Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
The Challenger Report: Behind the Headlines, The Labor Market Is Losing Altitude
November’s layoff number looks calmer at first glance: 71,321 cuts, far below October’s spike. But the moment you zoom out, the mood shifts. That 71k is still up 24% from last year, still the highest November since 2022, and one of the only Novembers since 2008 to break above 70,000.
Healthy late year labor markets don’t behave this way. Companies don’t trim into the holidays unless they’re bracing for slower demand. Even the report itself notes how rare this threshold is outside recessionary chapters. The monthly drop matters but the level matters more.
And the level says the labor market isn’t easing. It’s tightening.
The real signal is the hiring drought
Layoffs tell you how companies react. Hiring tells you what they believe. And this report makes that belief painfully clear that the planned hires through November are down 35%, the lowest since 2010. Seasonal hiring is also at its lowest level on record, and Challenger found no new seasonal hiring plans in November.
That’s the part you can’t spin. When businesses feel confident, they hire ahead of demand. When they’re unsure, they pause. And pauses like this usually show up months before the broader economy slows. It’s the first real sign the engine is losing torque.
You see the same tone in the sectors blinking first. Retail layoffs are up 139%, tied to softening demand and tariff uncertainty. Services, normally the stabilizer more than doubled their cuts from October.
It isn’t collapse. It’s drift. Drift is quieter, and more telling.
Why the policy layoffs narrative doesn’t actually comfort me
A huge portion of this year’s cuts are tied to government restructuring. DOGE related actions total nearly 294,000, with another 20,976 coming from downstream funding losses.
At first glance, that softens the signal. It gives people an easy explanation that this isn’t economic weakness, it’s just government adjustments. But the effect on the real economy is the same. A contractor who loses funding still spends less. A nonprofit cutting staff still removes demand. These layoffs ripple outward the same way cyclical cuts do.
So instead of invalidating recession risk, DOGE actually amplifies it by tightening labor conditions in the very sectors that support local economies.
What this report is really saying about where things are heading
Taken together, the data doesn’t look like an economy preparing for another year of solid growth. It looks like one that’s bracing. Restructuring is high, hiring is low, demand facing industries are cutting early, and the cumulative layoff count of 1.17 million through November sits right in the range of past recession years.
This doesn’t feel like a sudden break. It feels like a slow turn, a labor market that’s no longer absorbing shocks, but starting to transmit them. Companies aren’t panicking; they’re preparing. Households aren’t collapsing; they’re hesitating. And hesitation is usually the first real sign the cycle is shifting.
My View
The economy hasn’t crashed, but it’s no longer climbing. It’s drifting into a slower, more fragile 2026. And unless hiring rebounds early next year, the conversation moves from soft landing to recession almost automatically not because something dramatic happened, but because the ground quietly shifted underneath us.
tweet
The Challenger Report: Behind the Headlines, The Labor Market Is Losing Altitude
November’s layoff number looks calmer at first glance: 71,321 cuts, far below October’s spike. But the moment you zoom out, the mood shifts. That 71k is still up 24% from last year, still the highest November since 2022, and one of the only Novembers since 2008 to break above 70,000.
Healthy late year labor markets don’t behave this way. Companies don’t trim into the holidays unless they’re bracing for slower demand. Even the report itself notes how rare this threshold is outside recessionary chapters. The monthly drop matters but the level matters more.
And the level says the labor market isn’t easing. It’s tightening.
The real signal is the hiring drought
Layoffs tell you how companies react. Hiring tells you what they believe. And this report makes that belief painfully clear that the planned hires through November are down 35%, the lowest since 2010. Seasonal hiring is also at its lowest level on record, and Challenger found no new seasonal hiring plans in November.
That’s the part you can’t spin. When businesses feel confident, they hire ahead of demand. When they’re unsure, they pause. And pauses like this usually show up months before the broader economy slows. It’s the first real sign the engine is losing torque.
You see the same tone in the sectors blinking first. Retail layoffs are up 139%, tied to softening demand and tariff uncertainty. Services, normally the stabilizer more than doubled their cuts from October.
It isn’t collapse. It’s drift. Drift is quieter, and more telling.
Why the policy layoffs narrative doesn’t actually comfort me
A huge portion of this year’s cuts are tied to government restructuring. DOGE related actions total nearly 294,000, with another 20,976 coming from downstream funding losses.
At first glance, that softens the signal. It gives people an easy explanation that this isn’t economic weakness, it’s just government adjustments. But the effect on the real economy is the same. A contractor who loses funding still spends less. A nonprofit cutting staff still removes demand. These layoffs ripple outward the same way cyclical cuts do.
So instead of invalidating recession risk, DOGE actually amplifies it by tightening labor conditions in the very sectors that support local economies.
What this report is really saying about where things are heading
Taken together, the data doesn’t look like an economy preparing for another year of solid growth. It looks like one that’s bracing. Restructuring is high, hiring is low, demand facing industries are cutting early, and the cumulative layoff count of 1.17 million through November sits right in the range of past recession years.
This doesn’t feel like a sudden break. It feels like a slow turn, a labor market that’s no longer absorbing shocks, but starting to transmit them. Companies aren’t panicking; they’re preparing. Households aren’t collapsing; they’re hesitating. And hesitation is usually the first real sign the cycle is shifting.
My View
The economy hasn’t crashed, but it’s no longer climbing. It’s drifting into a slower, more fragile 2026. And unless hiring rebounds early next year, the conversation moves from soft landing to recession almost automatically not because something dramatic happened, but because the ground quietly shifted underneath us.
tweet
WealthyReadings
"we are talking about significant survival difference, significant improvement in post-transplant complication rate."
"... based on 9,000 livers we have done, we are convinced that it should be malpractice if the livers are not put on the OCS"
- Waleed Hassanein, CEO $TMDX
tweet
"we are talking about significant survival difference, significant improvement in post-transplant complication rate."
"... based on 9,000 livers we have done, we are convinced that it should be malpractice if the livers are not put on the OCS"
- Waleed Hassanein, CEO $TMDX
tweet
Offshore
Photo
WealthyReadings
"The 10,000 is, as far as we’re concerned, something we are highly confident that we will achieve by 2028."
My valuation based on this transplant volume target would bring $TMDX ~$295 at a 9x P/S for a 26% CAGR by FY28.
And Waleed tells me this is the floor. Not the ceiling.
tweet
"The 10,000 is, as far as we’re concerned, something we are highly confident that we will achieve by 2028."
My valuation based on this transplant volume target would bring $TMDX ~$295 at a 9x P/S for a 26% CAGR by FY28.
And Waleed tells me this is the floor. Not the ceiling.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Fiscal.ai
Apple v. NVIDIA
Which would you rather own at current prices?
Forward EV/EBIT:
$AAPL 28.9x
$NVDA 21.6x https://t.co/syaYxqk0HD
tweet
Apple v. NVIDIA
Which would you rather own at current prices?
Forward EV/EBIT:
$AAPL 28.9x
$NVDA 21.6x https://t.co/syaYxqk0HD
tweet
Offshore
Video
Quiver Quantitative
Senator Josh Hawley has proposed that healthcare spending be deducted from taxes. https://t.co/2IefiUGPBq
tweet
Senator Josh Hawley has proposed that healthcare spending be deducted from taxes. https://t.co/2IefiUGPBq
tweet
Offshore
Photo
WealthyReadings
$PATH is up 37% since that post.
And no one said thank you.
tweet
$PATH is up 37% since that post.
And no one said thank you.
Finished looking into $PATH: I’m not convinced, mainly due to ARR dollar growth deceleration.
I understand the bull case. But until the data backs it up, I’ll stay out.
That said, $PATH has one of the best chart on the market and reports next week.
Now onto $ZETA. Which one should I check next? tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
The IMF’s Stablecoin Warning Is Really a Roadmap for the Future of Money
Once you read past the surface optimism, the IMF paper is making a straightforward point that stablecoins aren’t growing because people suddenly fell in love with crypto, they’re growing because the global payments system is slow, fragmented, and expensive. And people are quietly opting out of that friction.
The IMF lays out the math. The two largest stablecoins have tripled in size since 2023, reaching a combined $260 billion, with $23 trillion in trading volume in 2024. Asia now processes more stablecoin activity than North America, and relative to GDP, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America stand out as the fastest adopters.
And the chart on page 3 of this shows the deeper truth that stablecoins today are mostly backed by U.S. Treasuries, meaning these crypto dollars are really just digital wrappers around the safest collateral pool on the planet.
But the IMF’s tone changes when it outlines the risks. Stablecoins make cross-border payments dramatically cheaper, some remittances still cost up to 20% yet those same efficiencies can hollow out weaker currencies, bypass capital controls, and erode monetary sovereignty.
When the IMF warns stablecoins could reshape capital flow and exchange rate dynamics, it’s really pointing at the stress building under emerging markets as global liquidity tightens.
And when it notes that regulation is uneven, oversight gaps encourage arbitrage, and some countries are even considering granting stablecoin issuers central bank liquidity, you can see the direction clearly. This isn’t about killing stablecoins. It’s about preparing to contain them.
Where this is actually heading
This is where the paper I read from the BIS titled “On Par: A Money View of Stablecoins” provides the missing frame. The BIS strips away the hype and says stablecoins are essentially on chain private dollar deposits, a digital replay of the eurodollar era.
And the BIS is blunt about the real weakness which isn’t solvency…it’s liquidity. A stablecoin can be fully backed and still collapse if everyone runs for the exit at once. The Terra collapse, the USDC break during SVB all of it highlights the same flaw that crypto has no dealer system, no lender of last resort, no credit elasticity. Without those, par is fragile. The BIS even calls current stabilization mechanisms primitive.
When you set that against today’s macro backdrop with higher rates, slower growth, geopolitical tension, the vulnerability becomes obvious. In stressed environments, people want settlement they can trust. Private tokens backed by assets that must be sold during panics don’t look like the final form of digital dollars. They look like the prototype.
My View
Stablecoins aren’t going away. They’re becoming the digital edge of the dollar system. But they won’t remain in their current wildcat form. They’re heading toward consolidation, regulation, and eventual absorption into the banking hierarchy not because regulators are excited about them, but because the alternative is losing visibility and control over global money flows.
Private issuers opened the door.
Macro stress is accelerating adoption.
And now states and major banks are moving to domesticate the model.
The BIS paper I read lays out the blueprint with tokenized deposits, regulated liability networks, and stablecoins anchored by the full banking apparatus. And the IMF’s reference to possible central bank liquidity access quietly confirms the same destination.
So the future isn’t stablecoins versus the system, it’s stablecoins becoming the system. A faster, programmable extension of the dollar order, built not outside the perimeter, but inside it.
That’s the real trajectory hiding in both reports. @SantiagoAuFund
Stablecoins’ influence is growing due to their interconnections with mainstream finance stemming from their potential use cases and asset backing. Their rapid growth high[...]
The IMF’s Stablecoin Warning Is Really a Roadmap for the Future of Money
Once you read past the surface optimism, the IMF paper is making a straightforward point that stablecoins aren’t growing because people suddenly fell in love with crypto, they’re growing because the global payments system is slow, fragmented, and expensive. And people are quietly opting out of that friction.
The IMF lays out the math. The two largest stablecoins have tripled in size since 2023, reaching a combined $260 billion, with $23 trillion in trading volume in 2024. Asia now processes more stablecoin activity than North America, and relative to GDP, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America stand out as the fastest adopters.
And the chart on page 3 of this shows the deeper truth that stablecoins today are mostly backed by U.S. Treasuries, meaning these crypto dollars are really just digital wrappers around the safest collateral pool on the planet.
But the IMF’s tone changes when it outlines the risks. Stablecoins make cross-border payments dramatically cheaper, some remittances still cost up to 20% yet those same efficiencies can hollow out weaker currencies, bypass capital controls, and erode monetary sovereignty.
When the IMF warns stablecoins could reshape capital flow and exchange rate dynamics, it’s really pointing at the stress building under emerging markets as global liquidity tightens.
And when it notes that regulation is uneven, oversight gaps encourage arbitrage, and some countries are even considering granting stablecoin issuers central bank liquidity, you can see the direction clearly. This isn’t about killing stablecoins. It’s about preparing to contain them.
Where this is actually heading
This is where the paper I read from the BIS titled “On Par: A Money View of Stablecoins” provides the missing frame. The BIS strips away the hype and says stablecoins are essentially on chain private dollar deposits, a digital replay of the eurodollar era.
And the BIS is blunt about the real weakness which isn’t solvency…it’s liquidity. A stablecoin can be fully backed and still collapse if everyone runs for the exit at once. The Terra collapse, the USDC break during SVB all of it highlights the same flaw that crypto has no dealer system, no lender of last resort, no credit elasticity. Without those, par is fragile. The BIS even calls current stabilization mechanisms primitive.
When you set that against today’s macro backdrop with higher rates, slower growth, geopolitical tension, the vulnerability becomes obvious. In stressed environments, people want settlement they can trust. Private tokens backed by assets that must be sold during panics don’t look like the final form of digital dollars. They look like the prototype.
My View
Stablecoins aren’t going away. They’re becoming the digital edge of the dollar system. But they won’t remain in their current wildcat form. They’re heading toward consolidation, regulation, and eventual absorption into the banking hierarchy not because regulators are excited about them, but because the alternative is losing visibility and control over global money flows.
Private issuers opened the door.
Macro stress is accelerating adoption.
And now states and major banks are moving to domesticate the model.
The BIS paper I read lays out the blueprint with tokenized deposits, regulated liability networks, and stablecoins anchored by the full banking apparatus. And the IMF’s reference to possible central bank liquidity access quietly confirms the same destination.
So the future isn’t stablecoins versus the system, it’s stablecoins becoming the system. A faster, programmable extension of the dollar order, built not outside the perimeter, but inside it.
That’s the real trajectory hiding in both reports. @SantiagoAuFund
Stablecoins’ influence is growing due to their interconnections with mainstream finance stemming from their potential use cases and asset backing. Their rapid growth high[...]
Offshore
EndGame Macro The IMF’s Stablecoin Warning Is Really a Roadmap for the Future of Money Once you read past the surface optimism, the IMF paper is making a straightforward point that stablecoins aren’t growing because people suddenly fell in love with crypto…
lights both promise and new challenges for policymakers. Read new IMF Blog: https://t.co/eVss5tPsFn https://t.co/uliR1gLnkn - IMF tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
Why College Feels Like A Bad Idea Right Now
A lot of younger people aren’t anti education. They’re reacting to a pretty rational mismatch in the fact that the price of the credential went up like it’s a luxury product, while the job market value of a lot of white collar entry roles started acting… normal. Risky. Cyclical.
That chart says it plainly. The share of unemployed Americans with four year degrees is climbing toward the mid 20% range. When degrees were rare, a diploma was a moat. Now it’s often just the ticket to enter a crowded room.
And the lived experience matters here. If you’re 22 and you watched older siblings take on serious debt, graduate into apply to 200 jobs land, and then compete for roles that don’t pay enough to justify the burn… you start doing math differently. Not ideological math. Monthly payment math.
College Is a Business And It Sells What It Can, Not What You Need
Universities don’t get rewarded for aligning majors with the labor market. They get rewarded for enrollment, retention, and tuition revenue. That incentive creates a quiet problem where schools keep producing degrees for paths where demand is shrinking, getting automated, or getting squeezed by globalization while marketing those paths like the old world still exists.
It’s not that these jobs vanish overnight. It’s that the work gets unbundled. A chunk gets automated. Another chunk gets offshored. The entry level ladder gets pulled up. And suddenly the degree doesn’t buy you a career track, it buys you a shot at one.
Meanwhile, credential inflation is real. Jobs that used to train people now ask for a bachelor’s just to filter resumes. So the degree becomes a cost of entry, not a payoff. That’s the psychological break…you paid a premium price for something that feels like a minimum requirement.
Healthcare And The Trades
If you want to think like an investor, you look for demand that’s stubborn and hard to outsource. Healthcare checks that box. An aging population doesn’t pause because rates are high. Chronic disease doesn’t take a soft landing. Someone still needs to show up like nurses, techs, radiology, respiratory, PT, home health, long term care. A lot of those roles are licensed, in person, and backed by structural need. That’s not hype. That’s demographics.
The trades are similar in a different way. You can’t outsource a broken compressor, a rewiring job, a leaky pipe, or a roof. You can’t Zoom an electrician. And in many places, the pipeline of skilled tradespeople is aging out faster than it’s being replaced. Add infrastructure work, reshoring, energy retrofits, and suddenly the boring jobs look like the smart ones.
So the shift you’re seeing isn’t college is worthless. It’s more specific…the blanket promise that any degree automatically pays is breaking. The winners will be paths that connect tightly to real demand, build scarce skills, and don’t rely on a fragile white collar ladder that’s getting narrower every year.
tweet
Why College Feels Like A Bad Idea Right Now
A lot of younger people aren’t anti education. They’re reacting to a pretty rational mismatch in the fact that the price of the credential went up like it’s a luxury product, while the job market value of a lot of white collar entry roles started acting… normal. Risky. Cyclical.
That chart says it plainly. The share of unemployed Americans with four year degrees is climbing toward the mid 20% range. When degrees were rare, a diploma was a moat. Now it’s often just the ticket to enter a crowded room.
And the lived experience matters here. If you’re 22 and you watched older siblings take on serious debt, graduate into apply to 200 jobs land, and then compete for roles that don’t pay enough to justify the burn… you start doing math differently. Not ideological math. Monthly payment math.
College Is a Business And It Sells What It Can, Not What You Need
Universities don’t get rewarded for aligning majors with the labor market. They get rewarded for enrollment, retention, and tuition revenue. That incentive creates a quiet problem where schools keep producing degrees for paths where demand is shrinking, getting automated, or getting squeezed by globalization while marketing those paths like the old world still exists.
It’s not that these jobs vanish overnight. It’s that the work gets unbundled. A chunk gets automated. Another chunk gets offshored. The entry level ladder gets pulled up. And suddenly the degree doesn’t buy you a career track, it buys you a shot at one.
Meanwhile, credential inflation is real. Jobs that used to train people now ask for a bachelor’s just to filter resumes. So the degree becomes a cost of entry, not a payoff. That’s the psychological break…you paid a premium price for something that feels like a minimum requirement.
Healthcare And The Trades
If you want to think like an investor, you look for demand that’s stubborn and hard to outsource. Healthcare checks that box. An aging population doesn’t pause because rates are high. Chronic disease doesn’t take a soft landing. Someone still needs to show up like nurses, techs, radiology, respiratory, PT, home health, long term care. A lot of those roles are licensed, in person, and backed by structural need. That’s not hype. That’s demographics.
The trades are similar in a different way. You can’t outsource a broken compressor, a rewiring job, a leaky pipe, or a roof. You can’t Zoom an electrician. And in many places, the pipeline of skilled tradespeople is aging out faster than it’s being replaced. Add infrastructure work, reshoring, energy retrofits, and suddenly the boring jobs look like the smart ones.
So the shift you’re seeing isn’t college is worthless. It’s more specific…the blanket promise that any degree automatically pays is breaking. The winners will be paths that connect tightly to real demand, build scarce skills, and don’t rely on a fragile white collar ladder that’s getting narrower every year.
College education value is collapsing https://t.co/iO9UpUIt5m tweet