Offshore
Photo
WealthyReadings
🚨BREAKING: The $610 Billion AI Ponzi Scheme Is Not A Ponzi Scheme
Here’s why $NVDA isn’t the disaster the algorithms - and the bears, want you to think it is. Far from it.
Shanaka’s argument claims that Nvidia’s rising inventory, receivables, and DSO suggest demand is slowing and the company is pushing more product than customers can absorb, in terms of need and payment.
In brief: no more demand nor cash to pay for their GPUs.
1. Rising Inventory ≠ Red Flag
Shanaka says rising inventory is evidence of weak demand, but ignores $NVDA pricing - and many other factors we'll talk about.
When unit prices double or triple, the same volume of hardware shows up as a larger dollar value in inventories.
You'll have more bananas for $1M that airplanes, right? Just like you'll have more H100 than GB200.
When we normalize inventory by revenue - or by units shipped, the trend is stable, suggesting this is a pricing effect, not a demand problem and rising inventory in volume.
This can also be illustrated with accounts receivable per revenue, which make the same point: when product prices increase, dollar-denominated metrics rise, so metrics taken individually may look bad but within context, the story looks normal.
That being said, many could point that even then, inventory is rising. To which we need to add context, something algorythms are incapable of.
2. Higher DSO & Supply Chain Constraints
DSO - which represents the time before being paid, rising slightly is consistent with real-world constraints.
$NVDA doesn’t just ship GPUs anymore; they ship racks, custom configurations, integrated systems… These use third-party components, which require more coordination, harder logistics, and can temporarily increase time before revenue recognition and therefore inventory.
Add to this the fact that foundries, as proven many times these quarters during $TSM & co earnings, run at full capacity, and you get even more delays.
More customization + constrained supply chains = longer installation cycles before revenue can be recognized and rising inventories until then.
This is an operational bottleneck, not a credit problem.
A move from 46 to 53 days is marginal especially considering this value has been roughly stable for three quarters.
3. Circular Economy
As for the claims about a circular economy and the same dollars being used across multiple companies, I have no counters but this: circular economies are normal, that’s how economies work.
It only becomes a problem if AI services do not generate enough cash to honor commitments.
Because that’s what those are: commitments, not booked revenues. If those commitments can be honored, then what is the problem?
4. Algorithms Don’t Understand Context
Shanaka claims that this was thankfully found by algorithm - and I can agree with him based on the market's behaviour and violence. But he forgets that algorythm are built to find fraud in 99% of cases.
But $NVDA is the 1%.
When revenue grows 60–80% YoY, it's normal for inventories, receivables, and payables to grow at least comparably in dollar terms. Maybe even slightly higher when added real-world constraints.
What matters is whether these metrics grow disproportionately relative to revenue.
And once normalized, $NVDA ratios are stable, which is consistent with a rapid ongoing expansion, not accounting games or demand collapse.
That being said, everything isn’t necessarily perfect. But again: algorithms are configured to gauge 99% of the market, so of course the 1% will raise red flags.
Add some organic grey cells, context and reality, and the picture is very different, even if the stock continues to fall.
The market is about emotions, not rationality. And X is great at sharing emotions, less for rationality.
Conclusion.
I might be proven wrong in time and $NVDA might be an accounting fraud. I personally continue to believe in the AI revolution, have my own concerns about the circular eco[...]
🚨BREAKING: The $610 Billion AI Ponzi Scheme Is Not A Ponzi Scheme
Here’s why $NVDA isn’t the disaster the algorithms - and the bears, want you to think it is. Far from it.
Shanaka’s argument claims that Nvidia’s rising inventory, receivables, and DSO suggest demand is slowing and the company is pushing more product than customers can absorb, in terms of need and payment.
In brief: no more demand nor cash to pay for their GPUs.
1. Rising Inventory ≠ Red Flag
Shanaka says rising inventory is evidence of weak demand, but ignores $NVDA pricing - and many other factors we'll talk about.
When unit prices double or triple, the same volume of hardware shows up as a larger dollar value in inventories.
You'll have more bananas for $1M that airplanes, right? Just like you'll have more H100 than GB200.
When we normalize inventory by revenue - or by units shipped, the trend is stable, suggesting this is a pricing effect, not a demand problem and rising inventory in volume.
This can also be illustrated with accounts receivable per revenue, which make the same point: when product prices increase, dollar-denominated metrics rise, so metrics taken individually may look bad but within context, the story looks normal.
That being said, many could point that even then, inventory is rising. To which we need to add context, something algorythms are incapable of.
2. Higher DSO & Supply Chain Constraints
DSO - which represents the time before being paid, rising slightly is consistent with real-world constraints.
$NVDA doesn’t just ship GPUs anymore; they ship racks, custom configurations, integrated systems… These use third-party components, which require more coordination, harder logistics, and can temporarily increase time before revenue recognition and therefore inventory.
Add to this the fact that foundries, as proven many times these quarters during $TSM & co earnings, run at full capacity, and you get even more delays.
More customization + constrained supply chains = longer installation cycles before revenue can be recognized and rising inventories until then.
This is an operational bottleneck, not a credit problem.
A move from 46 to 53 days is marginal especially considering this value has been roughly stable for three quarters.
3. Circular Economy
As for the claims about a circular economy and the same dollars being used across multiple companies, I have no counters but this: circular economies are normal, that’s how economies work.
It only becomes a problem if AI services do not generate enough cash to honor commitments.
Because that’s what those are: commitments, not booked revenues. If those commitments can be honored, then what is the problem?
4. Algorithms Don’t Understand Context
Shanaka claims that this was thankfully found by algorithm - and I can agree with him based on the market's behaviour and violence. But he forgets that algorythm are built to find fraud in 99% of cases.
But $NVDA is the 1%.
When revenue grows 60–80% YoY, it's normal for inventories, receivables, and payables to grow at least comparably in dollar terms. Maybe even slightly higher when added real-world constraints.
What matters is whether these metrics grow disproportionately relative to revenue.
And once normalized, $NVDA ratios are stable, which is consistent with a rapid ongoing expansion, not accounting games or demand collapse.
That being said, everything isn’t necessarily perfect. But again: algorithms are configured to gauge 99% of the market, so of course the 1% will raise red flags.
Add some organic grey cells, context and reality, and the picture is very different, even if the stock continues to fall.
The market is about emotions, not rationality. And X is great at sharing emotions, less for rationality.
Conclusion.
I might be proven wrong in time and $NVDA might be an accounting fraud. I personally continue to believe in the AI revolution, have my own concerns about the circular eco[...]
Offshore
WealthyReadings 🚨BREAKING: The $610 Billion AI Ponzi Scheme Is Not A Ponzi Scheme Here’s why $NVDA isn’t the disaster the algorithms - and the bears, want you to think it is. Far from it. Shanaka’s argument claims that Nvidia’s rising inventory, receivables…
nomy but did not find any indications that AI won't yield cash flow and that commitments can't be honored as of today.
I continue to be bullish. And shared all my moves and reasoning with subscribers yesterday.
The future is bright for those with a system.
tweet
I continue to be bullish. And shared all my moves and reasoning with subscribers yesterday.
The future is bright for those with a system.
BREAKING: The $610 Billion AI Ponzi Scheme Just Collapsed
Last night at 4pm EST, something unprecedented happened. Nvidia stock rallied 5% on earnings, then crashed into negative territory within 18 hours. Wall Street algorithms detected what humans couldn’t: the numbers don’t add up.
Here’s what they found.
Nvidia reported $33.4 billion in unpaid bills, up 89% in one year. Customers who bought chips haven’t paid for them yet. The average wait time for payment stretched from 46 days to 53 days. That extra week represents $10.4 billion that may never arrive.
Meanwhile, Nvidia stockpiled $19.8 billion in unsold chips, up 32% in three months. But management claims demand is insane and supply is constrained. Both cannot be true. Either customers aren’t buying or they’re buying without cash.
The cash flow tells the real story. Nvidia generated $14.5 billion in actual cash but reported $19.3 billion in profit. The gap is $4.8 billion. Healthy chip companies like TSMC and AMD convert over 95% of profits to cash. Nvidia converts 75%. That’s distress level.
Here’s where it gets criminal.
Nvidia gave $2 billion to xAI. xAI borrowed $12.5 billion to buy Nvidia chips. Microsoft gave OpenAI $13 billion. OpenAI committed $50 billion to buy Microsoft cloud. Microsoft ordered $100 billion in Nvidia chips for that cloud. Oracle gave OpenAI $300 billion in cloud credits. OpenAI ordered Nvidia chips for Oracle data centers.
The same dollars circle through different companies and get counted as revenue multiple times. Nvidia books sales, but nobody actually pays. The bills age. The inventory piles up. The cash never comes.
AI company CEOs admitted it themselves last week. Airbnb’s CEO called it vibe revenue. OpenAI burns $9.3 billion per year but makes $3.7 billion. That’s a $5.6 billion annual loss. The $157 billion valuation requires $3.1 trillion in future profits that MIT research shows 95% of AI projects will never generate.
Peter Thiel sold $100 million in Nvidia on November 9. SoftBank dumped $5.8 billion on November 11. Michael Burry bought put options betting Nvidia crashes to $140 by March 2026.
Bitcoin, which tracks AI speculation, dropped from $126,000 in October to $89,567 today. That’s a 29% crash. AI startups hold $26.8 billion in Bitcoin as collateral for loans. When Nvidia falls another 40%, those loans default, forcing $23 billion in Bitcoin sales, crashing crypto to $52,000.
The timeline is now certain. February 2026, Nvidia reports fourth quarter and reveals how many bills aged past 60 days. March 2026, credit agencies downgrade. April 2026, the first restatement. The fraud that took 18 months to build unwinds in 90 days.
Fair value for Nvidia: $71 per share. Current price: $186. The math is simple.
This is the fastest moving financial fraud in history because algorithms detected it in real time. Human investors are 90 days behind.
Read the full data driven deep dive article here - https://t.co/sDEf5Mdrtc tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
When a Fed Governor Starts Talking Like This, Pay Attention
Lisa Cook’s speech reads like someone who knows the surface numbers no longer match what’s happening underneath. She opens with the required line about resilience, but the rest of her remarks make it obvious she doesn’t actually believe the economy is in a comfortable place. She walks straight into valuations, private credit, and hedge fund Treasury exposure because those are the cracks that widen before the labor market breaks.
When a Fed Governor chooses those topics, she’s not trying to reassure anyone. She’s letting you know the foundation is thinning.
The Message Beneath the Polite Language
Cook emphasizes that asset valuations look high relative to fundamentals and that the compensation for taking risk is unusually low. That’s Fed code for…
“If growth keeps slipping, prices don’t have much support.”
She also points to private credit doubling in five years, and stresses that recent bankruptcies have produced losses across banks, hedge funds, insurers, and specialty lenders. She’s careful not to call it systemic, but she doesn’t have to, the point is that the stress is already showing up in the places that tighten first when the economy turns.
And her discussion of hedge funds in the Treasury market now holding more than 10% of outstanding securities is arguably the most important part. Those relative value trades work beautifully in quiet markets. They become a problem the moment liquidity dries up. The way she describes it, and the examples she cites, make it clear the Fed sees this as a direct channel through which market turbulence can spill into financing, yields, and ultimately the real economy.
What This Foreshadows for an Economy Already Slowing
She repeatedly reminds the audience that financial stress hits jobs with a lag and she reaches back to the Lehman to Michigan example to show how fast that chain can move. Her point isn’t nostalgia. It’s a warning that the economy is losing momentum, the labor market is softening, and the financial system is more exposed to sudden tightening than the headline data suggests.
This is the Fed acknowledging that we’re late in the cycle, assets are priced for earlier conditions, and the shock absorbers have gotten thinner. You don’t need a 2008 style blowup for things to get messy. You just need a sharp correction in one of the vulnerable pockets she named like private credit, levered Treasury trades, or overvalued risk assets and the slowdown we’re already in will accelerate.
Cook is effectively saying that the system may not break, but the real economy is in no position to absorb another hit.
The Real Signal Is A Softening Economy With Rising Fragility
If you strip away the careful phrasing, the speech sits in a very specific place:
the Fed can see the slowdown, they can see the fragility around it, and they’re publicly preparing the narrative for bumpier conditions ahead.
She’s not pretending things are fine.
She’s telling you why the next leg down in the economy would show up faster and spread further than people expect.
And that’s the kind of message a policymaker only sends when the cycle is already turning.
tweet
When a Fed Governor Starts Talking Like This, Pay Attention
Lisa Cook’s speech reads like someone who knows the surface numbers no longer match what’s happening underneath. She opens with the required line about resilience, but the rest of her remarks make it obvious she doesn’t actually believe the economy is in a comfortable place. She walks straight into valuations, private credit, and hedge fund Treasury exposure because those are the cracks that widen before the labor market breaks.
When a Fed Governor chooses those topics, she’s not trying to reassure anyone. She’s letting you know the foundation is thinning.
The Message Beneath the Polite Language
Cook emphasizes that asset valuations look high relative to fundamentals and that the compensation for taking risk is unusually low. That’s Fed code for…
“If growth keeps slipping, prices don’t have much support.”
She also points to private credit doubling in five years, and stresses that recent bankruptcies have produced losses across banks, hedge funds, insurers, and specialty lenders. She’s careful not to call it systemic, but she doesn’t have to, the point is that the stress is already showing up in the places that tighten first when the economy turns.
And her discussion of hedge funds in the Treasury market now holding more than 10% of outstanding securities is arguably the most important part. Those relative value trades work beautifully in quiet markets. They become a problem the moment liquidity dries up. The way she describes it, and the examples she cites, make it clear the Fed sees this as a direct channel through which market turbulence can spill into financing, yields, and ultimately the real economy.
What This Foreshadows for an Economy Already Slowing
She repeatedly reminds the audience that financial stress hits jobs with a lag and she reaches back to the Lehman to Michigan example to show how fast that chain can move. Her point isn’t nostalgia. It’s a warning that the economy is losing momentum, the labor market is softening, and the financial system is more exposed to sudden tightening than the headline data suggests.
This is the Fed acknowledging that we’re late in the cycle, assets are priced for earlier conditions, and the shock absorbers have gotten thinner. You don’t need a 2008 style blowup for things to get messy. You just need a sharp correction in one of the vulnerable pockets she named like private credit, levered Treasury trades, or overvalued risk assets and the slowdown we’re already in will accelerate.
Cook is effectively saying that the system may not break, but the real economy is in no position to absorb another hit.
The Real Signal Is A Softening Economy With Rising Fragility
If you strip away the careful phrasing, the speech sits in a very specific place:
the Fed can see the slowdown, they can see the fragility around it, and they’re publicly preparing the narrative for bumpier conditions ahead.
She’s not pretending things are fine.
She’s telling you why the next leg down in the economy would show up faster and spread further than people expect.
And that’s the kind of message a policymaker only sends when the cycle is already turning.
On November 20, 2025, Governor Cook delivered a speech on financial stability @GUFinPolicy: https://t.co/MDwqqVV0dq https://t.co/gEyTXYOeZl tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
What the Front End Sees Before Anyone Else
When you look at the 2, 3 and 5 year yields together, the message is pretty direct…the economy is cooling, financial conditions are tighter than the headlines suggest, and the bond market is quietly preparing for a softer, slower stretch ahead.
These yields don’t move lower like this when growth is strong and credit is expanding. They move lower when demand is fading, the labor market is losing momentum, and the Fed’s stance feels too restrictive for where the cycle is headed.
And that’s exactly what’s showing up here.
The 2 and 3 Year Are Speaking for the Fed
Yields in the mid 3s tell you the market is no longer pricing the world the Fed is describing, it’s pricing the world the data is slipping toward. Historically, when the front end drops below the policy rate and stays there, it means investors expect cuts not because inflation is conquered, but because growth is weakening and the Fed won’t be able to keep rates this high without breaking something underneath.
This is that setup of a softening economy still carrying a tight policy stance.
The 5 Year Is Speaking for the Economy
The 5 year tends to blend everything together with inflation, growth, policy, and a bit of term premium. When it lives only a hair above the 2 year, it’s usually the market’s way of saying that whatever strength the economy had is fading, and the next few years are going to look slower, more cautious, less exuberant.
You don’t see a 5 year slipping quietly into the mid 3s unless the market thinks the long run trajectory is bending lower.
It’s a sign of cooling demand, not renewed momentum.
Put Together, the Curve Is Telling a Familiar Late Cycle Story
When the belly of the curve drifts down with the front end, it almost always means that the economy is easing into a downturn whether policymakers admit it or not. It doesn’t have to be a recession tomorrow but it’s that classic in between moment where hiring slows, credit runs tighter, and small cracks start appearing before the big numbers catch up.
This is the bond market signaling that the current rate environment is too heavy for a weakening economy to carry much longer.
My Read Is Simple
These yields aren’t celebrating a soft landing, they’re preparing for a softer economy.
tweet
What the Front End Sees Before Anyone Else
When you look at the 2, 3 and 5 year yields together, the message is pretty direct…the economy is cooling, financial conditions are tighter than the headlines suggest, and the bond market is quietly preparing for a softer, slower stretch ahead.
These yields don’t move lower like this when growth is strong and credit is expanding. They move lower when demand is fading, the labor market is losing momentum, and the Fed’s stance feels too restrictive for where the cycle is headed.
And that’s exactly what’s showing up here.
The 2 and 3 Year Are Speaking for the Fed
Yields in the mid 3s tell you the market is no longer pricing the world the Fed is describing, it’s pricing the world the data is slipping toward. Historically, when the front end drops below the policy rate and stays there, it means investors expect cuts not because inflation is conquered, but because growth is weakening and the Fed won’t be able to keep rates this high without breaking something underneath.
This is that setup of a softening economy still carrying a tight policy stance.
The 5 Year Is Speaking for the Economy
The 5 year tends to blend everything together with inflation, growth, policy, and a bit of term premium. When it lives only a hair above the 2 year, it’s usually the market’s way of saying that whatever strength the economy had is fading, and the next few years are going to look slower, more cautious, less exuberant.
You don’t see a 5 year slipping quietly into the mid 3s unless the market thinks the long run trajectory is bending lower.
It’s a sign of cooling demand, not renewed momentum.
Put Together, the Curve Is Telling a Familiar Late Cycle Story
When the belly of the curve drifts down with the front end, it almost always means that the economy is easing into a downturn whether policymakers admit it or not. It doesn’t have to be a recession tomorrow but it’s that classic in between moment where hiring slows, credit runs tighter, and small cracks start appearing before the big numbers catch up.
This is the bond market signaling that the current rate environment is too heavy for a weakening economy to carry much longer.
My Read Is Simple
These yields aren’t celebrating a soft landing, they’re preparing for a softer economy.
https://t.co/UkDA24p2gt tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
Behind the Wallet Moves And BlackRock’s Real Message
A few thousand BTC moving from IBIT’s cold wallets to Coinbase Prime triggers the usual panic, but when you think about how a firm like BlackRock actually operates, the transfer looks less like a warning shot and more like basic housekeeping. Big asset managers don’t move assets this size unless they need more flexibility, and flexibility usually means the environment got choppier and the ETF can’t sit in autopilot anymore. It’s a sign of preparation.
They’re Bringing Inventory Closer to the Desk
ETFs look simple from the outside, but a lot of plumbing is happening underneath. When flows are steady and the trend is clean, Bitcoin just sits in deep cold storage. Nobody touches it. But the moment flows get volatile with some out, some in, prices swinging in both directions the manager needs coins where they can actually do something with them. Coinbase Prime is basically the ETF’s workbench. It’s where BlackRock can settle trades, meet redemptions, hedge risk, or tighten the ETF’s tracking when volatility picks up. In that context, moving coins into Prime isn’t an emotional decision; it’s just good operational hygiene.
And because Coinbase is the custodian, the liquidity partner, and a company BlackRock owns a stake in, this pipeline is baked into IBIT’s design. Transfers to Coinbase Prime are the system functioning exactly as intended.
It Doesn’t Mean They’re Quietly Selling Everything
If BlackRock wanted to reduce exposure without the entire market noticing, this is the last way they’d do it. They’d use derivatives, OTC block trades, swaps, or internal hedging long before they’d route big sales through a publicly visible address. The transfer doesn’t tell you they’re selling; it tells you they want the coins available in case they need to sell, hedge, rebalance, or handle redemptions. It’s a posture shift, not a thesis shift.
The Real Signal Here
The real takeaway is simply that the environment has changed. Bitcoin’s smooth climb has turned into a more two sided tape, flows are less predictable, and volatility is waking up. This is what big, boring institutions do when conditions shift…they move inventory from the vault to the staging area so they’re ready for whatever comes next. Nothing here screams abandon ship. It says markets are moving so let’s be ready to move with them.
Crypto always sees fireworks in these transfers. BlackRock sees routine preparation.
tweet
Behind the Wallet Moves And BlackRock’s Real Message
A few thousand BTC moving from IBIT’s cold wallets to Coinbase Prime triggers the usual panic, but when you think about how a firm like BlackRock actually operates, the transfer looks less like a warning shot and more like basic housekeeping. Big asset managers don’t move assets this size unless they need more flexibility, and flexibility usually means the environment got choppier and the ETF can’t sit in autopilot anymore. It’s a sign of preparation.
They’re Bringing Inventory Closer to the Desk
ETFs look simple from the outside, but a lot of plumbing is happening underneath. When flows are steady and the trend is clean, Bitcoin just sits in deep cold storage. Nobody touches it. But the moment flows get volatile with some out, some in, prices swinging in both directions the manager needs coins where they can actually do something with them. Coinbase Prime is basically the ETF’s workbench. It’s where BlackRock can settle trades, meet redemptions, hedge risk, or tighten the ETF’s tracking when volatility picks up. In that context, moving coins into Prime isn’t an emotional decision; it’s just good operational hygiene.
And because Coinbase is the custodian, the liquidity partner, and a company BlackRock owns a stake in, this pipeline is baked into IBIT’s design. Transfers to Coinbase Prime are the system functioning exactly as intended.
It Doesn’t Mean They’re Quietly Selling Everything
If BlackRock wanted to reduce exposure without the entire market noticing, this is the last way they’d do it. They’d use derivatives, OTC block trades, swaps, or internal hedging long before they’d route big sales through a publicly visible address. The transfer doesn’t tell you they’re selling; it tells you they want the coins available in case they need to sell, hedge, rebalance, or handle redemptions. It’s a posture shift, not a thesis shift.
The Real Signal Here
The real takeaway is simply that the environment has changed. Bitcoin’s smooth climb has turned into a more two sided tape, flows are less predictable, and volatility is waking up. This is what big, boring institutions do when conditions shift…they move inventory from the vault to the staging area so they’re ready for whatever comes next. Nothing here screams abandon ship. It says markets are moving so let’s be ready to move with them.
Crypto always sees fireworks in these transfers. BlackRock sees routine preparation.
🚨BREAKING: BLACKROCK MOVES CRYPTO TO COINBASE
BlackRock just sent 4,198 BTC ($348M) and 43,237 ETH ($117M) to Coinbase. tweet
Wasteland Capital
Retail check: KILLER earnings reports from $ROST and $GAP, after the blow-out from $WMT yesterday. All showed strong acceleration across the board in Q3, and guidance was even stronger. Definitely no weakness!
Well-managed companies killing it, dumb ones blaming “the consumer”.
tweet
Retail check: KILLER earnings reports from $ROST and $GAP, after the blow-out from $WMT yesterday. All showed strong acceleration across the board in Q3, and guidance was even stronger. Definitely no weakness!
Well-managed companies killing it, dumb ones blaming “the consumer”.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
The Market Just Told the Fed That They’re Out of Time
The jump from 28% to 71% odds of a December rate cut is the market admitting the slowdown is becoming too obvious to ignore. When cut probabilities move that sharply in a single day, it’s never about one number. It’s about the direction the data is moving…labor softening, cracks in spending, credit tightening, and a tone from the Fed that suddenly feels a little less confident.
Markets don’t behave like this when things are stable. They behave like this when they sense the Fed is losing the luxury of patience.
A Rate Cut Isn’t the Fix People Think It Is
Even if the Fed cuts and the odds now say that’s increasingly likely it won’t solve what’s happening beneath the surface. Cuts this late in the cycle are almost always reactive. They happen because the slowdown is already pressing in, not because the Fed wants to juice growth or save markets.
A 25bp cut doesn’t make banks lend again.
It doesn’t reverse rising delinquencies.
It doesn’t revive margins or undo two years of rate pressure on households and small businesses.
Cuts don’t turn a deteriorating economy into a healthy one. They simply acknowledge that the deterioration is real.
What the Fed Says vs. What the Fed Is Managing
The Fed has to speak in a certain tone. They need to sound measured, in control, focused on inflation, focused on credibility. But anyone who watches them closely knows that the public script is never the full story.
Behind the curtain, they’re juggling things they can’t say out loud…geopolitical pressure, global dollar funding, fiscal stress, the softening in labor, and the slow grind of higher rates filtering through the real economy. Inflation was their headline concern, but forward looking inflation isn’t the constraint anymore…growth is.
That’s why ending QT on December 1st matters. That’s why two straight cuts matter. Those are big moves dressed up in calm language. Ending QT is the balance sheet version of easing. You don’t hit the brakes on tightening unless you’re worried the financial system or the economy is getting brittle.
The Fed may not want to cut in December, but the market is signaling that they may not have the option.
Where This Really Leaves Us
The Fed would love to engineer a clean landing. They’d like inflation to drift gently lower, hiring to stay soft but stable, and the economy to cool without actually slowing. But the data isn’t cooperating. The landing is wobbling. And once the underlying economy weakens enough, cuts aren’t a choice they’re the path of least regret. A cut won’t save the cycle. It will simply mark the moment the Fed stops pretending the old script still fits.
tweet
The Market Just Told the Fed That They’re Out of Time
The jump from 28% to 71% odds of a December rate cut is the market admitting the slowdown is becoming too obvious to ignore. When cut probabilities move that sharply in a single day, it’s never about one number. It’s about the direction the data is moving…labor softening, cracks in spending, credit tightening, and a tone from the Fed that suddenly feels a little less confident.
Markets don’t behave like this when things are stable. They behave like this when they sense the Fed is losing the luxury of patience.
A Rate Cut Isn’t the Fix People Think It Is
Even if the Fed cuts and the odds now say that’s increasingly likely it won’t solve what’s happening beneath the surface. Cuts this late in the cycle are almost always reactive. They happen because the slowdown is already pressing in, not because the Fed wants to juice growth or save markets.
A 25bp cut doesn’t make banks lend again.
It doesn’t reverse rising delinquencies.
It doesn’t revive margins or undo two years of rate pressure on households and small businesses.
Cuts don’t turn a deteriorating economy into a healthy one. They simply acknowledge that the deterioration is real.
What the Fed Says vs. What the Fed Is Managing
The Fed has to speak in a certain tone. They need to sound measured, in control, focused on inflation, focused on credibility. But anyone who watches them closely knows that the public script is never the full story.
Behind the curtain, they’re juggling things they can’t say out loud…geopolitical pressure, global dollar funding, fiscal stress, the softening in labor, and the slow grind of higher rates filtering through the real economy. Inflation was their headline concern, but forward looking inflation isn’t the constraint anymore…growth is.
That’s why ending QT on December 1st matters. That’s why two straight cuts matter. Those are big moves dressed up in calm language. Ending QT is the balance sheet version of easing. You don’t hit the brakes on tightening unless you’re worried the financial system or the economy is getting brittle.
The Fed may not want to cut in December, but the market is signaling that they may not have the option.
Where This Really Leaves Us
The Fed would love to engineer a clean landing. They’d like inflation to drift gently lower, hiring to stay soft but stable, and the economy to cool without actually slowing. But the data isn’t cooperating. The landing is wobbling. And once the underlying economy weakens enough, cuts aren’t a choice they’re the path of least regret. A cut won’t save the cycle. It will simply mark the moment the Fed stops pretending the old script still fits.
What a difference a day (and a comment from Williams on FOMC) makes … pre-jobs report yesterday, odds for a Dec rate cut were 28% … now at 71%
@CMEGroup https://t.co/VXycxK0Cjg tweet