
Article
Three scenarios, five signals, and how to size the rotation without being early
37d · 2 min read
## Why This Moment Is Different
The 2022–2024 inversion was the deepest since 1981 (peak: -108bps on 10Y/2Y in Oct 2023). The normalisation is now underway. This is not a call that the inversion is over — it is a framework for positioning as the inversion resolves, however long that takes.
The critical insight: in every prior inversion resolution (1989, 2000, 2007, 2019), the optimal entry into the rate-rotation trade was before the actual 0 crossover, not after. Waiting for confirmation is expensive.
## The Five-Signal Dashboard
I track five signals to determine where we are in the normalisation cycle:
| Signal | Current | Threshold | Status | |--------|---------|-----------|--------| | 10Y/2Y spread | -12bps | > 0bps | Approaching | | IG credit spreads | 98bps | < 130bps | ✓ Green | | HY credit spreads | 298bps | < 400bps | ✓ Green | | ISM Manufacturing PMI | 48.1 | > 50 | ✗ Amber | | ISM Services PMI | 53.4 | > 52 | ✓ Green |
Four of five signals are in the positioning-is-appropriate zone. The manufacturing PMI is the outstanding risk. A services PMI above 52 with a manufacturing PMI below 50 historically resolves upward within two quarters.
## Three Scenarios for 2025
**Base case (60% probability): Soft landing with 2 Fed cuts** - Timeline: Q1–Q2 2025 - 10Y/2Y crosses zero by Q2 2025 - SPY: flat to +8% for the year - XLF outperforms QQQ by 12–18% - Portfolio implication: Standard rotation trade; XLF long / QQQ hedge
**Bull case (25% probability): Early pivot, spreads tighten further** - Timeline: Q4 2024 shock pivot (recession scare forces 3+ cuts) - 10Y/2Y crosses zero rapidly; curve steepens sharply - SPY: +15–20% - Credit spreads compress; HY outperforms IG - Portfolio implication: Increase cyclical weight; add duration via TLT
**Bear case (15% probability): Stagflation re-emergence** - Timeline: Core PCE re-accelerates above 3.5% in Q1 2025 - Fed forced to resume hikes or hold higher for longer - SPY: -15%; QQQ -20–25% - Portfolio implication: Hedge via SPY puts; increase cash; avoid duration
## The Rotation Playbook
Based on the base case (60%), the implementation is:
**Entry** (current to 10Y/2Y crossing zero): - Accumulate XLF, XLE, XLI on any 3–5% pullbacks - Begin scaling out of QQQ weight; maintain SPY core
**At crossover**: - Full allocation to value-cyclicals - Add put spread on QQQ at 5% OTM, 6-month expiry as hedge
**Post-crossover (credit spread watch)**: - If IG spreads widen above 130bps: reduce cyclical, add cash - If IG spreads stay below 130bps: hold through to Phase II of rotation
## Sizing Framework
Conviction sizing rules I follow in this environment:
1. Never size the rotation trade above 40% of equity allocation — macro timing is uncertain 2. Use ETFs, not single-name stocks, for rotation trades (reduces idiosyncratic risk) 3. Keep the tail hedge (put spread) as a structural position at 0.5–1% of portfolio cost 4. Re-evaluate at each Fed meeting; if dots shift hawkish, reduce immediately
This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice.
Be one of the first credible voices on FinancialPress.
Discussion is gated until launch. Sign up now to contribute analysis, build your Reputation Score, and earn visibility from day one.
Author holds SPY put spreads and a small XLF position at time of publication. No position in QQQ.
Macro scenario analysis is inherently uncertain. Probability estimates are subjective and not derived from quantitative models. This is not financial advice. Rate environments can change rapidly.
Top-down macro framework using five observable signals: yield curve spread, IG/HY credit spreads, and ISM manufacturing/services PMI. Scenario probabilities are subjective estimates based on historical base rates.
Fed Minutes: More Members Concerned About Inflation Persistence Than The Statement Implied
SPY Weekly: Watching Volume on Any Breakout Attempt
QQQ Rebalancing Watch: Nasdaq-100 Tech Weight at Cycle High
SPY vs QQQ: Risk-Adjusted Return Divergence in Rate Normalization
Sign in to join the conversation.
No comments yet — be the first to share your take.