread was 2.71 per cent on Thursday, only marginally wider than a week earlier.

That mismatch is the week’s real story. June US inflation delivered genuine relief, headline CPI fell 0.4 per cent over the month, core CPI was unchanged and annual core inflation eased to 2.6 per cent. Producer prices also fell. In a quieter week, that would have been enough to make the disinflation narrative dominant.

Instead, the data arrived as renewed US–Iran hostilities repriced energy, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index entered a bear market and Fed officials resisted treating one softer month as decisive. Realised inflation improved just as prospective inflation risk worsened.

Markets did not choose between those signals, they distributed them unevenly. Treasuries barely moved, the dollar softened modestly, equities fell and credit remained almost entirely composed. That is not a coherent macro verdict. It is a set of markets working with very different assumptions about how long the oil disruption lasts, how much pricing power companies retain and whether the AI-led correction remains contained.

The Week That Was

The inflation relief was real, but its timing matters. Energy fell 5.7 per cent in June’s CPI and 6.4 per cent in the producer-price report, doing much of the work behind the softer headline numbers. Shelter inflation slowed to 0.1 per cent for the month, which is the more durable and encouraging signal. But June’s releases describe conditions before crude surged in July. They reduce the case for immediate Fed action; they do not settle the inflation outlook for later in the year.

Demand also gave the Fed no reason to rush. Retail sales rose 0.2 per cent in June, initial jobless claims fell to 208,000 and industrial production edged up 0.1 per cent. University of Michigan consumer sentiment improved to 54.4, while one-year inflation expectations eased to 4.2 per cent. This is still a picture of resilient, late-cycle activity rather than an economy asking for policy relief.

That distinction shaped the Fed message. Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan argued for “modestly higher” rates, while Chair Kevin Warsh offered little fresh guidance and cautioned against drawing a policy conclusion from one month’s data. The immediate question is therefore not whether the Fed must respond to June inflation. It is whether a persistent oil shock, still-firm demand and elevated expectations keep September tightening risk alive despite the softer core print. The next FOMC meeting is on 28–29 July.

The equity sell-off also changed character. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index finished 20.2 per cent below its 22 June high after losing more than 18 per cent in July, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq both ended the week lower. This was not yet a broad funding event: the VIX closed at 18.77 and investment-grade and high-yield spreads widened by only one and two basis points respectively. But it was a warning that the market’s most crowded growth narrative can weaken at the same time as the macro discount rate becomes harder to forecast.

By Sunday, the geopolitical risk had intensified again. The US said it had completed an eighth consecutive night of attacks on Iran after two American service members were killed in Jordan and another was reported missing. The coming week therefore begins with a contradiction that is becoming harder to ignore: oil and equity leadership are signalling greater fragility, while credit is still priced for very little disruption. One of those markets may have to concede.

Below the paywall, I examine why June’s inflation relief is less dovish than it first appears once the oil timing is considered; what near-static Treasury yields, a semiconductor bear market and immobile credit spreads reveal about the market’s underlying assumptions; and how the ECB decision, UK wages and CPI, Japan’s national CPI, global flash PMIs and major technology earnings fit together. I also set out the base case, the two credible ways it could break, and the specific signals in Brent, high-yield spreads, market breadth and USD/JPY that would change the view.

Subscribe now

Enjoying what you’re reading? Subscribe to unlock the full article and support our independent research. Paid subscribers also receive exclusive access to additional tools, analysis, and resources (models, curves, charts) at www.globalmacromethod.com.

Read more

An oil shock is reviving global hike risk and forcing a leadership rotation before the growth cycle has fully broken.

The Nasdaq selloff looks like an equity story, but the more important signal is coming from rates and sector leadership. Oil has pushed global policy curves back toward hikes just as long-dated real yields test cycle highs. At the same time, defensive and financial sectors are gaining traction while technology’s relative momentum rolls over. This is not yet a recession signal. It is a test of whether the AI earnings story can survive a higher discount rate and whether the current rotation remains orderly.

Subscribe now

Enjoying what you’re reading? Subscribe to unlock the full article and support our independent research. Paid subscribers also receive exclusive access to additional tools, analysis, and resources (models, curves, charts) at www.globalmacromethod.com.

Read more

US CPI came in cooler and the market did what it should, front-end yields fell, the odds of an immediate Fed hike were cut, and equities got some relief. The print mattered for the immediate. The leap is a little far for a call of softer month to inflation is beaten.

The better read is in the shape of the repricing. Near-dated SOFR rallied, but the deferred curve still embeds about 45bp of tightening into next spring. Australia tells the same story in smaller size, with roughly two-thirds of a 25bp hike still in the bank-bill curve by year-end. Both central banks have more time. Neither has an all-clear.

This is the value of looking across the dashboard found on www.globalmacromethod.com rather than stopping at the headlines. A release tells you what just happened. STIRs, nominal and real yields, equity breadth and inflation-sensitive equities tell you what the market believes about the regime. Right now, those signals do not line up with a clean disinflationary glide path.

Below, I work through what the CPI print changed, why the economy remains harder to slow than the rates narrative implies, where hikes remain live, and why the same AI complex supporting growth is also making the equity market more concentrated than the headline indices suggest.

Subscribe now

Enjoying what you’re reading? Subscribe to unlock the full article and support our independent research. Paid subscribers also receive exclusive access to additional tools, analysis, and resources at www.globalmacromethod.com.

Read more