Europe’s colonial empires have shaped the world’s political and economic systems for over 500 years.

From Portugal’s early ventures in the 1400s, to Britain’s massive empire in the early 20th century, European nations have competed for control of territory and trade across nearly every continent.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu traces the history of European colonies from 1462 to today, showing how the era of colonies rose and fell.

The data for this visualization comes from Our World in Data. It tracks the number of overseas colonies under the control of key European powers including the UK, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and others.

These numbers provide a historical record of how European influence expanded through exploration, conquest, and colonization, and later declined through wars, independence movements, and international pressure.

The Early Days of Colonization

Portugal was the first European nation to establish an overseas colony, beginning in the 1400s along the African coast and Atlantic islands. Spain followed soon after with its vast empire in the Americas.

An important milestone was the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), which granted Spain and Portugal exclusive rights to explore, claim, and colonize along an agreed meridian. Backed by royal patronage and emerging maritime technology, Portugal built trading outposts from Brazil to the Indian Ocean, while Spain established vast territorial colonies across the Americas through conquest, settlement, and resource extraction.

By the early 1600s, Britain, France, and the Netherlands had joined the race, creating colonies in North America, the Caribbean, and Asia. This competition fueled centuries of maritime exploration and conflict, laying the groundwork for global trade and cultural exchange.

Unfortunately, colonization also brought about exploitation and displacement, characterized by the seizure of land and resources, forced labor, and the disruption of indigenous peoples.

Decolonization and the End of Empire

After World War II, global power shifted. European empires were financially drained and politically weakened, losing the capacity to control their vast overseas territories. Meanwhile, rising nationalist movements across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East pushed for independence.

A clear example is India’s independence from Britain in 1947, which became a catalyst for global decolonization. Britain was exhausted after World War II, and with growing independence movements led by Mahatma Gandhi, the British government was forced to concede sovereignty.

Between 1945 and the late 20th century, the number of European-controlled colonial territories declined dramatically, marking the end of formal empire building. Dozens of former colonies across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East gained independence during this period.

What remains today are a small number of overseas territories—such as islands and enclaves—administered by European states under special constitutional arrangements. These territories generally have significant local autonomy and are no longer considered colonies in the traditional sense, though debates over self-determination persist in some cases.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The State of Global Democracy on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Although cocaine is consumed in every part of the world, its base, the coca plant, is mainly cultivated in three Latin American countries: Peru, Bolivia and Colombia.

As Statista's Anna Fleck details below, according to figures by UNODC, Colombia was responsible for almost two thirds of the total coca cultivation area in 2023 at 253,000 hectares.

Peru came in second with 93,000 hectares, while Bolivia ranked third with 31,000 hectares.

You will find more infographics at Statista

When looking at the cocaine market from the users' perspective, North America had the largest estimated share of people reporting having consumed cocaine in 2023, with 6.5 million or 26 percent of total global users of the drug.

Overall, the Americas made up just under half of estimated cocaine users worldwide according to the UNODC data, while in Europe and Asia, the estimated number of cocaine users stood at 6 million and 3.4 million, respectively.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and federal agencies on Dec. 12 over the ballroom construction project at the White House.

Construction on the project, which involves demolishing part of the executive mansion and building a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, began in September.

The project is expected to cost about $300 million, all of which is expected to be funded by private donors, including Trump.

The Trump administration released a list of the private donors in October.

The legal complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks a declaration that the ongoing project violates several federal statutes.

The National Trust is also asking for an injunction to halt work on the project “until the necessary federal commissions have reviewed and approved the project’s plans; adequate environmental review has been conducted; and Congress has authorized the Ballroom’s construction,” according to the complaint.

The National Trust describes itself in the complaint as a private, charitable, educational nonprofit corporation that Congress chartered in 1949. Its purpose is “to further the historic preservation policy of the United States and to promote the public’s awareness of and ability to comment on any activity that might damage or destroy our nation’s architectural heritage.” The trust has filed preservation lawsuits against several presidential administrations, the complaint said.

As Matthew Vadum details below via The Epoch Times, the lawsuit lists several federal agencies and those who head them as defendants.

The defendants are: the National Park Service, and its acting director, Jessica Bowron; John Stanwich, superintendent of the White House and President’s Park; Department of the Interior, and its secretary, Douglas Burnum; General Services Administration, and its acting administrator, Michael Rigas; and Trump.

The complaint said the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make room for the ballroom facility began in late October without congressional approval or approval from federal commissions responsible for development oversight in the nation’s capital.

The federal government did not carry out required environmental studies, nor did it give the public an opportunity for comment, the complaint said.

“Within days, the East Wing and its colonnade—a version of which was first built on the site during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson—were completely destroyed.” Last week a large construction crane was erected on White House grounds and Trump has said that work on the project was “audible all night,” the complaint said.

“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever—not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else. And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in.”

The Trump administration has maintained the ballroom project is lawful.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle said that “President Trump has full legal authority to modernize, renovate, and beautify the White House—just like all of his predecessors did.”

On its website on Oct. 21, the White House listed structural changes that 13 presidents, including Trump, have made to the White House grounds since 1902.

The complaint said it is not unusual even for minor structures planned for the White House grounds to be subjected to extensive review. For example, in 2016, the National Park Service submitted plans to the National Capital Planning Commission for a new perimeter fence around the White House. During Trump’s first term in 2019, the National Park Service filed plans with the commission about a proposal to replace a small building on the grounds with a new tennis pavilion.

The ballroom project violates several federal statutes, including the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the complaint argues.

The Administrative Procedure Act is a federal statute enacted in 1946 that governs administrative law procedures for federal executive departments and independent agencies. The late Sen. Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) said the law was “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated” in one way or another by agencies of the federal government.

The National Environmental Policy Act regulates federal agencies’ assessments of the potential environmental impacts of projects. The statute requires federal agencies to look at the “reasonably foreseeable” impact of major decisions.

The complaint also alleges that the ballroom project violates the separation of powers and the U.S. Constitution’s property clause, which gives Congress authority over federal property.

The separation of powers is a constitutional doctrine that divides the government into three branches to prevent any single branch from accumulating too much power.

The property clause reads in part: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”

The Department of Justice, which represents federal officials in court, did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

Authored by Julie Kelly via RealClearInvestigations,

It’s a tale of two investigations.

In one version – based on past comments by former FBI Director Christopher Wray – the arrest last week of Brian Cole Jr. as the individual who allegedly placed pipe bombs near the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee on Jan. 5, 2021, was the culmination of a dogged, five-year effort by the bureau. 

In another version, suggested by Dan Bongino, the bureau’s deputy director, FBI agents revived a long-dormant case a few months ago, quickly tracking down Cole through an existing body of evidence, not from new information. At a press conference following Cole’s arrest last week, Bongino said he assigned a fresh team of investigators out of the Washington FBI field office about two months ago that “scoured [existing evidence] over and over and over and over again.” Key pieces of evidence gathered under the previous administration – including credit card purchases of components used to construct the devices, as well as cell phone and vehicle activity from Jan. 5 – led investigators to Cole.

If Cole’s arrest proves to have solved the mystery of who planted the bombs, it presents another perhaps even more consequential question: Why did it take law enforcement so long to find him? Although there are no clear answers as of yet, Bongino’s description of the efforts that led to an arrest seems to contradict public comments and congressional testimony regarding the pipe bomb case previously provided by Wray. 

Given the case’s close connection to the highly-charged events of Jan. 6, questions are also being raised about whether Wray’s FBI essentially put the case on hold for political reasons. Such concerns stem, in part, from the bureau’s documented role in helping advance the discredited Russiagate narrative used against President Trump and its decision to remain silent as the Biden campaign dismissed Hunter Biden’s laptop as a “Russian plant” in the closing days of the 2020 campaign – despite the bureau having already verified its authenticity.

‘Every Rock’ Overturned

Although the bombs allegedly planted by Cole, who faces two federal charges relating to possession of an explosive device, never went off, law enforcement has always treated the bombs as possible instruments of mass casualties.

In the days after the Jan. 6 Capitol protest, top law enforcement officials promised to use all investigative resources necessary to track down the pipe bomb perpetrator. “Every tool, every rock is being unturned because we have to bring that person to justice,” Steven D’Antuono, head of the Washington FBI field office at the time, told reporters on Jan. 12, 2021. He also announced a $50,000 reward for anyone providing information leading to an arrest.

Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin, who joined D’Antuono during the presser, even warned that felony murder charges “related to the use of destructive devices” could await the pipe bomber despite the fact that the devices did not detonate.

Records show the FBI devoted massive resources to the investigation in early 2021. A team of at least 50 FBI agents collected security camera footage, interviews, apparel purchases, cell phone records, police transmissions, and other evidence, resulting in a trove of 105 million data points by April 2021. Tips poured in from the public; analysts quickly identified the components, including a kitchen timer and a steel pipe used to construct the devices.

The FBI doubled the reward and released video clips of the alleged suspect, who was wearing a hoodie, distinctive Nike sneakers, and a face mask while carrying a backpack around the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

D’Antuono made another urgent plea for the public’s help in March 2021. “We know it can be a difficult decision to report information about family, friends, or co-workers, but this is about protecting human life,” he said in a five-minute video posted on the FBI’s website. Authorities continued to insist the devices had been “viable” and capable of injuring or killing bystanders.

In June 2021, Wray again told Congress under oath that the FBI was “aggressively investigating” who had planted the devices.

Troubling Details

But even as the FBI assured the public it was conducting a vigorous investigation, journalists and Republicans in Congress were uncovering troubling details surrounding the discovery of both devices. In January 2022, Politico reported that Sen. Kamala Harris, the incoming vice president, had been inside DNC headquarters when a plain-clothes Capitol Police officer found the pipe bomb under a bush between two benches next to the driveway of the building – the same driveway Harris’ Secret Service detail had used when she arrived a few hours earlier.

That disclosure raised concerns over the Secret Service’s sweep of the premises earlier that day, as did the discovery of security camera footage showing bomb-sniffing canine units twice deployed near the spot where the device was later found. Even after the device was discovered, video shows law enforcement acting nonchalantly about the potential danger – even allowing a group of schoolchildren to walk past the area. Adding to the mystery is a Quantico report that determined the devices at both the DNC and RNC were nonoperational – a finding, if true, that is likely to be trumpeted by Cole’s lawyers.

In another odd twist, Karlin Younger, the woman who found the pipe bomb near the RNC at 12:40 p.m. on Jan. 6, worked for FirstNet - the same provider that later told the FBI the cell phone data for Jan. 5 had been corrupted and was not recoverable. According to Bongino, the cell phone data had not been corrupted and was crucial evidence that led to Cole’s arrest. 

Younger said she alerted a security guard at the RNC after she found the device sitting near a dumpster when she went to finish her laundry at 12:40 p.m. on Jan. 6. But she also told an FBI investigator the device was not near the dumpster at noon when she went to start her first load, which contradicts the official timeline that the pipe bomber planted his devices on the night of Jan. 5. An FBI report on the components of the device disproved her statement that the RNC device contained a timer set at 20 minutes – suggesting the bomb was scheduled to detonate at the exact same time Congress convened at 1:00 p.m. to certify the 2020 election.

Demand for More Answers

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, chairman of a new select subcommittee on Jan. 6, wants more answers on the circumstances surrounding both discoveries. This week, he sent a letter to Younger asking her to sit for a transcribed interview before his new select subcommittee on January 6. He has previously asked the director of the Secret Service to make the agents on Harris’ security detail that day available for questioning. Loudermilk has also said he plans to explore the destruction of evidence – including the deletion of Secret Services text messages before and on January 6 and of video images from the DNC and RNC on Jan. 6. “As we go and looking for video on January 6th to see did anybody go back to these locations, that footage doesn't exist anymore,” he told podcaster Benny Johnson. “We have January 5th video, but we were told no one preserved January 6th. … This has inhibited our investigation.”

The revelation of those curious circumstances as the FBI investigation dragged on put Wray on the defensive. He refused to discuss details about the investigation with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie during a 2023 House Judiciary Committee hearing and would not confirm whether the FBI interviewed the officer who found the DNC device.

During a heated 2023 exchange with Rep. Eli Crane, an Arizona Republican, Wray said, “We [the FBI] have an entire dedicated team focused specifically on this investigation.” 

Wray also told the Arizona Republican, which had challenged him to explain the successful roundup of hundreds of J6 protesters but not the individual responsible for a potential “mass casualty” event that day, “We’ve done thousands of interviews, we’ve visited thousands of residents and businesses, viewed millions of pieces of data, there’s something like 39,000 video files, and we’ve assessed like 500 or so tips. We’ve done extensive public publicity, we’ve increased the reward money.” Wray further claimed that the FBI laboratory, weapons of mass destruction unit, technology division, and “cellular analysis team” were still hot on the pipe bomber’s trail. “I, as much as anybody, would like to see it solved.”

In a 2023 interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Wray said the FBI had devoted “loads” of resources to the investigation and that he had “enormous confidence” in his team assigned to the pipe bomb case.

But when Wray retired shortly before President Trump took office for the second time, a full four years after the launch of the investigation, the pipe bomb case remained unsolved. 

More Headscratchers

Others doubt Wray’s assurances that this case remained a priority on his watch. A January 2025 update on the pipe bomb matter overseen by Loudermilk and Massie asserted, based on law enforcement correspondence, that interest in the case waned as early as one month after the Capitol protest. “By the end of February 2021, the FBI began diverting resources away from the pipe bomb investigation,” the report stated, citing as a reference a Feb. 2021 email from an unidentified Capitol Police official. “One possible explanation for the reduction in resources is that the number of credible leads began to decline, no longer requiring as many special agents to cover the workload.”

Perhaps the biggest headscratcher – how the new team of investigators used cell phone data that D’Antuono claimed had been corrupted – demands answers. In sworn testimony to Congress, D’Antuono had told lawmakers that the FBI “did a complete geofence” for the night of Jan. 5 but that “some data was corrupted by one of the providers.” That assertion appears to be false.

Congress appears interested in determining how Wray’s FBI came up empty-handed. A House Judiciary Committee spokesman told RCI “everything is on the table” in terms of getting answers from the former director about the pipe bomb investigation. Efforts to reach Wray and D’Antuono for comment were unsuccessful.

But the public is entitled to know whether the investigation begun during Wray’s tenure was simply a case that took five years to bring to fruition – or whether it is another example of a federal investigation compromised by political considerations.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Santa vs The Grinch, Diets, & qe

The week ended with a bang.

At Academy’s Holiday Party, the Marines pulled out all the stops to win the annual “service song” contest (they actually brought out instruments, with Dakota leading the charge on the trumpet).

We rolled (like the Army’s rolling along song), straight into Bloomberg TV Friday morning, where Academy was the guest host for the entire 6am hour. Had some interesting guests on the Geopolitical/European side, a bond portfolio PM, and an analyst who covers Disney (I abstained from asking him a question as I just didn’t think I could contribute usefully to the Disney-OpenAI deal discussion).

Santa vs The Grinch

Post-FOMC, markets rallied making it appear like the Santa rally was well underway. We will be circling back on a couple of things mentioned in our Quick Take on the FOMC. Starting with the final line from that report – the Oracle earnings call could be market moving.

Oracle struggled the next day, but markets fought back from their lows, with some serious “rotation” occurring. But more “questionable” news from the chip and data center/AI space weighed on markets again on Friday, this time, without a late-day stick save.

We use the word “questionable” because on the one hand, we heard phrases like:

• Slight miss, overall solid, decent guidance, new clients added, backlogs, etc.

All phrases that you would not normally associate with individual stocks down double digits or even the Nasdaq 100 down 2%. Clearly expectations are high and valuations still require very strong numbers/guidance for bullishness on data centers/AI to remain intact.

Since November 20th, we’ve seen the Nasdaq 100 lag (still up, but lagging) while the Russell 2000 has been the star of the show.

We pick that date because that was the day we started to see the Fed hawks capitulate – the Santa Rally Recipe.

We argued that breaking the 100-Day Moving Average (DMA) made the Fed “see the light” and turn noticeably dovish (the probability of a rate cut jumped from the 30s to 90s in a matter of days).

We are trading right around the 50-DMA right now on the Nasdaq 100. It could still act as resistance, which we should see Sunday night/Monday morning. But if it breaks through there, the 100-DMA is clearly in play. What is concerning is that it was quite clear to many that the Fed played a crucial role in defending the 100-DMA. Will they do it again if we get there? Possibly, but how? The next meeting is quite far off, by market standards.

We will be watching some of these technical levels closely as it seems that not only is the “free money” gone, but the hurdle to creating further market cap gains has ratcheted higher. We define “free” money as things like announcing $X in spending on AI/data centers and being rewarded with a market cap increase far in excess of $X.

So far, the Grinch hasn’t caught up to the people in Weeville (Russell 2000), but it seems impossible to believe that further weakness here won’t bring down all the markets:

• The stocks just make up such a large portion of the big indices, and it will be difficult for even the Russell 2000, with little actual overlap, to fight the trend. The outperformance can continue, but would likely all be negative.

• The industry makes up such a huge part of the economic story including spending and the wealth effect (more than jobs but there are jobs too). It is difficult to see how markets can do well (though rate cut expectations, which I think are too low, will increase with more cuts coming sooner than is currently being priced in).

More “technical” than usual, but since we “survived” the Fed and the Santa rally seemed back in play, positioning (which goes hand in hand with technicals) may be offsides again coming into a period of low levels of true liquidity.

Which Brings Us to Diets

I cannot remember the last time there was this much chatter about single name CDS, with Oracle’s CDS leading the way. Not only did we end the TV interview on Friday talking about that, but we also spent some time on Friday helping Barron’s understand CDS, in relation to big tech and data centers.

We mentioned Debt Diets a few weeks ago, and want to highlight it again. It was our “Theme for 2019.” At the time, many corporations were seeing their stocks come under pressure, largely due to strains in the credit market for their names. It is “easy” for corporate leadership to ignore the debt markets when their stock price is doing really well. You can probably even give credit markets only a cursory glance if your stock is facing some pressure, but credit is just a side story. But when credit becomes a main part of the story – it is difficult to ignore. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It might sound bad, but it doesn’t have to be.

When Credit Leads the Way

This chart, for me, explains why a “debt diet” may be on the way (and yes, we will explain what we mean by that, and why it isn’t necessarily bad, and follows our end of “free” money narrative).

It is possible that I’m “grasping” at straws, but from the middle of September to the middle of October, the credit market and stock market were not “beating the same drum.” Yes, the stock market faced some selling pressure, but it also had a solid rebound. The credit market basically widened every day during that period.

Now they are back to moving in the same direction and it seems almost impossible to ignore the performance of the credit market when making a decision on the stock market.

Which brings us to the Debt Diet.

• Companies can alter their spending plans.

  • Probably unnecessary here, but for the space as a whole, it might be a good time for CEOs and CFOs to explain their spending plans more clearly. To, not necessarily, pay “homage” to creditors, but make sure creditors understand their concerns are being taken into account.

  • Clarity, especially as to what might make them cautious on building more (maybe some rough alignment of building with profits and positive cash flow in mind, versus an almost “build it and they will come” mentality).

• Companies do not need to be “afraid” of creditors, but a clearer recognition of their importance to your future might be in order.

A lot can be done without changing the plans today. I see a lot of ways that clarification and some identification of issues or trends that might change spending plans could go a long way towards improving spreads and leaving the market hungry for more issuance in 2026 and beyond!

Debt Diets are Manageable – An AI Diet Might Not Be

So far, this seems more like a “debt diet” type of situation in the data center space. The news that has come out doesn’t seem to have changed the overall narrative (backlogs, new clients, etc. all seem to argue this is more about a change in valuations than a meaningful change in trend for the industry).

However, I am nervous that we could see an AI Diet developing:

• How much are companies budgeting for AI spend next year? The following year? Just like the industry itself had “free” money for a period of time, it was impossible for any corporation in America to do anything but spend more on AI. As companies have now been using AI for 2 years or more, are they all seeing the benefits they thought they paid for? Certainly, some are and they are probably rejoicing in their spending. But everyone? Especially in an economy, where away from certain industries (our little i-shaped view of the economy), we are seeing little growth. For now, I think the spending from corporate America continues, but it will be possibly “abated” as opposed to unabated.

• Chips and China. The admin is comfortable selling a greater variety of chips to a greater variety of nations (China being the most important, though I’d argue that the Middle East isn’t far behind in importance). The question is whether China wants chips in the quantity that would fuel real revenue growth? Or is China willing to forego some quality today, in an effort to continue to bootstrap their own chip industry and make them more competitive with the top chips being designed/produced by U.S. companies and TSMC? I think this is more about constraining the upside rather than creating downside risk to spending on U.S. chips, but I have this nagging concern that “we” may be underestimating the resources and skills that China is devoting to this.

• Electricity. If there is one thing our Macro, Structured Products, and Sustainable Finance teams agree on – it is the importance of electricity in today’s economy and the risk that we cannot generate electrons quickly and efficiently enough to satisfy the needs of industry going forward. This “molecules to electrons” has been a theme of ours for quite some time and fits perfectly into our ProSec™ (Production for Security) framework. If you were starting to think, wonder, or even hope that we could go an entire T-Report without mentioning ProSec™, we had to disappoint you.

  • If you have not read Stav Gaon’s work on data centers, I highly recommend you do. You can find his work under the Securitized Products Research & Strategy tab on Academy’s website. You can scroll and pick through his various pieces on data centers.

I think the Debt Diet is real and not necessarily bad. I don’t think the AI Diet is real, but since it is very bad if it occurs, it seemed worth at least highlighting that risk in our “diet” framework.

qe

Is the $40 billion of Federal Reserve purchases QE or a non-event? Or somewhere in between?

It “depends.” Clearly the Fed had to address some issues within the front end of the yield curve. SOFR, as a secured rate, should not be more expensive than unsecured rates. That is embarrassing, and has some small economic consequences. This is NOTHING like elevated LIBOR. When we have problems on interbank lending or even in the commercial paper markets, we can worry. This is much more of an issue with regulations, regulatory capital, and return on capital. The rules have been created in such a way, that it isn’t particularly economic (or even feasible) for the banking industry to price and trade SOFR at levels where “it should trade.” So, to the extent these purchases are “temporary” and designed to get us through year end and “clean things up” (and then they can be reduced or eliminated), it isn’t really QE or even qe. Bitcoin does as good of a job as any asset class at “sniffing” out balance sheet expansion and it has been moderately happy, but not giddy, since the announcement was made.

If the Treasury decides to take advantage of this by reducing issuance of longer-dated bonds, to sell more T-Bills to the Fed, and does this month after month, it starts to look a lot more like QE.

For now, I’ll be in the “qe” camp and that this is more of a “fix,” than in the full-on QE camp, but I’m not sure why Treasury wouldn’t try to make this work a lot more like QE than maybe even Powell intended?

I continue to believe that “we ain’t seen nothing yet” in terms of how the admin and Treasury will work with the Fed to achieve 3% or lower on the front end and a 3-handle (under 4%) on 10s.

At 4.18% on 10s and 2s vs 10s at 66 (the highest since February 2022), I’m tempted to be buying 10s and putting on flatteners. But, it is probably a bit early, as the market doesn’t feel that healthy, and I think that we need Japanese yields to really stabilize and Europe to make it clear on whether they are going to spend aggressively, or seize Russia’s frozen reserves, or let the 5% defense spending fizzle, before we can get too comfortable on U.S. rates.

It does seem ”curious” that Goolsbee went from dissenting on Wednesday (wanted no cut) to highlighting that he thinks there will be more cuts next year than others! I wonder what sort of “bollocking” he got from the admin between the FOMC meeting and his speaking opportunity?

Bottom Line

I am not sure how we got to the “bottom line” without mentioning Tuesday’s jobs data. The release date is highly unusual and I certainly don’t understand how the government shutdown will affect the report. Since it is delayed, the response rate could be higher, but maybe much of the preliminary work wasn’t done?

The consensus is for 50k jobs to be created. I’d be leaning towards the under. I do think a weak jobs report would help bonds. I agree with Goolsbee that the Fed will cut sooner and more aggressively than is priced in, but it won’t help the long end much (just yet) and won’t help stocks – as the “slowdown” story (despite the Fed raising GDP expectations for next year) will weigh on stocks.

One thing I can tell you with certainty is that despite all this talk of diets, and probably because of the holidays and travel, I’m very reluctant and even a bit scared to step on a scale.

Have a great week, but expect more chop and volatility coming into year end and the start of next year, which should be a gangbuster one for debt issuance, and may well make credit markets interesting to focus on again! I’ve almost missed the fact that in the past year, where everything in credit seemed so dull (until the latter half when the financing needs started to hit home), we also saw the first signs of unexpected problems in private credit.

With all that is going on in the world, and U.S. service members at risk, it was fun to sit back and watch a great Army-Navy football game