"گزارش‌های بسیار ناراحت‌کننده و مرزی نگران‌کننده"

"Lots Of Distressing And Borderline Disturbing Reports" By Michael Every of Rabobank

As has been the norm in 2026 to date, there are lots of distressing and borderline disturbing reports this morning and very little sign of progress where it’s needed. For once these surprises don’t all cluster in the messy world of geopolitics – and one is right in the middle of inflation and monetary policy.

Yesterday’s US CPI print came in hotter than expected at 0.4% m-o-m headline vs. a consensus of 0.3% and 0.3% core vs. a 0.2% market view. To put it in the words of the usually dovish Fed voter Goolsbee, “ It’s another distressing report, borderline disturbing . We’ve been hoping to get progress .” Instead, we saw an acceleration in grocery and food inflation, persistent housing/shelter price pressure, and a delayed pass-through from earlier energy shocks feeding into medical care, household furnishings, and other daily expenses.

The reaction in US 2-year yields was dramatic - they jumped 19bps while 10-year yields rose 14bps to briefly go back above 5% again; today, we have a Bloomberg story talking about the possibility of a 50bps hike from the Fed!

Of course, that US yield spike came just after everyone rushed back into Treasuries after the AI and bullish oil trades hit an air pocket with last week’s US election on the view that the former is likely to be slowed down and that we are closer to peace than war in the Middle East on the back of the recent Democrat Blue Tsunami. Now imagine if either of those were not the case.

On AI, nobody knows what will happen next . However, as headlines along the lines of the old Bond film ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’ swirl around the Nvidia CEO, the Financial Times headline today is that Anthropic’s bankers are preparing to increase its IPO valuation to $1.5 trillion.

On the geopolitical front, Trump just said the US will continue with a full sea and land economic blockade of Iran and that new strikes are “highly unlikely.” However, the Jerusalem Post cites diplomatic sources that Qatar’s prime minister told G7 foreign ministers Doha had secured “at least two weeks” to pursue an understanding between D.C. and Tehran before US escalation . Presuming this was achieved last weekend, where other reports suggest the US was moments away from striking, that means we could still be looking at more fighting by mid- to end-November, at which time a third US aircraft carrier will be in the region. That’s a distressing report.

That is, unless an agreement can be reached: yet the US Secretary of State and Iranian officials insist the other side is intractable. Tehran also just demonstrated to its media the scale of its remaining underground missile city facilities, as western intelligence reports point to the ability to produce up to 50 missiles a month despite the US blockade.

Other logistical movements point to a high risk of looming conflict. The US just relocated 10 refuelling planes from a second UK airbase for fear of Iranian retaliation, an indictment of Western security – but retaliation for what if no attacks are planned?

And recall the war is on more than one front. Syrian officials have denied reports that thousands of its troops have been deployed to aid Saudi forces against the Houthis in Yemen, stating they are only there for “training, expertise exchange and military consultations.” A useful coincidence as Syria considers joining the Mecca Pact, under which Egyptian and Pakistani troops are already present in Saudi alongside French and British fighter jets.

Meanwhile, in Abu Dhabi, Russia, Ukraine, and the US held talks about a “final end” to the war and a “new European security architecture .” On the former, Zelenskyy the initial discussions as “constructive and fairly substantive,” but that Putin lives in “a different reality.” On the latter, it’s notable Europe wasn’t present. When changes to one’s home’s architecture are planned you usually get a say(!) – but not the case when much of the architecture is (for now) provided by others.

In a best-case scenario, this may lead to a frozen conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In the worst-case scenarios, the talks collapse and we go back to escalation; or, less likely, fears are the US might agree with Russian demands for a roll-back of NATO and a seat at Europe’s table as the price for peace. That’s a stark binary with potentially equally stark impact on Europe across different dimensions. It’s borderline disturbing to have to talk about borders and lines (on maps and screens) like that.

Linking this Great Power zeitgeist back to markets, Bloomberg today notes that Russia has effectively abandoned attempts to replace the dollar with CNY due to US secondary sanctions , the yuan's share in payments for Russian exports halving to 22%, and Russia now receiving RUB for 69% of its exports to Asia. That leaves Russian businesses with slower, more expensive, less predictable, and more complex payment routes and shows some of the power the US can bring to bear in the financial space even as its shortfalls in terms of military industries are equally evident.

On the same zeitgeist, Canadian PM Carney publicly stated that regarding China: “ In terms of the security risks for our partnership, they’re much, much, much less than the security risks, for example, of the United States.” Trumpian rhetoric and Carney’s talk of a US invasion aside(!), Canada and the US are still NATO allies and members of NORAD. The PM’s rhetoric may be a negotiating position over tariffs - but it remains to be seen if the new Blue US Congress is prepared to lower those vs. Canada if Ottawa is at the same time determined to integrate its economy more closely with China’s.

It’s also notable that the Dutch candidate to replace ECB President Lagarde, Klaas Knot, gave an interview to the Financial Times in which he stated, “If circumstances require it, we will not hesitate to take action.” He wasn’t referring to 50bps rate hikes due to geopolitically driven inflation but in the opposite direction, where if Europe were to see a future crisis “of a different nature,” he “would not rule out developing another, more tailored instrument.” Yet given potential crises could emerge from the absence of black, sticky, liquid products rather than digital financial liquidity, is there a tacit implication that “Whatever it takes” might need to become “Wherever it takes us”?

If so, is that reassuring, a distressing report, or borderline disturbing ?