The index fell 0.57% and the average stock rose 0.82%. Three quiet days took the S&P up about 1.6%. Thursday gave back 0.30% while Alphabet had its worst day ever, and Friday took 1.82% off in one. We are 3.05% below the 6 October record. Alphabet lost about $500bn on Thursday and Lilly gained 11% on the week; the average stock's whole lead over the index came from Thursday and Friday. Long bonds were the best thing we hold, up 0.61%. Gold fell another 2.95% and bitcoin 5.66%.
Nothing in the model changed, and that is not the same as nothing happening. The Fed held, two members wanted a hike instead, and the next morning core PCE rose again. Conviction is +0.05 against +0.04 a week ago. The target mix moved by a point in three places and no sleeve entered or left the book.
What did change is how much room the fast cut has left. Two of its three legs are now inside six basis points of firing — funding at 5.4 and credit at 5.7, against 6.1 and 8 a week ago. Neither is armed. Both moved the same way, and that is the week's real information. Three $100,000 books are marked to Friday's close.
The week looked calm until Friday, and underneath it two safety margins got thinner. Monday through Wednesday the S&P added about 1.6% in three small steps. Thursday it slipped 0.30% while Alphabet lost about $500bn of value in one session, and Friday took 1.82% off in one; the week closed down 0.57% at 7,580.07. Nothing in the model moved. But the Druckenmiller fast cut — the rule that takes risk down hard and fast — now has two of its three legs inside six basis points of firing, where a week ago it had one inside eight. Funding sits 5.4 basis points from its trigger, against 6.1 on Tuesday. Credit sits 5.7, against 8 in last week's note. Neither is armed and nothing has been sold. The direction is the point.
The Fed held, and the argument in the room was about hiking. The range stays at 3.75–4.00% on a 10–2 vote, and both dissenters wanted 25 basis points more. Interest on reserves stays at 3.90%, which our own series confirms. The statement was short and dropped its timing language. Then the next morning core PCE for September came in at 3.12%, up from 2.98% — a fourth straight month above 2.9%, two days after the Fed declined to cut. The crowd has noticed: Polymarket now prices a December increase at 72% and no change at 24%.
One disinflationary leg survived, and it is the one that costs households. The Employment Cost Index has pay up 3.4% over the year, which is negative after inflation. Wages are not pushing prices up. They are also not keeping up.
The plumbing is where this gets slowly worse. The Treasury rebuilt about $48bn of cash in a week while the reverse-repo facility sits at essentially nothing — $4.4bn. There is no buffer left, so every dollar the Treasury takes in comes straight out of bank reserves. Net liquidity fell about $56bn to $5.75tn. You can see it in the price: the overnight secured rate now fixes 4 basis points above what the Fed pays on reserves, having been below it a fortnight ago. That is four weeks running in the same direction, and it is the first of the two margins above.
Credit improved on the week, and the figure is Thursday's. High-yield spreads came in from 3.40% to 3.26%, which breaks a four-week run of widening. The path matters more than the level: 3.38% on the 23rd, down to 3.14% on Fed day, back out to 3.26% on Thursday. Friday — the 1.82% day — is not in the series yet, and neither is it in the Baa spread the fast cut reads, which is 1.49% as of the 29th. So our credit read is a day early, and we would rather say that than imply it is a Friday number.
And one outside desk says we are measuring the wrong credit. Jeffrey Gundlach, on CNBC after the Fed, says spreads are widening across emerging markets, asset-backed, commercial mortgages and investment grade, and that this is "the beginning of a trend, not just a bump." His evidence is the low-quality and private end: the BBB bank-loan index at a price of 65, down about 18% this year; SpaceX issued at BBB and trading at a junk spread; Oracle at BBB− trading like a single-B. He compares it to BBB subprime in 2006. Our credit leg reads the Baa spread and high-yield OAS, both of which improved this week. One of the two measures he points at went the other way too: BIZD, the listed proxy for private credit, rose 3.86% against high yield's 0.49%. We are not resolving this. We are recording that the leg closest to firing is the one where a good forecaster says our instrument does not look where the stress is.
The whole move in the ten-year was real yields, for a third week. The ten-year fell about six basis points to 4.94% while breakevens finished the week exactly where they started, at 2.34%. Whoever is buying duration is not changing their mind about inflation. The two-year is 4.56%, still 68 basis points above the funds rate — on Gundlach's reading, the market saying the Fed is behind.
Gold had a second bad week and bitcoin a worse one. Gold fell 2.95% after 4.03% the week before, and is down 10.23% this year. Bitcoin fell 5.66%. Both are meant to do well when money is being debased, and both fell alongside equities again. The momentum tilt has already cut gold to 11% from 12% and keeps bitcoin at 3%. Of what we hold, only long bonds and international developed finished the week up.
The earnings week, and what it did to the legs we hold. Alphabet reported on Wednesday evening and fell about 12% on Thursday — roughly $500bn of value, its worst day ever and the second-largest one-day loss by any US company, after Nvidia's $589bn in January 2025. Revenue grew 25% to $127.6bn, but Search grew 12% to $63.4bn against the 15% expected, down from 17% and 19% in the two quarters before; capital spending was $51.4bn in the quarter against $24bn a year ago, free cash flow was −$9.1bn, and 2027 spending is to rise again. Amazon followed on Thursday evening: revenue $201.9bn, up 12% and a touch under estimates, cloud growth of 39%, about $220bn of spending this year and "meaningfully more" next; the stock fell 4.3% on Thursday and 1.4% on Friday. Lilly went the other way, up 11.3% on the week to 1,417.54 after a 39% revenue quarter and guidance raised to $91–92bn. Then Friday was a momentum unwind rather than an index event: the momentum fund we hold fell 4.30%, the broad momentum factor 4.77%, Nvidia 4.22% and the Nasdaq-100 fund 3.47%, against the index's 1.82%. By look-through Alphabet is about 4.4% of Core — 5.5% of the S&P fund, about a seventh of the mega-cap fund and 8.7% of the momentum fund, each a 15.4% leg — so Thursday cost the book roughly half a point in one name. Lilly, the week's winner, is under 1% of the book the same way. None of this touches the model, which reads no single name. It explains the week's marks.
Breadth — the good, the bad, and no ugly. Good first, and it is the clearest thing on the page. On Thursday, the day Alphabet fell 12%, the equal-weight fund rose 1.20% while the S&P fund fell 0.38% — a 158 basis point gap in the average stock's favour. On Friday the S&P fund fell 1.77% and the equal-weight fund 0.79%, another 99. Over the week the equal-weight fund rose 0.82% against the S&P fund's 0.56% fall, and all of that lead came from those two days: the index won Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. It is ahead by 5.9 points over one month, 2.2 over six and 5.4 over twelve. This is the broadest the market has been all year, and it is the fifth week in six that the average stock has beaten the one people quote.
Does it move us? Yes, a little, and this week it is the single clearest input that did. Breadth enters the growth cycle as a year-on-year change in the equal-weight-to-cap-weight ratio. It is one of only two sub-indicators that moved enough to report, at +0.27 on the week, and it now reads +1.57 — a genuine tailwind. The other mover was core PCE, at +0.55 against us. They roughly cancelled, which is why conviction went from +0.04 to +0.05 in a week this eventful.
Bad, and it is about us rather than the market. We hold US equity through the S&P, mega-caps and a momentum fund. We never hold the equal-weighted index. So a week when the average stock wins is a week our US sleeve lags its own market: mega-caps fell 2.27% and momentum 1.72% against the index's 0.56%. Core is 1.85 points behind the benchmark since inception, and most of that gap is this one choice. We are long the narrowness by construction, and it cut both ways this month.
There is no ugly this week, and we are not going to invent one. Narrowing breadth is the pattern that would worry a reader, and it is not what is happening — the tape is going the other way. It is also worth saying plainly that narrowing would not be a sell signal if it returned: our own screen found the S&P returned 22.2% against 11.6% in the twelve months after a narrowing reading, and four guardrails built on it cut drawdown by nothing. The gauge declines to price a pattern that has not paid to price.
What all of this does to the book: nothing. Same regime, Goldilocks. Conviction +0.05, inside the same neutral band it has been in for eight weeks. The target mix moved US equity 47% to 48%, international 12% to 13% and gold 12% to 11% — all tilt arithmetic, none of it a decision. Core and Spring held with 2.0 points of drift against a 3-point band. Harbor rebalanced, and that was mechanical: it was picking up the cash-sleeve split agreed on 28 October, half in T-bills and half in one-to-three-year Treasuries, which a book only takes on at its next rebalance. It is now on target.
Target weights of the Macro Tide Core, last note → this note, every sleeve. A move is either the rules (a methodology change, dated in the changelog) or the regime (conviction, quadrant, a gate) — the why says which. Tilt figures are computed from this edition's z and this product's own tilt strength. The withdrawal dial (below the allocation table) sits on top of these and never changes them.
| Sleeve | Last note | This note | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| US equity (SPY+SPMO+MAGS) | 47% | 48% | conviction / regime sizing |
| Int'l developed (VEA) | 12% | 13% | momentum tilt z +1.18 → ×1.59 |
| Emerging mkts (EEM) | 10% | 10% | — |
| Diversified commodities (PDBC) | 16% | 16% | — |
| Gold (GLD) | 12% | 11% | momentum tilt z -0.78 → ×0.61 |
| Bitcoin (IBIT) | 3% | 3% | — |
| Managed futures (DBMF) | 0% | 0% | — |
| Long bonds (TLT) | 0% | 0% | — |
| Cash (USFR + SCHO) | 0% | 0% | — |
Bold = moved ≥ 0.5pp. History accrues in targets_log.csv by edition.
Each row is the CURRENT-WEEK standing — every cycle is recomputed on the latest data (not the frozen month-end): z-scores vs each series' ~10-yr norm for the composites (+ = above average), 13-week momentum for Liquidity, and the spread level for Credit. Last wk is the reading in the previous note and Δ wk the move since; what changed underneath is in the sections below.
| Cycle | Last wk | Reading | Δ wk | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth | +0.52 | +0.50 | -0.02 | accelerating · tape: firm ▲ |
| Inflation | +0.19 | +0.23 | +0.04 | cooling · tape: cooling ▼ |
| Liquidity (Fed) | -1.6% | -1.7% | -0.1pp | risk-off |
| Liquidity (Global) | -1.3% | -1.0% | +0.3pp | risk-off · Fed+ECB+BoJ (PBoC pending) |
| Treasury liq | — | +0.80 | — | injecting — Bessent's bridge |
| Monetary | -0.85 | -0.79 | +0.06 | tight |
| Positioning | -0.31 | -0.34 | -0.03 | neutral |
| Dollar | firm | firm | — | neutral |
| Credit (veto) | HY 3.40% | HY 3.26% | -0.14 | off |
Native readings (under the hood): Growth = 8/11 indicators above trend · Inflation = 6/8 up (broad underlying ~2.6%) · Liquidity = net $5.7T · Monetary = 2y 4.56%, real 2.63% · Positioning = VIX 17 · Dollar = -0.1% y/y (broad TWI).
How to read the scores. The z column counts standard deviations from that cycle's own ten-year average, so it says how UNUSUAL a reading is rather than what it is. Zero is normal, half a point is mildly above average, one point is unusual and two is rare. Leading indicators carry the most weight in the average. Growth, Inflation, Monetary and Positioning all lean on monthly data, so the tape flag beside Growth and Inflation is the fresher read: it comes from five days of market moves across asset classes and can run a month or two ahead of the slower score it either confirms or contradicts. Two rows work differently — Liquidity is thirteen-week momentum, not a z-score, and Credit is simply the spread level.
Treasury liq (Bessent's bridge): the Treasury injects liquidity via long-bond buybacks + bill-heavy issuance — swapping duration for near-cash, which eases financial conditions like stealth QE without the Fed cutting. +0.80 = injecting; a displayed read, not wired into conviction.
Dollar (how it's measured): the Fed's broad trade-weighted USD (DTWEXBGS, 26 currencies incl. China/Mexico/EM), -0.1% YoY and below its 12-mo trend. The narrower, euro-heavy DXY can read firmer — the softness is concentrated against trade/EM partners, which is exactly the debasement tilt (gold + EM).
Liquidity — current weekly read (Fed H.4.1), now wired into conviction: net Fed liquidity $5.75T, 13-week momentum -1.7% as of 2026-10-28 — vs the trailing monthly composite's -1.7%. The drain is steady (TGA rebuild into a drained RRP now pulls on bank reserves directly). Every cycle is now recomputed weekly on the latest data; the monthly composite remains the historical backbone the states are smoothed against.
Global liquidity (Howell). We add up the big central banks' balance sheets in dollars — Fed $6.8T, ECB $6.6T, BoJ $4.0T, $17.4T in all — and track whether that total is growing or shrinking over thirteen weeks. It is running at -1.0% (as of 2026-10-23; the global figures lag about a week), against -1.7% for the Fed on its own, because the ECB and BoJ are shrinking too. This feeds conviction alongside the Fed read, and the two agree this week. On our data it leads the S&P's next-quarter return by about thirteen weeks (roughly 0.6 correlation), so a shrinking tide is a headwind ahead rather than today — which is Howell's “liquidity peaked around the end of 2025” call. Note this is the slow, leading read: the fast-cut's funding test watches US money-market plumbing directly instead (SOFR against IORB). China's central bank, which Howell ties to gold, would be a fourth leg; there is no clean free data series for it yet.
The market's leading edge vs the monthly composite — 5-day moves as of 2026-10-30.
Nowcast — Inflation cooling ↓, Growth firm ↑. The six-cycle inflation reading is recomputed weekly (now +0.23) and its momentum state still reads cooling; the cross-asset tape (5-day) agrees (oil, 10Y). This tape read is the leading edge, shown not wired into the sleeves: if it persists, the momentum state flips and conviction gets cut (inflation enters as −i_state at a 0.25 weight). Growth internals are noisier — one soft breadth print isn't a turn while the hard data (payrolls) is firm.
Color = direction of the 5-day move, not good/bad. Free data (Yahoo): UST yields, DXY & major FX, commodity ETFs, diesel (ULSD future — the real-economy barometer of the oil shock; diesel outpacing crude = the cost is running ahead of the headline), HY/IG credit, equal- vs cap-weight breadth, listed BDCs vs HY (the private-credit tell: BDCs lagging high-yield = the market pricing private-credit stress ahead of the quarterly marks).
Style factors vs the S&P 500, excess return in percentage points, as of 2026-10-30 (WTD from the 2026-10-23 close, QTD from 2026-09-30, YTD from 2025-12-31). z = this week's 5-day excess vs its own 1-year distribution. Shown, not wired into the sleeves.
| Style (ETF) | 1D | WTD | QTD | YTD | z (5d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value (IWD/SPY) | +0.96 | +1.04 | +5.23 | +12.15 | +0.72 |
| Small-cap value (IWN/SPY) | +0.71 | +1.30 | +3.36 | +7.60 | +0.67 |
| Small-cap (IJR/SPY) | +0.56 | +2.06 | +4.03 | +5.91 | +1.10 |
| High dividend (VYM/SPY) | +1.11 | +1.95 | +6.41 | +3.27 | +1.34 |
| Momentum (MTUM/SPY) | -3.00 | -1.29 | -9.56 | +2.68 | -0.56 |
| Low-vol (USMV/SPY) | +1.58 | +0.54 | +6.54 | -1.51 | +0.38 |
| Growth (IWF/SPY) | -1.12 | -1.11 | -5.20 | -11.42 | -0.83 |
S&P 500 itself: 1D -1.77% · WTD -0.56% · QTD -0.91% · YTD +10.82%.
Absolute return and excess vs SPY over the same horizons — the model's own building blocks, watched the way the factors are.
| Sleeve (ETF) | 1D | WTD | QTD | YTD | vs SPY WTD | vs SPY QTD | vs SPY YTD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US equity (SPY) | -1.77% | -0.56% | -0.91% | +10.82% | +0.00 | +0.00 | +0.00 |
| Mega-cap growth (MAGS) | -1.75% | -2.27% | -4.48% | +3.82% | -1.71 | -3.57 | -7.00 |
| Momentum (MTUM) | -4.77% | -1.85% | -10.47% | +13.50% | -1.29 | -9.56 | +2.68 |
| Intl developed (VEA) | -1.46% | +0.56% | -1.66% | +11.16% | +1.12 | -0.75 | +0.34 |
| Emerging (EEM) | -2.68% | -1.56% | -8.61% | +11.57% | -1.00 | -7.70 | +0.75 |
| Commodities (PDBC) | -0.45% | -1.57% | +3.73% | +51.09% | -1.01 | +4.64 | +40.27 |
| Gold (GLD) | -3.47% | -2.95% | -6.58% | -10.23% | -2.39 | -5.67 | -21.05 |
| Bitcoin (IBIT) | -5.14% | -5.66% | -8.41% | -12.67% | -5.10 | -7.50 | -23.49 |
| Managed futures (DBMF) | -0.76% | -0.86% | -0.25% | +15.65% | -0.30 | +0.66 | +4.83 |
| Long bonds (TLT) | +0.43% | +0.61% | +5.22% | -6.10% | +1.17 | +6.13 | -16.92 |
| Cash (USFR) | +0.02% | -0.24% | +0.02% | +0.16% | +0.32 | +0.93 | -10.66 |
Styles. Year-to-date value leads (+12.2pp vs the S&P) and growth lags (-11.4pp); quarter-to-date low-vol leads (+6.5pp) and momentum lags (-9.6pp); this week small-cap (+2.1pp) over momentum (-1.3pp). The leader changes with the horizon — rotation inside the market rather than one persistent bet.
Value vs growth. Value is 23.6pp ahead of growth year-to-date — the reflation/late-cycle signature (higher yields, oil, a weaker dollar) that the inflation-tilted regime read implies; it is also why the equal-weight index has stopped underperforming.
Risk appetite. Low-vol -1.5pp YTD — neutral. Small caps +5.9pp YTD — breadth is real, the rally is not just the top ten.
Momentum. +2.7pp YTD but -9.6pp QTD: the July crowding reversal, the multi-strategy deleveraging Burry described, returned the excess. The US-equity sleeve holds momentum on a band — the gate turns on above conviction +0.20, off below −0.20, and holds its state in between — which is the condition designed for this case.
Sleeves, year-to-date. gold -10.2% (-21.1pp vs SPY); commodities +51.1% (+40.3pp vs SPY); EM +11.6% (+0.8pp vs SPY); intl developed +11.2% (+0.3pp vs SPY); mega-cap growth +3.8% (-7.0pp vs SPY); managed futures +15.7% (+4.8pp vs SPY); long bonds -6.1% (-16.9pp vs SPY); bitcoin -12.7% (-23.5pp vs SPY).
What it tells the model. Commodities are well ahead of the S&P while long bonds lag — the pattern an inflation tape makes. The real-asset sleeve is positioned for it, and long bonds are out of the book — the same side the tape is on. Mega-cap growth is lagging the index this quarter, so the concentration that drove the year is loosening a little at the edges. That leg is the one to watch. Bitcoin is far behind gold. Both are meant to gain when money is being debased, but bitcoin also needs plentiful liquidity, and it is not confirming the move. The tilt keeps the position small.
5-day risk pairs: High-beta vs low-vol -0.42pp · Cyclicals vs defensives +0.71pp · Small vs large +1.86pp. Read: Small-cap is the leading style (+1.86pp vs the S&P); value ahead of growth by 2.29pp; but it's a rotation, not a broad risk move — high-beta and defensive sectors are pulling opposite ways (rate-driven, not growth-driven).
Four of Jeffrey Gundlach's standing metrics, reproduced from free data (Sep-8-2026 webcast, "The Fed's Next Move"). Shown as context for the Monetary cycle and the duration gate — none is wired into conviction.
| Metric | Reading | His rule | What it says now |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10-year fair value: (Bund 3.38% + 7-yr avg nominal GDP growth 6.19%) ÷ 2 | 4.79% vs actual 4.94% | average of the two; R² 0.93 since 1986 | the 10-year is +15bp above the model — rich to the model, not stretched (Bund as of 2026-10-30; GDP y/y last 5.9%, 2026-07) |
| 2-year vs fed funds | 2Y 4.56% − FF 3.88% = +68bp | the 2-year leads the Fed (2022: +237bp, the widest of his career) | the 2-year says the Fed is BEHIND — hike bias — the funds rate 'should' be ~75bp higher on his read |
| Copper/gold ratio (CPER/GLD) | 0.105 · +2.4% 3-mo · +24.3% 12-mo · 23th pct since 2018 | moves with the 10-year; ratio up = yields up | flat — no push either way |
| Shiller CAPE | 40.1 (mean 17.4, median 16.1, 1999 peak 44.2) | 10-yr forward real return vs CAPE, 1965–2015 | above 40 — in his 1965–2015 regression no 10-year forward REAL return from here was positive (multpl.com, 2026-11-01) |
| Import / export prices, y/y (his "purest" inflation) | imports +7.9% · exports +11.6% (2026-09) | unadjusted, no hedonics — "inflation is really running ~7%" on his Sep-8 read | elevated on both sides |
How we use it: the 10-year model and the 2-year spread inform the Monetary cycle's narrative and the duration gate (gate opens only when the monetary read turns); CAPE is valuation context — our own point-in-time test found valuation does not time entries, so it stays out of conviction; copper/gold is a tape cross-check.
Last note vs this note for the gauge; the tape by day from the daily monitor's snapshots. What moved, in one table.
| Gauge | Last note | This note | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conviction | +0.04 | +0.05 | +0.04 → +0.05: monetary eased (the 2-year fell 13bp on the week to 4.56%) and credit came in 14bp; September core PCE at 3.12% pulled the other way. They roughly cancelled. Same neutral band, eighth week inside ±0.05, targets unchanged |
| Growth | +0.52 | +0.50 | breadth broadened again (the only growth sub-indicator to move, Δz +0.27, now +1.57) against a soft September payroll print of +29K; 8 of 11 indicators above trend |
| Inflation | +0.19 | +0.23 | September core PCE 3.12% from 2.98% — a fourth month above 2.9% and the week's largest single mover at Δz +0.55. The state still reads cooling on momentum; the level is what moved |
| Fed net-liq, 13-wk | -1.6% | -1.7% | H.4.1: the Treasury rebuilt ~$48bn of cash into a reverse-repo facility already at $4.4bn, so net liquidity fell ~$56bn to $5.75tn. Drains now hit bank reserves directly; state stays risk-off (flips above +1%) |
| Monetary | -0.85 | -0.79 | −0.85 → −0.79: the 2-year at 4.56% against 4.70% on Tuesday, after the Fed held 3.75–4.00% on a 10–2 vote with both dissenters wanting a hike. Still 68bp above the funds rate — tight either way |
| Positioning | -0.31 | -0.34 | −0.31 → −0.34: Friday's 1.82% fall lifted the VIX to 19.4 from 17.2 on Thursday, and rate vol (MOVE) jumped from 93.5 to 100.2 in the same session after easing all week |
| Risk budget | 80% | 80% | unchanged at 80%: conviction stays inside the neutral band, so the ladder's neutral step holds and no sleeve was resized by the score |
| 10-yr vs Gundlach fair value | +0.25pp | +0.15pp | 10-yr 4.94% vs fair value 4.79%; TLT at 0% of its regime weight (scales in from +0.25pp) |
| Commodity gate | OFF | OFF | liquidity z +0.25, monetary z -0.24 vs −1 |
| Tape | Mon 10/26 | Tue 10/27 | Fri 10/30 | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-year (close) | 5.00% | 4.99% | 4.94% | repricing the policy path; 30-yr at its 2007 high |
| 2-year (close) | 4.68% | 4.70% | 4.56% | leads the Fed |
| USD/JPY | 157.7 | 157.9 | 157.5 | quiet — carry-unwind flag by history only |
| SOFR − IORB (spot) | +2bp | +3bp | +4bp | funding leg clear (21-day avg vs +5bp) |
| ON RRP | $0.2bn | $0.2bn | $4.4bn | drained |
| Fast-cut | HOLD | HOLD | HOLD | all three legs clear all week |
The inputs that came in, and what the model did with each — adopted, tested and kept, tested and rejected, or recorded as commentary. Details in the model changelog.
• The "why" column of this page's own gauge table had been September's for six weeks (process). The figures beside it were current every week; the explanations were not. It was still telling you that conviction moved because "the corrected 2-year (4.34 typed → 4.56 on FRED)" and because "August CPI/PPI prints entered the gauge" — reasons from around edition 3, printed next to edition 9 numbers. The file that holds them is hand-written, undated, and nothing watched it. Its twin, the sleeve-level version, was switched off for exactly this fault a few editions ago and the lesson was not carried across. It now sits inside the same ten-day freshness cut as the real-world check, so a stale reason stops the run the way a stale figure already did. A number and the sentence explaining it have to age at the same rate, or the sentence is doing the opposite of its job.
• The gate that checks our inputs are current was checking them against the wrong day (process). It graded every series against today rather than against the Friday the note is written about. That is correct for the daily page, whose as-of date is today, and wrong for a Sunday note where every figure is marked to the prior close. It stopped this publication on two inputs that were both current: a term-premium series nine days old against an eight-day rule (seven days old at the Friday, and the New York Fed has published nothing newer), and our own month-end flags file, which carries 31 October and was read as "a month behind" because the rule asks for the current month's month-end and November's does not exist yet. The second would have stopped every publication falling before the month's first trading day. The gate is not looser now; it is pointed at the right date.
• The tape table was showing one column per run instead of one per day. Twenty-five columns, with "Tue 10/27" sixteen times, because the daily monitor keeps an archive of every run beside each day's latest and the weekly was reading the archives as days. Nobody would have been misled, but a reader has a right to assume a table's shape means something.
• Two fast-cut legs moved toward their triggers in a week the book did nothing. Funding went from 6.1 basis points of room to 5.4; credit from 8 to 5.7. This is the kind of move that a "no change this week" summary hides, which is why the lead now carries it. Nothing is armed and nothing was sold. But a rule that exists to act quickly is worth less if we only look at it on the week it fires.
• A good forecaster says our credit instrument is not looking where the stress is, and he may be right. Gundlach's evidence is the low-quality and private end — a BBB bank-loan index down about 18% on price this year, SpaceX issued at BBB and trading at a junk spread, Oracle at BBB− trading like a single-B. Our leg reads the Baa spread and high-yield OAS, and both improved this week. We are not going to adopt his measure on his say-so; a view becomes a rule here only through a registered test. But the gap is recorded, with both numbers, because credit is the leg with the least room and the one he is talking about.
• The data defect this page disclosed last Friday has cleared itself. The Baa spread's long-window fetch was returning a cached, one-print-stale value, so our own freshness check and our own audit gave contradictory verdicts and no file state satisfied both. Both windows now return 29 October at 1.49%, the audit is clean on all 46 series, and this note carries the correct figure rather than a disclosure about it. The write-up stays on file: it was a real fault and it will recur the next time the cache lags, and knowing that is worth more than the fix.
• Gold and bitcoin fell with equities for a second week. Both are held because they are meant to gain when money is debased. Neither is doing it, and the tilt has already cut gold a point and holds bitcoin at three. The honest reading is that bitcoin needs plentiful liquidity as well as debasement, and liquidity is draining — net liquidity fell another $56bn this week with the reverse-repo facility already at nothing. That is an explanation, not a defence of the position.
• Harbor's rebalance was an instruction arriving, not a judgement. It picked up the cash-sleeve split agreed on 28 October — half T-bills, half one-to-three-year Treasuries. A holdings ledger only takes on a change like that at its next rebalance, so the drift that triggered it came from the decision and not from the market. Worth separating, because a book that trades in a falling week invites the assumption that the falling week caused it.
• A note that missed Wednesday and Thursday missed the week's two biggest stock moves (process). The daily monitor did not run on the 28th or 29th, so the first draft of this note counted "four quiet days up" when Thursday was down with Alphabet's worst day ever inside it, and named neither Alphabet, Amazon nor Lilly. The figures were right; the story was not. Caught at the owner's review, from sources he supplied. The Sunday run should check the week's largest single-name moves against the tape before the prose is written, not after.
Inflation cross-check · COVID-robustour standard read (+0.23) measures inflation against a decade whose average was inflated by the 2021–23 spike. On a COVID-robust basis (median/MAD) it reads +0.62, and broad underlying inflation still sits +0.60pp above the 2% target — the disinflation is off the peak, not below normal.
Which of the 19 sub-indicators shifted this week — only the movers (|Δz| ≥ 0.25).
| Indicator | Cycle | Now (z) | Δ wk | Verdict | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core PCE | Inflation | +0.04 | ▲ +0.55 | neutral | core PCE re-accelerating |
| Breadth | Growth | +1.57 | ▲ +0.27 | tailwind | market breadth broadening — healthy participation |
Net: Growth -0.02 → +0.50 · Inflation +0.04 → +0.23 · nothing flipped a cycle.
The jobs report on Friday is the one that can move the gauge. September added only 29,000 jobs after 133,000 in August, so October's print lands on a growth cycle that is reading +0.50 and firm. Payrolls is one of eleven growth indicators and no single month flips the cycle. But two soft months in a row would start to, and the growth score is what holds conviction in positive territory.
Wednesday's Treasury refunding is the quiet one worth watching. The announcement sets how much of the government's borrowing goes at the long end. In November 2023 the Treasury cut long-end issuance and the ten-year fell about 100 basis points into year-end. We hold no long bonds — the duration gate needs the ten-year to be at least 0.25 points cheap to its fair value and it is only 0.15 — so a refunding that rallies the long end would move us toward owning duration rather than rewarding us for already having it.
Tuesday's midterms are a dollar and long-end event, not an equity one, and we are not positioning for it. The dollar enters the gauge as a twelve-month trend, which an election night cannot move. If it matters it will matter through the long end and the deficit, and that shows up over months.
Thursday's balance sheet is now the most sensitive weekly number we read. Net liquidity is $5.75tn and falling about $56bn a week, with the reverse-repo buffer gone. The funding leg of the fast cut is 5.4 basis points from arming. Another week of the Treasury rebuilding cash takes it closer, and that is the one input that could change the book without anybody changing their mind about anything.
Monday and Wednesday bring the ISM surveys, which feed growth. Beyond this week, Nvidia reports on 19 November — the largest single test of the AI capex story our US equity sleeve is deliberately exposed to.
Scheduled releases that could move the gauge — consensus where available.
| Date | Release | Feeds | Consensus | Prior |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon 11/2 | ISM manufacturing (Oct) | Growth | — | — |
| Tue 11/3 | US midterm elections | Positioning | — | a dollar and long-end event rather than an equity one |
| Wed 11/4 | Treasury quarterly refunding announcement | Monetary | — | Nov 2023 precedent: issuance cut at the long end, 10-yr fell ~100bp into year-end |
| Wed 11/4 | ISM services (Oct) | Growth | — | — |
| Thu 11/5 | Fed H.4.1 balance sheet (Nov 4) | Liquidity | — | net liquidity $5.75T, falling ~$56bn/wk; RRP already at $4.4bn, so drains hit reserves directly |
| Thu 11/5 | Initial jobless claims | Growth | — | 194K the week of Oct 17 |
| Fri 11/6 | Employment report (Oct): payrolls, unemployment, average hourly earnings | Growth | — | +29K in September, after +133K in August — the softest of the three |
| Thu 11/19 | Nvidia earnings | Growth | — | the largest single test of the AI earnings story |
The outside-view check, run to `data/outside_view/CHECKLIST.md`. Every figure below is checked against our own series before it is printed, ours is shown beside theirs, and nothing here moves a weight. The window is ten days to Friday's close — anything filed before 22 October is background, not current.
One line per desk — corroborates, challenges, or silent, with the reason.
Fixed income — Jeffrey Gundlach (CNBC, 28 October, after the Fed): challenges us, on the leg with the least room. He says spreads are widening across emerging markets, asset-backed, commercial mortgages and investment grade, and calls it "the beginning of a trend, not just a bump." Our credit leg went the other way this week. In a long-form interview filed the next day (29 October) he goes further on the private end — the CCC bank-loan index below 65, private credit "lucky to be valued at 65 or 70", a buyer himself only at 35 — and adds three positions that bear on us: long rates to 6%, equal-weight over cap-weight, and emerging markets continuing to outperform. His 10-year fair-value model is not discussed there. Details below.
Oil, gold and geopolitics — Doomberg (three podcast appearances, 29 and 26 October filed; the 19 October one is background): corroborates, conditionally. His branch call in one line: no third round of strikes on Iran after the midterms, his base case — and if the war settles, "diesel is going to collapse. Inflation will come back under control." That is the same direction our inflation cycle reads (cooling), arrived at a completely different way. He also argues refining rather than crude is the constraint, which is where our oil panel is pointed: the diesel margin over Brent is at the 98th percentile since 2006 and Brent's premium over WTI at the 97th. Those are the prices that move first if he is right.
Semis and AI — Michael Burry (nine paid posts to 29 October, chat to 30 October): challenges our framing, and his one measurable call went further his way. He holds that today's S&P internals resemble only March 2000, after which the leaders fell and the already-broken stocks rose. Operationalised in our ledger as the equal-weighted index beating the Nasdaq-100 over eighteen months from 6 October, that call gained another 2.79 points this week — the equal-weighted index rose 0.82% while the Nasdaq-100 fell 1.97%. His other call, a significant top within nine months, needs a 20% fall; we are 3.05% below the record. Worth being exact about where we differ: our own breadth input agrees with his description and reads a +1.57 tailwind. We disagree on whether it can be traded as a rule, because our own equal-weight rules failed their pre-registered bars twice.
Macro — Apollo Daily Spark: silent, and the silence is ours. This is a standing daily desk and nothing was fetched or filed for this window. Not "he said nothing" — we did not read him. Recorded so it is a gap rather than an omission.
Macro — Lyn Alden (Coin Stories, 30 October; a standing desk from this edition at the owner's instruction): corroborates on gold, and takes the other side of Gundlach twice. Gold "could take a while": after a run that took its market to tens of trillions, a correction comes in price or in time — after 2021 it took two to three years — and sovereign buying is a small share of the market. That is the direction our momentum tilt has already taken it, 12% to 11%. On bonds she is "way less bearish than consensus suddenly became": a ten-year near 5% against broad money growing about 6% is a 1% dilution rate, mild by the standards of the 2010s, and the curve is flat rather than broken. On private credit she fades contagion — funds that never promised daily liquidity do not fail like banks — the opposite of Gundlach's subprime analogue. Her background force is fiscal dominance: deficits near 7% of GDP and a gradual print, not a dramatic one. Bitcoin was "a little under 80, a little over 80" as she spoke; our Friday close is 77,198. Her 2036 base case of about $1m is logged.
Multi-asset — Alexandra Wilson-Elizondo, Goldman Sachs Asset Management (Full Signal, 27 October): corroborates our breadth read, challenges Gundlach on credit. "In aggregate the market is healthy. It's narrow underneath": several large stocks are 20% or more below their highs while the index holds. The fourth stage of the AI trade is debt-funded, and the pressure is supply "indigestion" in investment grade and high yield, not a bubble — the hyperscalers are "very high quality credits". She is still constructive on Korea and emerging markets as part of the AI cycle, the side our EM sleeve is on, and names pharma and utilities as 2027 sectors. The longevity trade is a thematic lens at Goldman; the Lilly case made on the show was the host's. Goldman put on selective hedges around the midterms.
Macro — Ray Dalio, Michael Howell: silent. Nothing new filed inside the window. Macro — Mark Meldrum: published his weekly on 1 November, after Friday's close; its captions were not yet available on the night, so it is not cited and is carried to the daily.
Semis — Dan Niles: silent. No appearance or note filed, through a week that included Microsoft and Alphabet earnings. His standing measures — breadth, mega-caps against small caps — moved our way this week, and we are not crediting that to a desk we did not read.
One-off — the All-In podcast (30 October, not a desk): evidence for the ledger, and the market-structure point of the week. The Anthropic S-1 as they read it: first-half revenue $16.3bn, second quarter $11.6bn, about 11,900 customers above $100,000 a year, and a company projection of $100bn of annualised revenue by year-end — the figure Burry's open call says it will miss; one host relays unverified talk that third-quarter growth slowed. On Alphabet their reading matches the tape above: two quarters of search revenue short of expectations, cloud doubled to $30.7bn, free cash flow negative, and a disputed change to the ad auction that investors are now asking about. Their structural point: the AI complex's borrowing through 2027 is put at about 30% of Treasury issuance over the same period — the crowding-out Gundlach describes, from the other seat.
Where we disagree. Theirs, then ours. No resolution forced.
Credit — Gundlach against us, and it is the real one. He sees spreads widening everywhere, and points at the low-quality and private end: a BBB bank-loan index at a price of 65, down about 18% this year; SpaceX issued at BBB and trading at a junk spread; Oracle at BBB− trading like a single-B; the 2006 subprime analogue. On the 29th he put numbers on the private end: a portfolio marked honestly would sit at 65–70, exposure nearer $3tn than the $1.8tn quoted — his guess, by his own account without particular insight — and his own bid at 35. Ours: the Baa spread is 1.49% and high yield 3.26%, both as of 29 October and both tighter on the week. Even the one listed proxy for private credit went his opposite way — BIZD rose 3.86% against high yield's 0.49%. The reason this matters more than a normal disagreement: credit is the fast-cut leg with the least room, 5.7 basis points from firing, and his claim is that our instrument does not look where the stress is.
The two-year — same conclusion, different number. He said "four and three-quarters" on 28 October. Ours: 4.56% at Friday's close, 68 basis points above the funds rate. His figure was two days and about 14 basis points earlier. Both readings say the same thing, which is that the market has tightened more than the Fed has.
Inflation — his level against our score. His energy-led model has headline CPI "starting with a four" for several months. Ours: the inflation cycle reads +0.23 with the state still cooling. The two are less far apart than they sound: our z-scores are measured against a decade whose average was inflated by the 2021–23 spike, and on a COVID-robust basis the same cycle reads +0.62, with broad underlying inflation 0.60 points above target. He is describing the level; we are describing the change.
Iran — Doomberg against the crowd. His base case is no third round of strikes after the midterms. Ours: no view; we do not forecast this. For reference the crowd puts 26% on the ceasefire holding to 31 December, which makes this close to the sharpest disagreement on the board.
Market leadership — Burry against our construction, not our reading. He holds that the leaders lag and the broken stocks rise, as after March 2000. Ours: we agree with the description — our own breadth input reads a +1.57 tailwind — and we hold the opposite side on purpose, through the cap-weighted index, mega-caps and a momentum fund, never equal-weight. It cost us this week and accounts for most of our 1.85-point gap to the benchmark since inception. Where we actually differ is whether it can be traded as a rule, and our own equal-weight rules failed their pre-registered bars twice.
Credit, three ways. Gundlach: spreads widening everywhere, private credit marked thirty points too high, the 2006 analogue. Wilson-Elizondo: supply indigestion in high-quality credits, not stress. Alden: private-credit losses land on investors, not the banking system, so no contagion. Ours: Baa 1.49% and high yield 3.26%, both tighter, 5.7 basis points from the fast-cut trigger. Recorded, not resolved — and the one that matters most to the book, because the leg is the thinnest.
Rates, three ways. Gundlach: long rates "take a look at 6%", a bear market since 2020. Alden: the bond bears overshot — at 5% the dilution math is mild and the curve is flat. All-In: AI borrowing competes with Treasuries, so somebody pays more. Ours: the ten-year 4.94% against a 4.79% fair value, and TLT at zero because the gap is 0.15 against a 0.25 trigger — between the camps by construction, not by view.
The calls ledger. Two new calls and none due. Gundlach's "we're going to take a look at 6% on long-term interest rates" (29 October) is logged with our own date on it, since he gave none: the 30-year closes at 6.00% or above by 29 October 2027, against 5.31% on Friday. Alden's 2036 bitcoin base case, about $1m, is logged as her own (30 October, against 77,198). Burry's open Anthropic call gains its first evidence from the S-1 figures above, both ways, and resolves on the year-end number. Twelve are open and the earliest resolves on 31 December (Doomberg's no-third-round, Gundlach's December hike). Gundlach's hike call was logged on 28 October from the CNBC appearance, with his conditional clause — "absent a crack in the oil price" — recorded. One correction to the ledger itself: the note on Burry's top call carried the S&P at 7,595.59 for 30 October; the official close was 7,580.07, and the row has been fixed. It does not change the call or its rule.
Freshness, by each file's own date, against a 22 October cut. Burry 30 October; Doomberg 29 October, with the 26 October transcript filed beside it and the 19 October appearance marked background and not carried; Gundlach 28 and 29 October; Wilson-Elizondo 27 October; Alden 30 October; All-In 30 October. Six desks are cited and eight files are inside the window. The silent desks are cited for nothing, which is the point of recording them. Three of the four sources the owner supplied on 1 November were read through the watch page after the caption service refused the night's fetches; the fourth, Meldrum's, had no captions yet.
And the prediction markets, read against our cycles: the crowd prices the Fed hawkish, which confirms our tight monetary read; puts recession at 7% (benign risk), consistent with our conviction (+0.05); puts Hormuz traffic back to normal by year-end at 10% — the supply shock is the base case, consistent with our energy-led inflation read. Net, Polymarket's macro pricing this week and our six cycles corroborate the model's cautious stance.
Monetary · Financial conditions · Dollar — where the crowd is pricing the macro.
| Sleeve | Macro Tide Core | Macro Tide Spring | Macro Tide Harbor |
|---|---|---|---|
| US equity, total | 48% | 48% | 43% |
| SPY (S&P 500) | 16.0% | 16.0% | 14.4% |
| SPMO (momentum; gate on above conviction +0.20, off below −0.20, held in between) | 16.0% | 16.0% | 14.4% |
| MAGS (mega-cap growth) | 16.0% | 16.0% | 14.4% |
| Int'l developed (VEA) | 13% | 13% | 12% |
| Emerging mkts (EEM) | 10% | 10% | 9% |
| Diversified commodities (PDBC) | 16% | 16% | 14% |
| Gold (GLD) | 11% | 11% | 10% |
| Bitcoin (IBIT) | 3% | 3% | 2% |
| Managed futures (DBMF) | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Long bonds (TLT) | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Cash (USFR + SCHO) | 0% | 0% | 10% |
Three products, one engine. Macro Tide Core — the engine, long-only, for retirement accounts · no withdrawals · drawdown budget 12%. Macro Tide Spring — the engine plus a 15/15 market-neutral pair, in a taxable margin account · gross 130%, net 100%; its sleeve weights are the Macro Tide Core's, the pair sits on top. Macro Tide Harbor — the engine with two years of spending held in T-bills, for clients drawing income · hard 10% cash floor at 5%/yr; 4% / 6% are dials: floor = max(10%, 2 × rate); today the floor binds (the Macro Tide Core holds 0% cash, this book holds 10%). All three: risk cap 1.00, ladder 1.00 / 0.90 / 0.80 / 0.25 / 0.10 on conviction, fast-cut to 35% risk, momentum tilt k .50, Gundlach duration gate, the momentum leg (SPMO) gated on ±0.20 hysteresis in conviction. Adopted 2026-09-13 on fifteen pre-registered bars (changelog §27); the books run from the 8/31 close on these rules (§28).
US-equity legs: SPY 33 / SPMO 33 / MAGS 33 (momentum ON — conviction +0.05; the gate turns on above +0.20, off below −0.20, and holds in between) The US-equity sleeve is a deliberate, sized bet on the AI capex cycle (MAGS, and momentum while the gate holds) — an exposure the conviction gate and the fast-cut exist to contain, not a claim that the cycle's returns on capital will hold.
Core's book in a retirement account, with the equity sleeves at 1.4× through listed calls on the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100. Every sleeve is Core's; what differs is below. Summit is not yet offered: these are its targets for the 2026-10-30 close, on the record before its ledger exists.
| Summit differs from Core in | Macro Tide Core | Macro Tide Summit |
|---|---|---|
| SPY (S&P 500) | 16.0% | 16.0% |
| SPMO (momentum; gate on above conviction +0.20, off below −0.20, held in between) | 16.0% | 16.0% |
| MAGS (mega-cap growth) | 16.0% | 16.0% |
| S&P 500 calls | — | exposure 14.1% + the SPY shares sold for the premiums |
| Nasdaq 100 calls | — | exposure 14.1% |
| Equity exposure (US, international, emerging) | 70.7% | 99.0% |
The option chain was not read within four days of the 2026-10-30 close, so the series and premiums are not shown; the exposure targets stand.
Relative-momentum tilt (allocator 1.16): each non-US risk sleeve × (1 + 0.50·z), z = its 12-month return vs SPY against its own 120-month history, clipped ±2; the risk sleeves are rescaled so the risk budget and cash are unchanged. Read at the 2026-10-31 close: Int'l z +1.2 → ×1.59 · EM z +0.5 → ×1.25 · Commodities z +1.9 → ×1.95 · Gold z -0.8 → ×0.61 · BTC z -0.7 → ×0.66 · Mgd fut z +0.7 → ×1.35 · Long bonds z -0.1 → ×0.93.
Duration gate (Gundlach, allocator 1.18): 10-yr 4.94% vs fair value 4.79% ((Bund + 7-yr nominal GDP growth) ÷ 2; Bund 3.38 (2026-10-30), GDP to 2026-07) → gap +0.15pp → TLT at 0% of its regime weight (scales in from +0.25pp, full at +0.75pp). Own duration only when the bond is cheap to his model; at a fair-value gap long bonds beat cash 40% of the time, above +0.25pp 78%.
Commodity gate (allocator 1.20, changelog §33): the commodity sleeve moves to cash when global liquidity momentum or the monetary read sits one standard deviation below its own 60-month norm. This week: liquidity z +0.25, monetary z -0.24 → gate OFF. Adopted on ten pre-registered bars; its work is in tightening cycles (gated months lost 2.8%/mo in 2007–16).
the engine, long-only, for retirement accounts · no withdrawals · drawdown budget 12%. A share-by-share ledger started at the 8/31/2026 closes. It trades only when a sleeve drifts more than 3 points off target, or once a month, and every trade is dated in the rebalance log. A hypothetical track record, not advice.
| Holding | Ticker | Shares | Price | Value | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US equity | SPY | 19.83 | $755.72 | $14,984 | 15.5% |
| US equity | SPMO | 109.11 | $136.27 | $14,869 | 15.3% |
| US equity | MAGS | 215.01 | $68.48 | $14,724 | 15.2% |
| Int'l developed | VEA | 166.94 | $69.44 | $11,592 | 12.0% |
| Emerging mkts | EEM | 164.36 | $61.04 | $10,032 | 10.4% |
| Commodities | PDBC | 729.54 | $20.02 | $14,605 | 15.1% |
| Gold | GLD | 35.74 | $355.78 | $12,715 | 13.1% |
| Bitcoin | IBIT | 54.10 | $43.36 | $2,346 | 2.4% |
| Long bonds | TLT | 12.89 | $81.84 | $1,055 | 1.1% |
the engine plus a 15/15 market-neutral pair, in a taxable margin account · gross 130%, net 100%. A share-by-share ledger started at the 8/31/2026 closes. It trades only when a sleeve drifts more than 3 points off target, or once a month, and every trade is dated in the rebalance log. A hypothetical track record, not advice.
| Holding | Ticker | Shares | Price | Value | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US equity | SPY | 19.94 | $755.72 | $15,068 | 15.5% |
| US equity | SPMO | 109.73 | $136.27 | $14,953 | 15.3% |
| US equity | MAGS | 216.22 | $68.48 | $14,807 | 15.2% |
| Int'l developed | VEA | 167.88 | $69.44 | $11,658 | 12.0% |
| Emerging mkts | EEM | 165.28 | $61.04 | $10,089 | 10.4% |
| Commodities | PDBC | 733.65 | $20.02 | $14,688 | 15.1% |
| Gold | GLD | 35.94 | $355.78 | $12,786 | 13.1% |
| Bitcoin | IBIT | 54.40 | $43.36 | $2,359 | 2.4% |
| Long bonds | TLT | 12.96 | $81.84 | $1,061 | 1.1% |
the engine with two years of spending held in T-bills, for clients drawing income · hard 10% cash floor at 5%/yr; 4% / 6% are dials: floor = max(10%, 2 × rate). A share-by-share ledger started at the 8/31/2026 closes. It trades only when a sleeve drifts more than 3 points off target, or once a month, and every trade is dated in the rebalance log. A hypothetical track record, not advice.
| Holding | Ticker | Shares | Price | Value | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US equity | SPY | 18.52 | $755.72 | $13,993 | 14.4% |
| US equity | SPMO | 102.69 | $136.27 | $13,993 | 14.4% |
| US equity | MAGS | 204.34 | $68.48 | $13,993 | 14.4% |
| Int'l developed | VEA | 161.35 | $69.44 | $11,204 | 11.5% |
| Emerging mkts | EEM | 142.48 | $61.04 | $8,697 | 9.0% |
| Commodities | PDBC | 676.14 | $20.02 | $13,536 | 13.9% |
| Gold | GLD | 27.37 | $355.78 | $9,737 | 10.0% |
| Bitcoin | IBIT | 52.89 | $43.36 | $2,293 | 2.4% |
| Cash | USFR | 96.40 | $50.40 | $4,859 | 5.0% |
| Cash | SCHO | 202.28 | $24.02 | $4,859 | 5.0% |
Inception 8/31/2026 · week 9 · $100,000 each · products reconstructed to the 8/31 close on the rules adopted 9/13 · marked to the 10/30/2026 close.
Macro Tide Core, Macro Tide Spring and Macro Tide Harbor are $100,000 share ledgers run from the 8/31 close on the rules adopted 9/13 — their history to that date is a reconstruction from the reads published each week, at Schwab closes, with the same drift rule (changelog §28). SPY is a 100% S&P-500 benchmark on the standard weekly basis — the 8/28 close (769.35), a fixed historical close, → latest close. That basis is what makes the benchmark's weekly move below the same figure Google and Schwab quote for the S&P. Max drawdown is the realised peak-to-trough of every daily close since inception, not of the weekly marks: the marks are the days the model happened to run, and a trough between two of them is invisible to them (perf 1.13.0, after edition 7's figure was restated). It is measured to the latest close, so a book still falling shows its drawdown running rather than recovered. It is the live path to date and not the 2007–26 backtested figure; those are in Four ways to hold the same risk. Sharpe and beta are withheld until 52 weekly marks (week 7 of 52): annualised from fewer, they would be a confident number about nothing. Hypothetical, not advice. The Balanced book was closed at the 9/11/2026 mark at $100,155 (+0.16% since inception) when the profile was retired (changelog §12).
| Portfolio | Inception | Value | Since inception | This week | vs SPY | Max DD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macro Tide Core | 8/31/2026 | $96,922 | -3.08% | -1.56% | -1.85pp | -3.28% |
| Macro Tide Spring | 8/31/2026 | $97,446 | -2.55% | -1.56% | -1.32pp | -3.28% |
| Macro Tide Harbor | 8/31/2026 | $97,165 | -2.84% | -1.43% | -1.60pp | -2.95% |
| SPY (benchmark) | 8/28/2026 | $98,228 | -1.77% | -0.56% | benchmark | -2.15% |
The same sleeves, four ways: buy SPY and hold; the static four-sleeve basket from Part 2 (SPY, QQQ, gold, managed futures, fixed weights); inverse-volatility over those four (quarterly, trailing 12-month vol); and the nine-sleeve regime model as run today (six-cycle conviction, fast-cut, momentum tilt, net of 0bp one-way). Sharpe is excess over T-bills. Closed months only, Feb 2007 to Sep 2026: the month in progress is left out, as in the start-date study. The eras are a regime split, not out-of-sample validation — every rule was chosen knowing the full history.
| Strategy | 2007–26 CAGR | Sharpe | MaxDD | Era A 2007–16 CAGR | Sharpe | MaxDD | Era B 2016–26 CAGR | Sharpe | MaxDD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPY, buy and hold | 10.9% | 0.65 | -51% | 6.6% | 0.46 | -51% | 15.3% | 0.84 | -24% |
| Static 4-sleeve basket (Part 2) | 10.2% | 0.87 | -23% | 6.3% | 0.61 | -23% | 14.3% | 1.14 | -13% |
| Inverse-vol, 4 sleeves (qtrly) | 9.3% | 0.87 | -21% | 5.2% | 0.55 | -21% | 13.6% | 1.19 | -11% |
| Macro Tide Core (net 0bp) | 14.1% | 1.38 | -8% | 9.6% | 1.06 | -8% | 18.8% | 1.70 | -7% |
| Macro Tide Spring, gross 130% (net 0bp) | 14.6% | 1.41 | -8% | 10.3% | 1.11 | -8% | 19.1% | 1.72 | -6% |
| Macro Tide Harbor, floor 10% (net 0bp) | 13.2% | 1.39 | -7% | 9.0% | 1.08 | -7% | 17.6% | 1.70 | -7% |
Backtest 2026-10-29: neutral risk step 0.55, momentum tilt mom. Inverse-vol is the honest passive alternative: it keeps most of the static basket's return with less drawdown, and the regime model's edge over it is the drawdown, not the return.
The Macro Tide Harbor is built for a 5%/yr withdrawal: the same engine with a hard 10% cash floor (2 years of spending) that tops the cash sleeve up, never adds to it. The glide never spends the cushion: when the model returns idle cash to the risk sleeves after a bottoming signal, it deploys only what sits above the floor, so the 2 years of spending are intact in every month of both test samples. The other lines are shown under the same withdrawals with no floor of their own. Below: withdraw the dial's rate of starting capital every year (monthly, not inflation-indexed) from 2007 to today, and over every rolling 10-year window. Start 100. The Conservative and Balanced profiles were retired (changelog §12).
| Dial | Line | End 2007–26 | Worst drawdown of wealth | Rolling 10-yr end, median | Rolling 10-yr end, worst | Rolling worst drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4% | Macro Tide Harbor (floor 10%) | 771 | -8% | 217 | 173 | -9% |
| Macro Tide Core, no floor | 913 | -9% | 232 | 180 | -10% | |
| Macro Tide Spring, no floor | 1008 | -9% | 252 | 201 | -9% | |
| SPY, buy and hold | 395 | -54% | 265 | 119 | -54% | |
| 5% | Macro Tide Harbor (floor 10%) | 675 | -9% | 199 | 157 | -10% |
| Macro Tide Core, no floor | 806 | -9% | 213 | 163 | -10% | |
| Macro Tide Spring, no floor | 896 | -9% | 231 | 183 | -10% | |
| SPY, buy and hold | 303 | -55% | 246 | 100 | -55% | |
| 6% | Macro Tide Harbor (floor 10%) | 579 | -10% | 180 | 140 | -11% |
| Macro Tide Core, no floor | 699 | -10% | 193 | 146 | -12% | |
| Macro Tide Spring, no floor | 784 | -10% | 211 | 165 | -11% | |
| SPY, buy and hold | 212 | -56% | 226 | 81 | -56% |
Nominal withdrawals of starting capital; indexing them to inflation makes every line harder, the 6% dial most. The floor costs a little return in high-conviction months (it binds only when the model wants less than 2 years of spending in cash) and buys liquidity, not drawdown protection: the client never sells the engine to fund a withdrawal. Backtest 2026-10-29.
Not investment advice. Hypothetical framework output computed on public data (FRED + Yahoo Finance); past performance does not predict future results. This is a research and education note, not a recommendation.
© 2026 Nemdhari LLC. All rights reserved. The Macro Tide framework — its six-cycle regime gauge, conviction score, allocation rules, indicators, code and model portfolios — is the proprietary intellectual property of Nemdhari LLC. Research and education only; not investment advice, not an offer or solicitation, and not a recommendation for any person. Hypothetical and model results do not reflect actual client accounts; past performance does not predict future results.
Also on Substack · bambi9.substack.com