Daily Commentary

MarketMinder’s View: “The [eurozone flash] Composite Purchasing Managers’ Index compiled by S&P Global increased to 53.1 from 52 in August, well above the 50 threshold separating growth from contraction. Analysts in a Bloomberg survey had anticipated a small decline to 51.7. The region’s two largest economies both exceeded expectations, with activity in Germany growing at the fastest pace since October 2025 and France unexpectedly expanding at the quickest in more than two years. ... The euro-area economy is showing greater resilience than expected to the Middle East conflict and the resulting jump in energy costs.” After French and German services’ August contractions, both returned to growth, adding evidence ongoing Ukrainian and Iranian conflicts, inflation and rate hikes aren’t hammering business activity. Yet despite the proverbial proof in the pudding, the article laments: “How long it can resist such headwinds remains uncertain ...” This is bullish! The “yeah, but” interpretation signals a wide gap between reality and sentiment continuing to linger despite the evidence, indicating plenty of positive surprise potential ahead for stocks.

MarketMinder’s View: Not saying anything new, “The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Institute of Finance (IIF), the voice of global banking, on Wednesday highlighted the dangers of soaring interest rates on $365tn (£275tn) in global borrowing.” But as we recently pointed out (combining the IIF’s debt and IMF’s GDP figures), global debt-to-GDP was 326% of GDP in 2020—far higher than the 290% now. Global debt could rise another $46 trillion and still not reach that highwater mark—which wasn’t catastrophic then. Not that ever-rising debt is great, but it isn’t necessarily problematic if issuers’ revenues (and GDP generating those revenues) comfortably cover debt costs, which remains the case across the developed world today.

MarketMinder’s View: First, this obviously dives into politics, given it is a discussion of the forthcoming midterms, chiefly the Senate races. So please note MarketMinder favors no politician nor any political party, assessing matters solely for their potential market impact. This highlights an increasing sense of alarm in the GOP over its chances of retaining either the House or the Senate in the 2026 midterms, as factors like high diesel prices, tariffs and the war put more historically red seats in question, a shift from the recent past. And it highlights how the Republican base seems unmotivated at present—and the party’s efforts to push this with ad spending, given money is a huge GOP advantage in this cycle. But all this is likely a little bit of overcomplication in many respects. For one, it is fair enough for the GOP to expect headwinds in retaining control of one or both chambers. The simple historical fact is the president’s party almost always loses seats at the midterms. In the House, it has lost them in 89% of midterms since 1914, shedding an average -30 seats, while the Senate has seen the president’s party lose seats 71% of the time, averaging -4 seats. (Data from the House and Senate archives, respectively. We start at 1914 because this is when the 17^th Amendment mandated direct election of Senators.) But it would be a little surprising if the House change were all that large this time. Few House seats are truly contested following all the gerrymandering of the past few years, with most impartial observers saying 20 – 25 are truly in question. In the Senate, 35 seats are up this year. Only six to seven are in doubt. Now, of them, polling and prediction markets put the Democrats ahead in most—so a swing in control from the GOP’s current 53 – 47 majority can’t be ruled out. That being said, for markets the main takeaway here will likely be the same whether the Dems take control or the GOP clings to an edge: The midterms are highly likely to increase political gridlock, forestalling legislation. That prevents new laws from picking winners and losers or injecting vast uncertainty, a key plus. It is why the nine months after the midterm elections are US stocks’ most consistently positive of the political calendar.