Economy

(Reuters) -Donald Trump is a clear favorite to beat Kamala Harris – that’s if you put your faith in prediction markets, the latest frontier for the indefatigable crypto speculator.On the eve of the U.S. election, billions of crypto dollars are chasing bets on the two candidates on platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi. Those sites respectively gave Trump about a 57%-43% and 51%-49% lead over Harris as of Monday, in contrast to neck-and neck opinion polls.Polymarket, the busiest of these platforms, which have largely sprung up over the past five years, has seen about $3.1 billion in trading volume on wagers on the winner of the presidential vote. Kalshi, a U.S. CFTC-regulated site, has seen nearly $197 million in trading on its election outcome contract. Its second-largest betting contract, on the electoral college margin, has drawn $33.8 million.Participants and watchers are divided over whether such markets, where prices offered are shaped by the weight of bets, are a robust leading indicator or are distorted by large bets and reflect the views of a niche crypto club.Elon Musk, for one, has said betting markets are “more accurate than polls, as actual money is on the line” and mainstream news sites are citing their odds. Many people aren’t convinced, though. “Your average voter isn’t spending time or money on prediction markets – those platforms are being dominated by crypto-native users, and those users are voting for Trump,” said Michael Cahill, CEO of Web3-focused developer Douro Labs.The pricing on these sites reflects the assumed probability of the outcome. On Polymarket, for example, a wager betting on a Trump win costs about $0.58 versus $0.42 for Harris. The buyer of the winning horse receives $1 per contract. A Kalshi spokesperson said all traders are all vetted, and trades are capped at $7 million for people and $100 million for eligible contract participants. Crypto exchange dYdX, meanwhile, allows more complex leveraged betting on both a Trump and Harris win via perpetual futures linked to Polymarket’s odds.’BIG TEST’ AFTER U.S. ELECTIONAdam McCarthy, research analyst at digital market data provider Kaiko, said that the headline figure of Polymarket bets on the election didn’t equate to the amount of money that was currently still at stake because it also included inactive bets on former candidates like Nikki Haley and RFK Jr. “That $2 billion cumulative headline figure looks impressive and obviously for a brand new platform it is, but that doesn’t reflect active markets entirely,” McCarthy added. Trading volume on bets for Trump or Harris winning the presidency make up about $1.97 billion of the $3.1 billion in volume on Polymarket’s presidential winner contract, the platform’s data shows. Polymarket has also that said a French national was a mystery bettor placing especially large bets on Donald Trump via the platform. U.S. nationals are not allowed to trade on the platform due to regulatory restrictions. The betting on the U.S. election has dwarfed anything seen before on these young platforms, which offer customers myriad prospective wagers, from the outcome of the next Federal Reserve meeting to whether Taylor Swift will release a new album this year or who the next James Bond will be. For example, Polymarket’s total volume was $1.1 billion in the month of October – it’s most active month in its history by far – and is around $200,000 so far this month, according to data from Dune Analytics.Kaiko’s McCarthy said it was uncertain how these sites would fare after Nov. 5: “There’s a big test on how they manage to stay relevant after the election.” More

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Bond investors are keeping a defensive but neutral stance in managing portfolios ahead of this week’s Federal Reserve policy meeting, which is being eclipsed by the too-close-to-call U.S. presidential election.Investors widely expect the U.S. central bank’s policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee to cut its benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points to the 4.50%-4.75% range at the end of its two-day meeting on Thursday, which was delayed one day because of Tuesday’s election. The Fed slashed its policy rate by a hefty 50 basis points when it launched its easing cycle in September.The election has been the focus for bond investors the last few weeks, more so than the Fed meeting. And until a winner is declared, investors are being cautious with their allocations, keeping their powder dry.Bond investors all year have been extending duration, or buying longer-dated assets, as they braced for Fed easing and possible recession. That remains the popular trade in bonds even after the election.If rates fall, bond prices will likely increase, and longer-dated notes and bonds have historically outperformed shorter-duration assets like cash and Treasury bills in rate-cutting cycles.”We have initiated small, long positions on the curve, but overall we’re closer to neutral,” said Brendan Murphy, head of fixed income, North America, at Insight Investment in Boston, which has assets under management of $838.1 billion. “What’s holding us in being more aggressive with that position is the uncertainty surrounding the election. We’re going to wait and see.”Janet Rilling, senior portfolio manager and head of the Plus Fixed Income team at Allspring Global Investments, said her firm has also kept a neutral stance given the Fed’s data-dependency, the volatility of U.S. economic numbers, and the election.”Making a call on the winner, which way Congress is going to go, and positioning for that, doesn’t make sense,” Rilling said. “We would rather be in a position where we can respond … so when the election has an outcome, we can evaluate (our positions).”Over the last few weeks, market participants said there has been some position-squaring among institutional investors in the futures market, suggesting caution, ahead of the election and Fed meeting. Asset managers use long contracts in Treasury futures to fulfill portfolio needs.Commodity Futures Trading Commission data showed asset managers have reduced net long positions on U.S. 10-year note futures that were at a record high as of Oct 1. Other players in Treasury futures have also reduced extreme long or short bets in the last few weeks. SEARCHING FOR OPPORTUNITIESVolatility has surged in anticipation of the election. The MOVE index, a gauge of rates volatility, soared to 135.18 last Thursday, the highest level in more than a year. That reading suggested Treasury yields across most maturities will move by at least 8.5 basis points per day in either direction over the next month. On Friday, it was at 132.6.Harley Bassman, creator of the MOVE index and managing partner at Simplify Asset Management, said based on his calculations, option prices anticipate an outsized move of 18 basis points in Treasury yields in either direction on Nov. 6 or 7. National polls show the election is a toss-up between Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. More recently, online prediction markets, which had been showing a victory for Trump in October, are indicating Harris has gained momentum, narrowing the gap.The so-called “Trump trade” in the bond market has been evident since last month with the rise in Treasury yields, as investors sold notes and bonds, despite the Fed’s rate cut. Trump’s economic plan, which includes imposing tariffs on some imported products, is likely to boost inflation and add to the massive U.S. fiscal deficit, according to many economists. With yields and volatility climbing, hardly anybody is making big moves. For some investors though, the absence of major bets is an opportunity before a winner becomes clear.Clayton Trick, head of portfolio management, Public Strategies, at Angel Oak Capital Advisors, which oversees $17 billion in assets, said agency mortgage-backed securities look compelling. Those securities consist of pools of home loans and real estate debt, typically carrying higher yields than Treasuries.Allspring’s Rilling also noted that investors could still add duration, or switch to longer-dated assets, especially with the recent back-up in yields, starting incrementally: moving from cash to short-duration assets, and then to intermediate maturities.”The short-term dynamic may be volatile and that may present opportunities for us to get longer (duration),” Insight’s Murphy said. More

This article is an on-site version of our Swamp Notes newsletter. Premium subscribers can sign up here to get the newsletter delivered every Monday and Friday. Standard subscribers can upgrade to Premium here, or explore all FT newslettersElection day is just hours away, and since the Financial Times will be giving you around-the-clock coverage tomorrow (including news and opinion blogging), I am going to focus on an economic topic — inflation.This has obviously been a huge election topic and will be an ongoing issue for policymakers, no matter who’s in charge. While overall inflation in the US is now 2.1 per cent, just a bit above the Fed’s 2 per cent target, the core personal consumption expenditures index (the Fed’s preferred metric) is now rising at its fastest level since April.If we had no more inflation this year, the number would be right at the Fed target of 2 per cent. But recent measures of GDP growth, personal income and even travel data all point to the same conclusion — higher inflation is going to be baked in for a while.The reasons we aren’t going back to a cheap-money environment aren’t as much cyclical as structural. All of the major macro trends, with the exception of technological innovation, are inflationary. Decoupling and reshoring? Inflationary. Regionalisation and re-industrialisation in rich countries? Inflationary, because of the large amounts of capital spending involved. The clean energy transition? Disinflationary longer term (since it will cut energy costs), but inflationary in the short to medium term, as countries race to subsidise and roll out green technologies from wind turbines to solar cells to lithium batteries and electric vehicles.On that last note, while China is looking to dump cheap clean tech on to the global market through a massive industrial stimulus programme designed to take slack from the overinflated housing market, it is going to be politically impossible for the US and Europe to accept that. This recent FT Big Read outlines how European carmakers are now experiencing the sharp end of Chinese dumping in the EV space. No matter who is in the Oval Office come January, I very much doubt that cheap Chinese goods are going to be allowed to provide the disinflationary effect that they have in the past. The times in which China could easily export its own economic problems — like unemployment and a dated growth model — to the rest of the world are behind us.Demographics are the final inflationary trend. The baby boomers are still healthy, working and spending. They are not planning to transfer their wealth anytime soon — in fact, many of them (like my own parents) are upsizing homes or going on major travel sprees. While economists have always thought of ageing populations as being disinflationary, since older people spend less, I suspect that this generation of boomers will buck the trend for years to come.What will all this mean for the next president? For starters, I am expecting a big conversation about debt and deficit, along with Federal Reserve independence. The future path of interest rates will have major consequences for America’s fiscal trajectory, especially as the cost of interest on government debt continues to exceed nearly every other part of the federal budget. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a one percentage point increase in interest rates beyond projections would add $2.9tn to the national debt by 2032.That may, in and of itself, be inflationary if it erodes trust in America and thus raises the cost of capital. Many international creditors are worried about the US political system, social cohesion and the ability of either candidate to constrain debt loads (though it must be said that Kamala Harris’s plan is expected to create half as much debt as Donald Trump’s would, and there’s even the possibility that it could be net neutral for debt if it increases growth levels).America’s future hangs in the balance no matter who wins the White House (see my column today on how and whether nations in decline can ever renew themselves). Peter, do you agree that debt loads will be an immediate challenge for the next president? Or do you figure it to be the usual slow-burn issue that gets kicked to the curb yet again?Recommended reading Peter Spiegel responds Rana, this is a tough one to answer because the urgency with which the federal government tackles its deficit addiction is highly dependent on the whims of the financial markets. There were times that so-called bond vigilantes had the upper hand and forced the White House to take deficit reduction seriously. Remember the famous James Carville line during Bill Clinton’s presidency, when he said that he hoped to be reincarnated as the bond market so he could “intimidate everybody”?That was 30 years ago, though, and we haven’t seen the sovereign debt markets express that kind of concern for US borrowing for a long time. There has been some discussion about the recent sell-off in Treasuries being blamed on a growing fear among bond traders that a Trump presidency will wildly increase the deficit — but I’m not convinced. I think investors are more worried that the 50 basis point cut by the Fed in September went too far, especially at a time when asset prices are at all-time highs and the economy is humming along at a strong pace. What could trigger a negative reaction in Treasuries? I spent six years in Brussels covering the eurozone debt crisis, and Greece was forced into a bailout because its debt load was viewed as unsustainable. As I regularly remind colleagues, at the time of the first Greek bailout in 2010, Athens’ debt was about 120 per cent of its economic output. What is the US’s debt-to-GDP ratio now? According to the Saint Louis Fed, it’s 120 per cent. It’s not a good look to be at the same debt levels as pre-bailout Greece. Now, the US isn’t Greece. Treasuries remain a safe haven, meaning people invest in them regardless of American debt levels because the US has a record of paying what it owes and still has the biggest and strongest economy in the world. Also, unlike Greece, the US government has a central bank that has proven willing to dip into the sovereign debt markets at times of crisis to fend off vigilante attacks. As the late investment guru Martin Zweig once admonished: Don’t fight the Fed. Nobody ever said that about the European Central Bank.Still, there will come a time when the bond market becomes far less willing to fund the fiscal deficits the US government has been running up since the financial crisis. Like it did in the 1990s, the bond market will again start “intimidating everyone”. But until it does, I don’t see any new president acting with any urgency to cut the national debt. Your feedbackWe’d love to hear from you. You can email the team on swampnotes@ft.com, contact Peter on peter.spiegel@ft.com and Rana on rana.foroohar@ft.com, and follow them on X at @RanaForoohar and @SpiegelPeter. We may feature an excerpt of your response in the next newsletterRecommended newsletters for youUS Election Countdown — Money and politics in the race for the White House. Sign up hereUnhedged — Robert Armstrong dissects the most important market trends and discusses how Wall Street’s best minds respond to them. Sign up here More

BERLIN (Reuters) -A senior figure in Germany’s smallest coalition party declined to rule out a government collapse, challenging bigger parties to change course on budgetary policy at the start of a make-or-break week for Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s tottering cabinet.Bijan Djir-Sarai, general secretary of Finance Minister Christian Lindner’s Free Democrats, told reporters after a party leadership meeting the interventionist policies of Greens economy minister Robert Habeck had failed.Asked whether the government could fall at Wednesday’s coalition meeting if it did not adopt the FDP’s prescription of lower tax and spending, Djir-Sarai said: “We will see.”The three coalition parties disagree over the right response to the structural headwinds facing Europe’s largest economy, whose car industries are dealing with labour tensions and a growing competitive threat from Chinese rivals.Scholz’s Social Democrats and the Greens, themselves at odds on a host of issues, agree that targeted government spending is needed to stimulate the German economy and reject the FDP’s supply-side focus.Lindner’s neoliberal party surprised his partners on Friday with a budget document that proposed tax and spending cuts and deregulation as the answer to Germany’s economic malaise.The FDP seeks cuts that would hit core Green ambitions by ending a climate protection fund and softening environment protection regulations.Djir-Sarai’s downbeat assessment contrasted with that of Matthias Miersch, the SPD secretary general, who told public television all parties would live up to their responsibilities and find a way through the crisis.”I’m optimistic that all parties want to create stability for this country in difficult times,” he said. “Supporting the economy, spurring investments and cutting bureaucracy: We share the same goals.”Germany would especially need a stable government if Donald Trump won this week’s U.S. presidential election, he added, without elaborating.Scholz, who met with his party’s top leadership and dined with Lindner late on Sunday, is expected to hold talks with the Greens’ de facto leader Habeck, on Monday, laying the ground for several three-way summits of the government’s top leadership.Scholz’s spokesperson said he expected the government to last out its term until next September’s scheduled elections.Habeck proposed an investment programme that would repurpose 10 billion euros ($10.9 billion) freed up by U.S. semiconductor giant Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)’s decision to back out of a government-backed chip factory project. Lindner would cut that budget allocation entirely. The three parties have each held separate business dialogues in recent days.”The German government has just entered a new stage of a slow burning political crisis that could be the last step before the eventual collapse of the governing coalition,” wrote ING’s Carsten Brzeski.A collapse could leave Scholz heading a minority government, relying on ad hoc parliamentary majorities to govern, or to early elections, which polls suggest would be disastrous for the three coalition parties.The SPD and Greens are well down from their showing in the 2021 general election, while the FDP could be ejected from parliament altogether. The conservatives, on 36%, are at more than twice the level of their nearest rival, the far-right Alternative for Germany on 16%.($1 = 0.9181 euros) More

America’s consumer price index, a key inflation gauge, was up 2.4% in September compared to the same period in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
On Friday, new data showed U.S. job creation in October slowed to its weakest pace since late 2020.
Markets largely ignored the bad news, as the nonfarm payrolls report flagged acute climate and labor disruptions.

A trader works as a screen displays the Fed rate announcement, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on June 12, 2024.
Brendan McDermid | Reuters

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Major Wall Street CEOs see ongoing inflation pressures in the U.S. economy and aren’t convinced that the Federal Reserve will continue its rate-easing path with a further two reductions this year.
The Fed cut its benchmark rate by 50 basis points in September, indicating a turning point in its management of the U.S. economy and in its outlook for inflation. In late-September reports, strategists at J.P. Morgan and Fitch Ratings had predicted two additional interest rate trims by the end of 2024 and expect such reductions to continue into 2025.

The CME Group’s FedWatch tool puts the probability of a 25-basis-point cut at this week’s November meeting at 98%. The current probability of the benchmark rate being taken down by another 25 basis points at the December meeting is 78%.
But some CEOs appear skeptical. Speaking last week at Saudi Arabia’s showcase economic conference, the Future Investment Initiative, they see more inflation on the horizon for the U.S., as the nation’s economic activity and both presidential candidates’ policies involve developments that will potentially be inflationary and stimulatory — such as public spending, the onshoring of manufacturing, and tariffs.

A group of CEOs speaking at an FII panel moderated by CNBC’s Sara Eisen — which included Wall Street hegemons such as the bosses of Goldman Sachs, Carlyle, Morgan Stanley, Standard Chartered and State Street — were asked to raise their hand if they thought two additional rate cuts would be implemented by the Fed this year.
No one put their hand up.
“I think inflation is stickier, honestly, you look at the kind of jobs report and the wage reports in the U.S., I think it’s going to be hard for inflation to come down to the 2% level,” Jenny Johnson, Franklin Templeton president and CEO, told CNBC in an interview on Wednesday, saying she thinks only one further interest rate cut will take place this year.

“Remember a year ago, we were all here talking about recession? Was there going to be [one]? Nobody’s talking about recession anymore,” she said.
Larry Fink, whose mammoth BlackRock fund oversees over $10 trillion in assets, also sees one rate reduction before the end of 2024.
“I think it’s fair to say we’re going to have at least a 25 [basis-point cut], but, that being said, I do believe we have greater embedded inflation in the world than we’ve ever seen,” Fink said at another FII panel last week.
“We have government and policy that is much more inflationary. Immigration — our policies of onshoring, all of this — no one is asking the question ‘at what cost.’ Historically we were, I would say, a more consumer-driven economy, the cheapest products were the best and the most progressive way of politicking,” he noted. 

America’s consumer price index, a key inflation gauge, was up 2.4% in September compared to the same period in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That figure is a tick down from the 2.5% print of August, implying a slowdown in price growth. The September reading was also the smallest annual one since February 2021.
On Friday, new data showed U.S. job creation in October slowed to its weakest pace since late 2020. Markets largely ignored the bad news, as the nonfarm payrolls report flagged acute climate and labor disruptions.
Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon said inflation will more embedded into the global economy than what market participants are currently predicting, meaning price rises could prove to be stickier than the consensus.
“That doesn’t mean that it’s going to rear its head in a particularly ugly way, but I do think there’s the potential, depending on policy actions that are taken, that it can be more of a headwind than the current market consensus,” he said.
Morgan Stanley CEO Ted Pick went even further, declaring last Tuesday that the days of easy money and zero-interest rates are firmly in the past.
“The end of financial repression, of zero interest rates and zero inflation, that era is over. Interest rates will be higher, will be challenged around the world. And the end of ‘the end of history’ — geopolitics are back and will be part of the challenge for decades to come,” Pick said, referencing the famous 1992 Francis Fukuyama book, “The End of History and the Last Man,” which argued that conflicts between nations and ideologies were a thing of the past with the ending of the Cold War.

Speaking on Sara Eisen’s panel Tuesday, Apollo Global CEO Marc Rowan even questioned why the Fed was cutting rates at a time when so much fiscal stimulus had propped up a healthy-looking U.S. economy. He noted the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act and an increase in defense production.
“We’re all talking about, in the U.S., of shades of good. We really are talking about shades of good. And to come back to your point on rates, we massively increased rates, and yet, [the] stock market [is] at a record high, no unemployment, capital market issuance at will, and we’re stimulating the economy?,” he said.
“I’m trying to remember why we’re cutting rates, other than to try and equalize the bottom quartile,” he later added. More

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – For six months or so in 2021, as vaccines paved an economic reopening from the COVID-19 pandemic and fresh waves of federal benefits flowed to household bank accounts, President Joe Biden’s administration reaped the benefit with an approval rating pinned above 50%.It has been mired around 40% ever since, with the scarring impact of subsequently high inflation still cited by voters as a major issue even though the pace of price increases has declined, wages and the economy continue to grow, and the jobless rate remains low.As good as the economy might seem across most major indicators, inflation that peaked at 9% more than two years ago has been hard for Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris to outrun, and given former President and Republican candidate Donald Trump a cudgel that remains effective on the eve of the election even as inflation has dwindled to 2.4%.”Inflation has not faded as an issue,” said Justin McCarthy, a spokesperson for Gallup, the polling giant that fields monthly surveys that include an open-ended question, without lists or prompts, of what respondents feel is the “most important” issue facing them. Those citing inflation as the most serious issue has fallen from highs of around 20% during the peak inflation surge in 2022 to around 15% in recent polls, but that remains double the historic norm and is part of broader concern about the economy cited by more than 40% of respondents.It’s an area where Trump continues to hold a polling edge despite Harris’ pledges to address issues like high housing costs or the “price gouging” she cites as a cause of high prices in the grocery aisle.In a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, 68% of respondents in seven swing states said the cost of living was “on the wrong track,” and 61% said the same about the economy. Half said Trump had “a better plan, policy or approach” to managing the economy compared with 37% for Harris, while on inflation Trump was favored 47% to 34%. In-person voting concludes on Tuesday, with polls showing an overall tight race between Harris and Trump nationally and in the battleground states seen as determining the outcome.The Biden administration and later the Harris campaign recognized early on the problem inflation posed. Biden named one of his signature pieces of legislation the “Inflation Reduction Act,” though much of it focused on subsidies for electric vehicles and clean energy. As rising rent and housing prices emerged as a particularly acute issue, they launched proposals that included capping rent increases, tax incentives for affordable housing construction, and downpayment help for first-time home buyers.What they didn’t publicize so much is how sticky a problem it would be for the households living through it.Attitudes improved somewhat as inflation began to ease last year, but the change only went so far. ‘UNAMBIGUOUSLY NEGATIVE’Solutions have been offered by both campaigns, but inflation, the responsibility first and foremost of the Federal Reserve through its management of interest rates and credit conditions, is difficult for elected officials to address.Republican President Richard Nixon tried the direct route by freezing wage and price increases for 90 days in 1971 and establishing a government panel to approve them after that. Inflation was 4.3% at the time and did fall below 4% in the summer of 1972 as Nixon campaigned for reelection. But it soared that fall as the controls were eased, and following an embargo by Arab oil exporters in 1973 exceeded 12% by the end of 1974. When inflation started rising during his term in office, Democratic President Jimmy Carter used a major address in 1978 to announce plans to limit government spending and call for voluntary wage and price limits from business. By the middle of his losing reelection bid against Republican Ronald Reagan prices were rising more than 14% annually.After two recessions, a period of punishing interest rates imposed by the Fed and its firmer commitment to inflation control, price increases gradually settled close to the 2% level the central bank eventually adopted as its official target – and stayed there until the COVID-19 pandemic.Economists have sparred over the exact reasons inflation took off beginning in 2021, and if that could have been prevented. But they generally agree on the broad mix. As the pandemic limited spending on in-person services, it also created deep backlogs in the manufacture and delivery of the goods, from bikes to appliances to automobiles, that were suddenly in high demand as a result of roughly $5 trillion in stimulus from the federal government.The pandemic support began under Trump; Biden added more in a move some economists feel may have supercharged demand beyond what was needed.It is a debate being litigated in hindsight and in the shadow of a health crisis that lingered long enough – new COVID variants were still suppressing in-person gatherings through 2021 – to even implicate the Fed. Inflation took off in 2021; the central bank did not raise rates until March 2022.What doesn’t seem in doubt is the impact on the public mood, something that shouldn’t be a surprise.Surveys about inflation have been consistent in finding that price shocks register deeply and are not quickly forgotten.”Inflation significantly complicates household decision-making, which is seen as its most critical consequence,” researchers Alberto Binetti of Bocconi University and Francesco Nuzzi and Stefanie Stantcheva of Harvard University concluded from the results of an online survey of 2,264 people conducted between March and May. “This complexity affects daily economic choices” and adds to economic uncertainty.Nor do people seem to care much if, as has happened recently and Democrats have tried to emphasize, wages rise faster than prices.”Inflation is perceived as an unambiguously negative phenomenon without any potential positive economic correlates,” they found, with people expecting it to be fixed “without significant trade-offs.” More

$75 per monthComplete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.What’s included Global news & analysisExpert opinionFT App on Android & iOSFT Edit appFirstFT: the day’s biggest stories20+ curated newslettersFollow topics & set alerts with myFTFT Videos & Podcasts20 monthly gift articles to shareLex: FT’s flagship investment column15+ Premium newsletters by leading expertsFT Digital Edition: our digitised print edition More