The ‘No Landing’ Risk

"Soft landing" or "hard landing"? The plane metaphors are a bit grating by now. As I put it last week, ubiquity is conducive to clichés, and that's where we are with aeronautics, policy and macro. Thankfully, BofA's Michael Hartnett has a new spin on this otherwise tired debate. In the latest installment of his popular weekly "Flow Show" series, Hartnett wondered what might befall markets if the "'soft landing' narrative temporarily shifts into a 'no landing' view." Bonds are a bull story in

Join institutional investors, analysts and strategists from the world's largest banks: Subscribe today

View subscription options

Already have an account? log in

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

7 thoughts on “The ‘No Landing’ Risk

    1. For the sake of characterizing what we’re seeing, here’s my take. Borrowing a term from the early 60s, it’s kind of a “whirlybird” economy. It’s not moving fast. It’s losing dynamism. But it’s not merely sitting, inactive. It’s no jet, nor even a propeller plane. It’s hovering, but it remains airborne.

      If it’s going to land, it seems more likely to enable a soft landing, and less likely to crash.

  1. Even earlier this week I heard a portfolio manager on CNBC pointing to the “good earnings” so far this year, citing a high percentage of “beats” of lowered expectations. The results announced over the past two days has to call some of that optimism into question. Of particular interest is that a growing number of non-tech names are joining the party.

    Maybe the strategists at JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley will be proven right when it comes to earnings?

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints