As of this moment, right now, it isn’t entirely clear what, if any, impact the partial US government shutdown (the second in four months) will have on the dissemination of government-tallied economic data.

With that caveat — and with the obligatory reminder that acute political dysfunction’s a symptom of America’s deepening institutional credibility crisis, the perpetuation of which by the country’s leaders is tantamount to abusing the “exorbitant privilege” or, at the least, taking it for granted — there’s a jobs report due Friday.

Consensus expects to hear the world’s largest economy added somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 jobs in January. If that forecast’s borne out, it’d be the briskest pace since September.

Recall that hiring inflected for the better and appeared to stabilize late last year after effectively flatlining over the summer.

Fair warning: This BLS release, assuming it is in fact released on time, will be very frustrating for macro newcomers and everyday market participants who forget that headline payroll growth’s subject to an annual adjustment.

The benchmark revision process is a two-step exercise. The preliminary run at this statistical floor routine’s published late in the summer. As the figure below reminds you, it showed job growth for the year to March 2025 was probably overstated by more than 900,000. The January jobs report will be accompanied by the final revision.

As noted in September when the preliminary figures were released, this revision process typically sees payrolls revised lower by 0.2% of total nonfarm employment. The 911,000 first-run tally amounted to triple that, at -0.6%, the implication being that average monthly jobs growth in America in the year to March 2025 was just half of the pre-revision count.

The chart above also reminds you that these revisions are getting progressively more pronounced. I’d also emphasize that these annual revisions are on top of the monthly revisions to the BLS headlines.

If your question’s how anyone — let alone the “average” investor or “weekend warrior” macro watcher — is supposed to incorporate this into their mental framework for assessing the US economy and thereby making intelligent portfolio decisions, the answer’s disheartening.

The data’s not reliable, folks. I don’t want to call it meaningless but… well, remember what it is we’re purporting to do here: Tally accurate aggregates for different sorts of economic activity across history’s most vibrant, complex economy. Simply put, it isn’t possible. I pretend and you pretend and we all pretend, because we have to. But let’s not be obtuse or delude ourselves about the feasibility of that undertaking.

Anyway, this week’s other marquee event in the US is the quarterly refunding announcement from Scott Bessent’s Treasury. This is the same story quarter after quarter: It’s all about the coupon forward guidance.

Although last quarter’s QRA retained language dating to early 2024 suggesting coupon auction sizes will remain steady for the foreseeable future (i.e., the by-now-familiar “…does not anticipate needing to make any further increases for at least the next several quarters” language), it included a nod to the inevitable:

Looking ahead, Treasury has begun to preliminarily consider future increases to nominal coupon and FRN auction sizes, with a focus on evaluating trends in structural demand and assessing potential costs and risks of various issuance profiles.

As noted here in November, that was the first official acknowledgement that the discussion has begun on increasing nominal coupon auction sizes again down the road.

“At the November refunding, it was acknowledged that, at some point, larger auction sizes will be considered [but] a couple of things have changed since then,” BMO’s Ian Lyngen and Vail Hartman remarked, previewing Wednesday’s QRA. “First, the Fed has started reserve management purchases to prevent any funding stress in the front-end [and] second, tariff revenues and solid economic growth have eased concerns regarding a ballooning deficit.”

Far be it from me to instruct Bessent about his business, but the safest route here is to just keep it all unchanged. There’s too much in play (e.g., the pending SCOTUS ruling on the tariffs and the fact that there’s a run-it-hot populist in the Oval Office) to safely venture anything that might be construed in hindsight as a wrong forecast.

So, let the Fed absorb the T-Bills, let the tried-and-true pacifier stand as long it’s still credible (i.e., keep the “at least the next several quarters” language) and retain the tweak excerpted above as a nod to the inevitable. One thing Bessent probably shouldn’t do, even if it’d be welcomed by a bid for the long-end, is suggest the administration can finagle a way to reduce bond auction sizes, because that might not be sustainable beyond one quarter.

Also on the docket this week in the US, in order of importance: ADP hiring (seen at 45,000), ISM manufacturing and services (seen at 48.3 and 53.5, respectively), the first read on Michigan sentiment for February, JOLTS and Challenger job cuts covering last month.