How does one draw the conclusion the consumer is weak? Moreover, that is clearly subjective as weak to one person may be strong or moderate to another.

Why would you only offer non-commerical positions and also not include combined open interest in VIX futures? Where's the extrapolative value in such an offering?

"GDP is hyped-up to be an all-important measure of economic activity. It does not measure economic activity, instead, recording meaningless money-totals spent in unsound currency over a given period. A bad statistic such as GDP is wide open to official manipulation, and there is always a desire to enhance it. GDP-B, which includes an estimated consumer surplus, appears to conform with this desire. If it is successfully introduced, GDP would be substantially increased, making governments look good, and reducing their debt to GDP ratios. However, it is no more than a statistical cheat."

If always open to cheat/manipulation and that exercise is always performed with regard to the reported data, then there's always a delta factor between real and manipulation that is still extrapolated as the real perspective number.

Up 8% is fantastic, no digs there. We were heavy cash and building positions through Q4

Yes, options can breed that kind of % return, but on a dollar basis is more my consideration. I don't see many strategies that would have delivered the short-VOL returns during the Oct-present period. Just don't see them? With respect certainly. And in kind, my alerts are actually public via Twitter, feel free. https://twitter.com/SethCL My comment and consideration was with respect to the hedging idea vs. shorting-VOL.

Understood! But I was shorting TVIX/UVXY through that event, which proved a more favorable and profitable strategy. Given the aforementioned and with a macro-focused outlook.

Yes, those are the actions of fund managers and the like, portfolio protection. But historically, it's more a tax than a hedge, but utilized as you noted, for overnight comforting. Seems a misguided practice given the history of underperforming fund managers and the propensity for the markets to climb over time.

Great article, but I would greatly disagree with even the notion of forecasting for bond yields as it proves unnecessary. Yields go in one direction long-term, so the point of nearterm prospecting is somewhat futile or found unsatisfactory for drawing out equity moves in correlation. Worthy commentary altogether within the article, just dont see the exercise as needed.

But in past articles you've blamed the Fed for this that and the other? If the Fed is the blame, why can't it be the solution? Unless the former was the wrong premise to begin with and more a permabear narrative without substantive qualifications?

Take offense? Not sure why anyone would "take offense" or why that question would be front of mind. It was a simple request for an otherwise well-appreciated author. Nonetheless, it's quite terribly littered with grammatical issues a reader has to contend with. Starts from the top and works its way through and to the bottom of the narrative.

"As you can see, the proportion of Q3 revenue beats in the lowest in almost two years (75% of S&P 500 members have reported Q3 results already, as of Friday, November 2)."

Just one example near the top that is most apparent to the laymen.