Published on Oct 30, 2026
This article was written by Adem Tumerkan
Content Strategist, Dunham | 2025 ThinkAdvisor Luminaries Award Winner | 2026 Wealthies Finalist, Thought Leader of the Year | Macroeconomics, markets, geopolitics & global trends
Subscribe to get the latest insights delivered straight to your inbox.
We care about your data in our privacy policy
Welcome to the first edition of The Morning Pour: Double Shot.
If you’ve been reading The Morning Pour for a while, you know I like to question the consensus and dig into the bigger forces driving markets and the economy. Those longer reads aren’t going anywhere.
Double Shot is an extra serving between them - for the stories that deserve more than a glance but don’t need a full pot.
Each edition will bring together news worth your time, explain what’s behind the numbers, and pull out details that can get lost in the daily rush.
Expect a mix of markets, economics, and whatever else catches my eye. I’ll connect the dots, offer my take, and occasionally recommend a book that’s taking up space on my desk.
Thanks for being here for the first pour.
Adem Tumerkan,
Editor
Colorado has run a flat income tax since 1987, when it became the first state to trade a graduated system (aka progressive tax) for a single rate.
But that could reverse this November if voters pass Amendment 87 - which would replace the state’s 4.4% flat tax with six brackets running from 3.7% on the first $25,000 of income up to 8.4% on earnings above $1 million.
Essentially, the bottom ~$500k earners will get a slight tax cut, and anyone making more than that will get a tax hike.
According to Colorado’s own 2026 Ballot Information Booklet¹, 97% of taxpayers would see a tax cut under the new system - worth up to $325 a year. Meanwhile, the increase falls entirely on the roughly 3% of earners making more than $500,000 + corporations.
The same “tax the rich” debate is playing out elsewhere. California voters are weighing a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires. And Washington passed a 9.9% tax on income above $1 million (voters now face a measure to repeal it).
As more states face tighter budgets, taxing the wealthy becomes an appealing option. Thus, the delicate balance is raising more revenue without driving away the taxpayers they’re counting on. Because if enough leave, the state could actually collect less than projected - even as the cost of funding schools, health care, and other services remains.
And that’s the irony – you can prune a tree for a better harvest, but cutting too deeply, and you lose the branches that bear the fruit.
For example, some wealthy Californians have already left, and a Colorado tax attorney says some clients are preparing to move to Florida. This would actually make Colorado’s budget deficit worse.
But an exodus isn’t a sure thing. Massachusetts’ millionaires tax has raised more than projected, and most wealthy residents stayed put.
The point is, states need to weigh what they could collect against what they could lose.
Passing a higher tax rate is one thing. But building a sustainable budget around the revenue means counting on those taxpayers to actually stick around.
Brazil’s Bovespa index (its version of the S&P500) plunged 13.9% Monday², with an intraday low near 17%, its worst single-day close since March 2020 (nearly 20% down for the last five days).
Meanwhile, the real dropped more than 11% against the dollar at its weakest point before settling down 8.1% near 5.42 - a percentage drop the currency hasn’t seen in two decades. Trading halted for 30 minutes after the index tripped its 10% circuit breaker.
So, what caused this chaos?
It was a repriced bet about the Brazilian presidential election.
Markets had spent weeks buying into a win for challenger Flavio Bolsonaro, pushing the Bovespa roughly 7% higher and the real nearly 5% stronger on hopes that a right-leaning government would tighten spending, boost corporate-friendly policies, and clear the way for lower interest rates.
But when incumbent Lula won instead (marking his fourth term), traders had to unwind that entire position in a single session - which is why the drop looked so sharp against such a steady buildup (usually how it goes, slow gains to be crushed in an instant).
Attention now shifts to Lula’s pick for finance minister and to how he balances his history of boosting consumption through cheap, government-backed credit, an inflation rate above 4.5%, and a fiscal position investors already doubt (Brazil’s deficit to GDP as of September 2026 was already a whopping 9.5%).
More credit flowing into an economy already short on its fiscal leash tends to show up as either higher debt or higher inflation (or both). Five-year credit default swaps (CDS) – basically the cost of insuring Brazilian debt against default - exploded to 144 basis points vs. 120 on last Friday as investors worry about Brazilian debt.
The issue now is that Lula must try to convince markets he can deliver a credible fiscal plan while still growing wages and jobs while also keeping inflation at bay.
Keep in mind that sharp one-day repricings like this one sometimes partially reverse once the shock passes, since the election outcome itself is no longer in question.
But the long-term health of Brazil is worth keeping a close eye on.
The Morning Pour + Double Shot
Make sense of the forces driving markets and the economy with Adem Tumerkan - including angles that get less attention in mainstream coverage.
Your free subscription includes:
Both in your inbox. Unsubscribe anytime.
Want to hear something scary just in time for Halloween? Americans are set to spend a record $13.5 billion this year, per the National Retail Federation, up from last year’s record of $13.1 billion.
For perspective, a 100-piece bag of assorted candy now averages $16.96, according to a FinanceBuzz³ review of supermarket circulars at Walmart, Target, Kroger, and Albertsons dating to 2021. That’s up from $9.91 five years ago, a 71% increase, more than 3x the ~22% rise in the Consumer Price Index over the same stretch.
Some of that climb is sticker price shock - and some of it is shrinkflation (where producers shrink the bag instead of raising the price on the label so you pay the same for less).
Either way, Bankrate⁴ economists estimate the same candy budget buys about 40% less candy by weight than it did in 2020. Meanwhile, median weekly earnings rose roughly 25% from the third quarter of 2020 to the third quarter of 2026.
Put those figures together, and the median weekly paycheck buys about 25% less candy than it did six years ago. Let’s call it your “real candy purchasing power” - the gross paycheck got bigger, but the candy you could buy got smaller.
This is the same problem that’s been showing up in bigger economic reports all year.
A retail sales figure that climbs 4% looks strong, but it can still mean households bought less, if prices rose faster than that and shrinkflation shaved down what you actually got for your money.
Halloween is just the latest example – a painful reminder of how much candy is actually in that bag compared to what you remember from a few years back.
See, I told you it’s scary.
Everyone’s been asking whether – or when - AI will pay off. But bond investors are asking whether anyone can keep lending long enough to find out.
According to Forbes⁵, AI-related debt issuance exceeded $500 billion by late 2026, while total funded debt across the industry and its supporting infrastructure ranged from $400 to $600 billion.
And the problem now is that the supply of all this debt is causing indigestion in funding markets.
At least 18 data center financings now carry double-digit yields because issuers had to sweeten terms just to close the deal. Said another way, demand per dollar offered on this debt has been falling, and some lenders say it now takes months to offload existing risk before they can underwrite anything new - which slows the whole pipeline down.
And that stress is showing up where it’s hardest to hide - insurance costs. The price of insuring AI infrastructure debt against default (via buying credit default swaps) has spiked to levels usually seen for junk-rated borrowers - hitting fresh records in recent weeks.
It also pulled up investment-grade tech bond yields, which have climbed to around 6%, about 1.4 percentage points higher than a year ago as of writing this.
So, keep an eye on those spreads. . .
I picked up Material World by Ed Conway - Sky News’s economics and data editor. It follows six materials that helped build civilizations and fuel human ingenuity and greed - sand, salt, iron, copper, oil, and lithium.
What’s struck me so far is how much our “digital economy” still depends on digging things out of the ground.
Phones, power grids, and chips all start with physical commodities. Then come the factories, specialized processes, and supply chains that turn them into something useful (which also takes materials to build).
The book connects those systems to the history, trade, and competition behind them. It’s a good reminder for investors that even the most advanced technology depends on raw materials and the people who turn them into something useful and the countries that hold them.
Recommended for anyone with an interest in markets, geopolitics, or history - and a curiosity about what the world actually runs on.
Colorado General Assembly — Amendment 87: Graduated Income Tax [leg.colorado.gov]
Reuters — Brazil stocks, real tumble as Lula win shifts investor focus [reuters.com]
FinanceBuzz — Trick Or Treat? Halloween Candy Prices Up 71% Since 2021 [Study] [financebuzz.com]
Talk Business & Politics — NRF: 2026 Halloween spending expected to rise 3.82% [talkbusiness.net]
Forbes — The Half-Trillion-Dollar Silicon Gamble: Inside The AI Debt Boom [forbes.com]
The News Tribune — Big Tech earnings to test AI boom amid market turmoil
Reuters — Euro zone mortgage demand falls as rates rise, ECB survey shows [reuters.com]
Reuters — World Bank sees commodity prices up 23% in 2026 due to Middle East war, other shocks [reuters.com]
World Gold Council — Central Bank Gold Statistics: Central banks continue summer spree in August [gold.org]
This communication is general in nature and provided for educational and informational purposes only. It should not be considered or relied upon as legal, tax or investment advice or an investment recommendation, or as a substitute for legal or tax counsel. Any investment products or services named herein are for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered an offer to buy or sell, or an investment recommendation for, any specific security, strategy or investment product or service. Always consult a qualified professional or your own independent financial professional for personalized advice or investment recommendations tailored to your specific goals, individual situation, and risk tolerance. All examples are hypothetical and are for illustrative purposes only.
Information contained in the materials included is believed to be from reliable sources, but no representations or guarantees are made as to the accuracy or completeness of information. This document is provided for information purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice.
Dunham & Associates Investment Counsel, Inc. is a Registered Investment Adviser and Broker/Dealer. Member FINRA/SIPC. Advisory services and securities offered through Dunham & Associates Investment Counsel, Inc.
