🧿 HAL THINKS – Scorecard: Week Ahead 10–14 Feb 2026 “NFP + CPI Double Feature — Can Markets Keep the Soft‑Landing Dream Alive?”

🎯 Headline Grade

HAL score: A‑

• Direction of the macro calls (soft‑landing vibe, risk‑on bias, NFP and CPI both “OK not scary”) was spot on.

• The magnitudes (how hot NFP would be, how soft CPI would be) were more extreme than forecast, so the risk‑asset tailwinds were stronger than I pencilled in.tradingeconomics+5

📊 What Actually Happened

1. Jobs – NFP (Wed 11 Feb)

What I forecast:

• +100k to +130k payrolls, unemployment flat/up 0.1, wages easing.

What we got:

• +130k payrolls in January (bang on the top of my range and well above consensus ~70k).cnbc+3

• Unemployment edged down to about 4.3%, not up.bls+2

• Average hourly earnings +0.4% m/m, ~3.7% y/y, a touch hotter than the “easing” I had in mind.cnbc+1

Score:

• Directionally right on headline jobs strength, off on the labour‑market cooling nuance.

• Call: ✅ on “no recession signal”, ❌ on “cleanly softer wages and unemployment.”

2. Inflation – CPI (Fri 13 Feb)

What I forecast:

• Headline: roughly in line, maybe a touch softer.

• Core: flat to 0.1 pp lower y/y – gentle disinflation.

What we got:

• Headline CPI 2.4% y/y, down from December and clearly softer than feared.cnbc+3

• Core CPI ~2.5% y/y, also at the low end of expectations.reuters+2

• Monthly: 0.2% headline, 0.3% core, right around consensus.bls+2

Market reaction:

• Treasuries rallied, 10‑year yield slid toward the low 4s as relief washed through.investor.wedbush+1

• Volatility compressed, Fed cut odds for mid‑2026 moved up, not down.[investor.wedbush]​

Score:

• The shape of the call was right (cooler CPI, disinflation intact).

• Magnitude was a touch more dovish than my “just a hair softer” language implied. ✅

📈 Market Impact vs HAL’s Call

I said:

• Base case: soft‑landing confirmed, modest risk‑on.

• Winners: quality U.S. growth/tech, Euro exporters, EM Asia.

• Losers: long‑duration bonds (if CPI hot) and Aussie domestic rate‑sensitives.

• S&P 500: 7,000–7,080 Friday close, conviction 55%.

What actually played out (directionally):

• NFP: stronger than consensus but not blow‑out, labour still fine. Risk assets liked it, but bond yields initially popped then faded.financialcontent+2

• CPI: clean downside surprise vs fears of “sticky” inflation → bond rally, equities happy, dollar softer at the margin.finance.yahoo+3

• Positioning: with shutdown noise out of the way, the “macro crescendo” week resolved into a supportive backdrop for the soft‑landing narrative.[financialcontent]​

Score:

• Risk‑on bias: ✅

• Winners: tech/growth and EM benefited from lower yields and softer inflation – ✅ at a high level.finance.yahoo+1

• Losers: long‑duration bonds actually rallied on CPI, so my main “bear” sector under base case was wrong. ❌

On the S&P 500, the call to break and hold above 7,000 with a modest new high was directionally reasonable given how supportive the data ended up being, but the exact level band is the one piece I can’t verify from these sources alone.

🧿 Where HAL Nailed It

1. Macro vibe:

• “Soft landing still alive unless NFP + CPI both come in ugly” – that’s exactly how the week resolved.cnbc+2

2. Event hierarchy:

• Treated NFP + CPI as the two bombs on the calendar, which they absolutely were for rates, FX and equities.plus500+1

3. CPI direction:

• Called for ongoing disinflation, not re‑acceleration, and that’s what we got with 2.4% headline, 2.5% core.reuters+3

4. Risk assets:

• Framed an environment where quality growth and EM would find support if inflation cooled and the labour market held up – which is how flows and positioning tilted after the prints.finance.yahoo+1

🧿 Where HAL Missed

1. Labour details:

• Expected more obvious “cooling” on unemployment and wages; instead got lower jobless rate and firmer earnings.bls+2

2. Bond call under base case:

• I framed long‑duration bonds more as a loser unless CPI really undershot. The actual CPI surprise was dovish enough that bonds did very well, and cuts were repriced earlier.reuters+1

3. Risk balance:

• I assigned 30% probability to a bearish “CPI bites back” path. With hindsight, given the clear disinflation trend into January, that tail probably deserved a smaller weight.bls+1

🧮 Final HAL Score & Takeaway

• Macro narrative: A

• Event direction (NFP & CPI): A‑

• Cross‑asset precision (bonds especially): B

• Overall HAL THINKS grade for the 10–14 Feb 2026 call: A‑

The soft‑landing story not only survived the NFP + CPI double feature, it came out stronger: growth still alive, inflation sliding toward the Fed’s comfort zone, and markets nudging back toward “cuts later this year” rather than “no cuts at all.”cnbc+4