More of the same is not corrobative evidence

Guambat would really like to jump on this as a harbinger, a swoop, an "I was just saying". But reading the same thing several times is not corroboration.

BUT, just in case I might later be able to crow, "I told you so", there's this:

Swooning canaries, exploding debt

The FT’s Gillian Tett makes the point in her Tuesday column that the recent inversion of 10-year swap spreads could be heralding something important, namely worries over US sovereign risk.

It’s a theme that was picked up by Bloomberg on Monday, in relation to US Treasury yields generally, and again on Tuesday with its chart of the day, which is focused on what negative swap spreads might be saying about the US dollar’s fortunes.

[There's a quote and a reference to this Bloomberg article, which Guambat had read at the time, as well as that chart, and thought "hummmmm. There might be something in this." But then his mind went blank.]

Of course, correlation ≠ causation, and there are still plenty of people who think negative swap spreads have absolutely zip to do with how the market views US debt, and by extension, its currency.

But still, something to think about as the dollar slides for a second consecutive day.

Presumably, someone will at some point for no particular reason snap their fingers, and Guambat will come out of it.