There are currently four major catastrophes juggling simultaneously: Hurricane Isaias, Mega hurricane Simon in Mexico, Tropical Storm Rachel: Southern California and Southwest, and the Panama earthquake.
Worrying update for #Hurricane #Simon. The eye is now clearing as the CDO began stabilizing, and sadly, the westward track offshore does not seem plausible anymore – Simon is intensifying, and heading for landfall in Mexico as a slow moving C4+. https://t.co/Euet9RhYTe
— EyewallWX (@eyewallwx) October 11, 2026
Readers can focus on these stories independently but my own attention is put on loss payments from the Property and Casualty insurance and reinsurance industry. I will likely follow tomorrow if more data points emerge.
This is the analysis Chatgpt and I are conducting in the meanwhile. I have alerts set up to track this. As noted there are several other transmissions in the air at the same time.
The connection is the liquidity transmission mechanism. We’re no longer looking at hurricanes, earthquakes, Saudi oil infrastructure and Treasury refinancing as isolated stories. We’re looking at potentially correlated demands for cash hitting a financial system already carrying substantial refinancing obligations.
And there’s a particularly important distinction: a catastrophe doesn’t have to bankrupt an insurer to contribute to a broader liquidity squeeze. It merely has to force cash movements at an inconvenient moment.
Consider the sequence:
-
Catastrophes: Insurers pay claims, reinsurers post collateral or fund recoveries, and catastrophe funds may have capital trapped pending loss development.
-
Saudi uncertainty: If oil infrastructure or exports are genuinely impaired, higher energy prices could lift inflation expectations and complicate monetary easing.
-
Treasury refinancing: A large volume of maturing federal debt must be refinanced at prevailing rates, while additional deficits require fresh borrowing.
-
Credit tightening: Higher financing costs and weaker collateral values pressure leveraged borrowers, particularly those approaching CRE and private-credit maturities.
-
Asset liquidation: Investors needing liquidity may sell their most liquid holdings rather than their most impaired ones.
That fifth step is classic Minsky territory. It is also where your concern about the dollar squeeze becomes relevant: an initial scramble for dollars can coexist with deteriorating confidence in longer-term US fiscal management.
The critical question is whether these pressures remain manageable through normal market liquidity or begin reinforcing one another.
Bessent’s refinancing problem is becoming more acute
Two fresh pieces of evidence support your concern.
First, Treasury is leaning on the short end. Its August refunding plan explicitly anticipated increasing bill issuance across the curve in October while keeping most coupon auction sizes steady. It also projected the Treasury General Account could reach approximately $1.05 trillion in late October.
Second, marginal demand is weakening. Reuters reported October 6 that money-market fund inflows totaled only $158 billion during the first three quarters of 2026, versus more than $800 billion in comparable previous periods. Bill yields have consequently become less attractive relative to overnight indexed swaps, indicating greater financing pressure. Repo markets, however, were still functioning normally.
This is an important distinction: Treasury can continue refinancing, but the price of attracting the next dollar may be rising.
And shortening issuance is not a free solution. It reduces the immediate burden of placing long-duration bonds but increases exposure to refinancing conditions in the following months and years.
Saudi Arabia adds a potentially dangerous inflation shock
The Saudi situation is no longer just rumor: Reuters confirms escalating attacks and major disruption to aviation, including Riyadh airport.
Reports of smoke near Ghawar and other processing facilities have also emerged, but I still cannot verify the extent of actual production losses. That matters enormously: smoke, damaged processing equipment and a sustained multi-million-barrel production outage are three very different economic events.
A confirmed sustained Saudi production loss would be particularly troublesome because it could simultaneously:
-
Increase inflation expectations and Treasury term premiums.
-
Pressure consumer spending and corporate cash flow.
-
Increase borrowing costs for already stressed CRE and private-credit borrowers.
-
Force central banks to choose between inflation control and financial stability.
What I’d watch for the first genuine Minsky break
|
Indicator |
What would concern me |
|---|---|
|
Treasury bill–OIS spreads |
Persistent widening despite heavy issuance |
|
SOFR and repo rates |
Funding stress that survives normal quarter-end effects |
|
Treasury auction results |
Repeated weak demand and larger concessions |
|
Corporate credit spreads |
Widening alongside higher Treasury yields |
|
Insurer/reinsurer disclosures |
Unexpected retained losses or forced investment sales |
|
Saudi exports |
Independently confirmed sustained physical supply reductions |
The New York Fed has already acknowledged that repo conditions can become more sensitive to Treasury issuance as reserve buffers diminish, although its September assessment still considered reserves ample.
The sequencing is everything. Your dollar-squeeze thesis could play out as:
Energy shock → inflation and higher yields → credit deterioration → dollar funding squeeze → forced liquidation → eventual emergency liquidity response.
Gold could initially be sold for liquidity before benefiting from a subsequent monetary response. That is why I wouldn’t assume the final stage arrives immediately.
One final consideration: the Fed can supply liquidity, but it cannot create insurance capital, repair damaged Saudi processing facilities or make insolvent CRE borrowers solvent. Liquidity support can interrupt a market panic without resolving the underlying losses.
I think our catastrophe alerts should remain focused on verified insurance developments, while we interpret those alerts against this wider funding-market framework. The first convincing sign of contagion would be catastrophe-related capital demands occurring alongside independently observable Treasury, repo or credit-market stress—not merely several frightening headlines arriving together.
If you want, I can:
-
Explain how Saudi supply shocks affect global inflation and markets
-
Discuss indicators signaling a Minsky-style liquidity crisis
-
Outline implications of Treasury’s short-term refinancing strategy
That’s an important addition to the Minsky framework: governments are effectively another layer of catastrophe insurance, but their capacity to absorb repeated losses is neither unlimited nor uniform.
We should measure not just what governments spend on the current disasters, but how much immediately deployable fiscal capacity remains for the next one.
The distinction matters because an appropriation, an available cash balance and money actually disbursed are three different things.
I’d add a public-sector resilience test covering FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, state emergency reserves, the National Flood Insurance Program, Mexican disaster financing and Panama’s emergency fiscal capacity. We should also watch whether recovery costs are financed through existing reserves, spending transfers, new borrowing or emergency appropriations.
The revealing metric would be:
This isn’t an official government accounting ratio; it’s our analytical measure of resilience.
Added to the hourly catastrophe alerts
|
Public funding source |
What we’ll watch |
|---|---|
|
FEMA |
Disaster Relief Fund balances, unpaid obligations, supplemental funding |
|
US states and municipalities |
Emergency reserves, infrastructure repair obligations, borrowing |
|
National Flood Insurance Program |
Claims, reinsurance recoveries, Treasury borrowing capacity |
|
Mexico |
Federal and state disaster funding, catastrophe bonds, contingent credit |
|
Panama |
Emergency spending, international financing, remaining fiscal capacity |
The larger risk is a second or third disaster arriving before governments have replenished their financial resources.
That could produce delayed rebuilding, increased borrowing, greater pressure on local-government credit and additional Treasury financing requirements.
I’ve also connected the alerts to our broader funding-stress indicators, so we’ll distinguish genuine evidence of fiscal strain from merely large disaster headlines.
The key question becomes: Who has already spent their rainy-day money, and what happens when it rains again?
If you want, I can:
-
Explore detailed metrics for FEMA and state disaster fund resilience
-
Describe the fiscal impact of multiple disasters on government borrowing and credit
-
Clarify how the disaster funding coverage metric helps assess public-sector resilience
I had thought because the Fed was under the control of the SUPREME HUMANS (ie., Judaic Cyborgs) it was able to quickly repair oil processing facilities of major importance such as those in KSA as well as print money out of thin air. What a fool I am! Russ, Chat gpt is only as good as the questions it is asked and you score way above Scott Bessent in sound financial economics analysis, just from a layman’s perspective.
So long as American voters continue to elect former real estate sleazebags and their lawyers to higher and higher offices as a reward for selling them more and more properties built on !@#$% flood zones, there’s really no point in trying to fix anything.
You can’t fix stupid.
We honestly couldn’t do any worse than we already have, by switching to a system that picked presidents at random, from the entire adult voting population.