@biancoresearch

Macro & Fed Policy

The author's central thesis is that the Fed needs to hike rates to calm the bond market, arguing that 'when the Fed is hiking rates, the market calms down about inflation, and break-evens fall' [doc 3]. He noted fed funds futures put a July 29 hike at 45% (55% no move) and a September hike at 104%, stating that 'a hike stops rising yields; root for it' [doc 3]. He laid out specific CPI scenarios: a 0.3% core CPI means a July 29 hike, 0.2% means debate between July or September, and 0.1% means a September 16 hike [doc 3]. He also noted headline CPI was expected at -0.1% due to gasoline's collapse, making core CPI the decisive metric [doc 3]. His sharpest line framed the stance: 'When the Fed starts panicking, I can stop panicking' [doc 3]. He restated this thread's thesis via a self-quote to @David_Kudla [doc 4]. The thread carried ~3.9k views and 3 replies [doc 3].

Fed-funds hike thesis: He argued the market is pricing a 45% chance of a July 29 hike (55% no move) and a 104% chance of a September hike, and that a hike would stop rising 10-year yields by calming inflation break-evens [doc 3].

CPI decision tree: He mapped core CPI prints to Fed action: 0.3% → July 29 hike, 0.2% → July or September debate, 0.1% → September 16 hike, with headline CPI expected at -0.1% due to gasoline [doc 3].

other

The author noted Kevin Warsh's rejection of a 'mission accomplished' stance on CPI after over 100 minutes of testimony, quoting the red Bloomberg headline [doc 5] — his most-discussed post, with 15 replies. Separately, he agreed with criticism of veteran Tour de France commentator Phil Liggett, writing that 'Liggett and Sherwin were arguably the best commentators in any sport at their peak' and that 'it is extra painful to listen to him now' [doc 7]. This category is ~18% of authored posts, driven by a Warsh commentary observation and a personal sports-media aside.