Way back two weeks ago, I took a few minutes to editorialize around what I called the “forever inversion.”

The US 2s10s inverted two years ago in what should’ve been an inauspicious macro development. Although growth did contract a second consecutive quarter right around the time of the original inversion, no one — not even committed bears — thought that was the recession. The “big one,” as it were, was still several quarters away. Or so the story went. And so the curve foretold.

But that story never panned out. And the curve’s reputation as an infallible macro oracle suffered a blow. The US economic juggernaut went on to average a 2.7% real growth rate across a seven-quarter (and counting) expansion.

If you’re wondering, the inversion’s the longest in more than 100 years. The table below, from BofA’s Michael Hartnett, shows you the history of inversions.

“[The] yield curve has predicted nine of 10 US recessions in the past 70 years,” Hartnett wrote. “Not this time!”

Nope, “not this time!” Sorry, Cam Harvey. You can’t win ’em all, as the old saying goes.

Hartnett went on to document the long list of reasons for the curve’s lost prescience. He mentioned “excess global liquidity” and the extension of monetary lags due to fixed-rate mortgages and refinanced corporate debt. He also cited regulations, which have left banks “over-capitalized.” (Leave it to a banker to claim banks are regulated too harshly.)

“Still,” Hartnett said, the curve’s shown some signs of wanting to dis-invert and “history says lags are simply lags.” If the macro ever rolls over in earnest and forces the Fed to cut rapidly, the curve “will turn steep quick,” he wrote, adding that “every 2s10s steepening cycle has witnessed a credit bear market.”